Pan-Africanism or Classical African Marxism?

In recent years, an ideological system known as Classical African Marxism has developed in Africa. It originated historically in classical Marxism and found its logical legitimacy, a phenomenon that has fundamentally transformed the structure of African intellectual history and also changed our understanding of African history. Although the changes and initial forms of Classical African Marxism occurred within the historical coordinates of African revolutions, primarily the Algerian Revolution (1954–1962) and the Guinea-Bissau Revolution (1961–1974), its historical genealogy runs through the entire 20th century, spanning the African diaspora (North and South America and the Caribbean).

近年来，非洲发展了一种被称为经典非洲马克思主义(Classical African Marxism)的思想体系。它在历史上起源于经典马克思主义并在逻辑上找到了合法性，这一现象从根本上变革了非洲思想史的结构，也改变了我们对非洲历史的了解。虽然经典非洲马克思主义的变化和最初形态发生在非洲革命的历史坐标中，主要是阿尔及利亚革命(1954—1962)和几内亚(比绍)革命(1961—1974),但它的历史谱系却贯穿于整个20世纪，横跨非洲黑人散居地(南、北美洲和加勒比海地区)。

Therefore, the formation of Classical African Marxism demonstrates that the black world is spiritually united, from Soweto to Dakar, from Georgetown to Havana and then to Atlanta. That is to say, the movement of the historical forces behind the formation of Classical African Marxism runs counter to imperialism, which was politically, culturally, and economically ravaging Africa.

因此，经典非洲马克思主义的形成表明，从索韦托到达喀尔，从乔治敦到哈瓦那再到亚特兰大，黑人世界在精神上是团结一致的。即是说，经典非洲马克思主义形成背后历史力量的运动是与帝国主义背道而驰的，而帝国主义在政治、文化和经济上都在摧残非洲。

Thus, we can trace the intellectual inspiration of Classical African Marxism from the philosophy of Pan-Africanism. But there is no doubt that the structure of this materialist philosophy was determined by the pioneering research of African Marxist historians into the history of the African continent. In the late 19th century, Classical Pan-Africanism, originating in the Americas, aimed to liberate Africa from imperialist rule. At the same time, it also sought the historical unity of the African people and the African diaspora. Therefore, the emergence of Classical Pan-Africanism was a direct response to the Berlin Conference of 1885, at which the African continent was partitioned by the various imperialist powers. From the moment of its birth, Classical Pan-Africanism waged an unyielding war against colonialism.

所以，我们可以从泛非主义哲学中追溯经典非洲马克思主义的思想启示。但毫无疑问，这种唯物主义哲学的结构是由非洲马克思主义历史学家对非洲大陆历史的开端性研究所规定的。19世纪晚期，起源于美洲的古典泛非主义(Classical Pan-Africanism),其目的是将非洲从帝国主义统治中解放出来。与此同时，它还试图寻求非洲人民和非洲侨民的历史性统一。因此，古典泛非主义的出现是对1885年柏林会议的直接回应，在那次会议上，非洲大陆被各帝国主义列强瓜分。自诞生那一刻起，古典泛非主义就发动了一场不屈不挠的反殖民主义战争。

The greatest victory of Classical Pan-Africanism occurred in 1960, when nearly half of the countries on the African continent achieved political independence. This victory was the result of a century of political and cultural struggle. Paradoxically, however, at the very moment of its greatest triumph, Classical Pan-Africanism suffered a fatal defeat, which undermined the political legitimacy of this philosophy on the African continent. This disastrous defeat was the Congo Crisis of 1960–1961, which produced three outcomes: the murder of the great African patriot Patrice Lumumba, whom Jean-Paul Sartre, in his brilliant article on the crisis, commemorated as a black Jacobin and a revolutionary without a revolution. [1]1 The “black Jacobin” refers to the radical, revolutionary character of Patrice Lumumba, drawing an analogy to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. Sartre’s essay is “The Political Thought of Patrice Lumumba.” This crisis also demonstrated that classical colonialism had taken on a new, more vicious form than before, namely neocolonialism. This was the first humiliating defeat for the newly independent African states, marking the historical necessity of their political unity. From this moment onward, Classical Pan-Africanism was superseded by the development of Classical African Marxism.

古典泛非主义最伟大的胜利发生于1960年，当时非洲大陆近一半的国家实现了政治独立。这一胜利是长达一个世纪的政治和文化斗争结果。然而矛盾的是，在古典泛非主义取得最伟大胜利的时刻，它却遭受了致命的失败，这就破坏了这一哲学在非洲大陆上的政治合法性。这次惨败是1960—1961年的刚果危机，其中导致了三个结果：伟大的非洲爱国者P. 卢蒙巴(Patrice Lumumba)被谋杀，J.-P.萨特(Jean-Paul Sartre)在他关于这场危机的精彩文章中，将卢蒙巴作为一名黑人雅各宾党人和一名没有革命的革命者予以纪念。这场危机也表明，古典殖民主义已经采取较先前更加恶毒的新形式，即新殖民主义。这是新独立非洲国家的第一次耻辱性失败，标志着他们政治统一的历史必要性。从这一刻起，古典泛非主义就被经典非洲马克思主义的发展所取代。

The philosophers and politicians of Classical Pan-Africanism include C. L. R. James (Trinidad), George Padmore (Trinidad), Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), and W. E. B. Du Bois (United States). Their goal was to expel European imperialism and its various forms of colonialism from the African continent. This also meant eliminating the European view of history (and its various national histories), including its intellectual, ideological, and cultural aspects, which had been imposed upon the history of African nations. For the Classical Pan-Africanists, the fundamental issue was to propel the movement of African history on the ideological plane and restore its past glory. European imperialism and colonialism had broken the dialectical movement of African history. In other words, European colonial rule had stagnated African history, and the mission of the Classical Pan-Africanists was to make African history dynamic once again. However, to accomplish this intellectual task, it was necessary to wage a political struggle against colonialism on the material plane of social existence. Thus, we see that the unity of theory and practice was crucial to the success of the Classical Pan-Africanist philosophy.

古典泛非主义哲学家和政治家包括C.L.R.詹姆斯(C. L. R. James)(特立尼达)、G.帕德莫尔(George Padmore)(特立尼达)、K.恩克鲁玛(Kwame Nkrumah)(加纳)和W.E.B.杜波依斯(W.E.B. Du Bois)(美国),他们的目标是从非洲大陆上驱逐出欧洲帝国主义及其各种形式的殖民主义。这也意味着要清除强加在非洲国家历史之上的包括知识、思想和文化上的欧洲历史(及其各种民族历史)观。对于古典泛非主义者来说，最根本的问题是在思想层面推动非洲历史的运动，重现其过去的辉煌。欧洲帝国主义和殖民主义打破了非洲历史的辩证运动。换句话说，欧洲殖民统治使非洲历史停滞不前，而经典泛非主义者的使命是使非洲历史再次变得富有活力。但是，要实现这一思想任务，就必须在社会存在的物质层面上同殖民主义进行政治斗争。由此我们看到，理论与实践的统一对经典泛非主义哲学的成功至关重要。

It was precisely in this historical context—connecting the various components of African history theoretically and politically opposing the prevalence of colonialism—that the philosophy of Classical Pan-Africanism encountered classical Marxism. From a historical perspective, Classical Pan-Africanism inevitably reached a consensus with classical Marxism, after all, historical materialism is the only science of history and the only philosophy that unites theory and practice in dialectical movement. Only historical materialism posits concrete structural forces and actors or subjects, namely the working class, through which capitalism can be defeated, just as it was defeated in the great Russian Revolution of 1917. In order to elucidate the form of African history and implement the means to defeat colonialism and imperialism, the Classical Pan-Africanists felt it necessary to adopt the intellectual and political instruments of historical materialism from classical Marxism. Thus, the Classical Pan-Africanists discovered classical Marxism, just as Sartre, thirty years earlier, had called it “the living philosophy of our time” or “the unsurpassable philosophy.” [2]2 Jean-Paul Sartre’s characterization of Marxism as the “unsurpassable philosophy of our time” appears in his 1960 work *Critique of Dialectical Reason*.

正是在这种理论上连接着非洲历史的各个组成部分和政治上对抗殖民主义盛行的历史环境下，古典泛非主义哲学遭遇了经典马克思主义。从历史观出发，古典泛非主义不可避免地与经典马克思主义达成共识，毕竟历史唯物主义是唯一的历史科学，也是在辨证运动中唯一将理论与实践相结合的哲学。只有历史唯物主义才假定有具体的结构性力量和行动者或主体，即工人阶级，一如资本主义在1917年伟大的俄国革命中被击败一样，只有依托工人阶级资本主义才能被打败。为了阐明非洲历史的形式并实施可以击败殖民主义和帝国主义的手段，古典泛非主义者感到有必要采用经典马克思主义中的历史唯物主义的知识和政治手段。因此，古典泛非主义者发现了经典马克思主义，正如30年前萨特所称的“我们时代的生活哲学”或“无法逾越的哲学”。

After discovering historical materialism, all Classical Pan-Africanists embraced classical Marxism. However, at the very moment they applied historical materialism, classical Marxism was deeply steeped in the complexities of European history. In the Soviet Union, Marxism had split into two dominant factions: Stalinism and Trotskyism. Among the Classical Pan-Africanist thinkers and political leaders, James developed in the direction of Trotskyism, while Padmore, conversely, moved toward Stalinism.

在发现历史唯物主义之后，所有古典泛非主义者都接受了经典马克思主义。但是，在他们运用历史唯物主义的那一刻，经典马克思主义却深深浸染在欧洲历史的复杂性之中。在苏联，马克思主义分裂为斯大林主义和托洛茨基主义两种主导派系。在古典泛非主义思想家和政治领袖中，詹姆斯朝托洛茨基主义的方向发展，而帕德莫尔则相反，朝斯大林主义前进。

It was precisely in the attempt to synthesize Classical Pan-Africanism and classical Marxism that two outstanding thinkers produced two great historical works: James’s *The Black Jacobins* and Du Bois’s *Black Reconstruction*. In *The Black Jacobins*, James analyzed a successful slave revolt within the context of the history of slave uprisings from ancient times to the present. More precisely, he sought to draw lessons from the Haitian Revolution of the time in order to continuously resist colonialism and imperialism. It should be emphasized that the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) was one of the few defeats of Napoleon Bonaparte before 1815. In other words, the first defeat of bourgeois France came at the hands of black slaves. Bonapartism was a mixture of bourgeois democracy and French imperialism and colonialism, which at the time held all of Europe in terror, from Spain to Russia. There is no doubt that Napoleon spread the achievements of the French Revolution across the European continent with the sword, but he was also the defender of French colonialism. James sought to explain why the blacks in the Haitian Revolution successfully defeated France, while Europe had failed for a time. Therefore, James’s task was to trace the structure of the African historical form through the opportunity of armed resistance against European rule and imperialism. This was a new way of writing a Marxist history of Africa.

正是在试图结合古典泛非主义和经典马克思主义的那一刻，两位杰出的思想家创作了两部伟大的历史著作：詹姆斯的《黑色的雅各宾党人》(The Black Jacobins)和杜波依斯的《黑人的重建》(Black Reconstruction)。在《黑色的雅各宾党人》一书中，詹姆斯在从古至今的奴隶起义历史的背景下分析了一次成功的奴隶反抗运动。更确切地说，他试图从当时海地革命中吸取教训以期持续抗衡殖民主义和帝国主义。应该强调，海地革命(1791—1804)是1815年以前拿破仑·波拿巴(Napoleon Bonaparte)为数不多的败仗之一。换言之，资产阶级法国的第一次失利就败于黑人奴隶之手。波拿巴主义(Bonapartism)是资产阶级民主与法国帝国主义、殖民主义的混合产物，当时从西班牙到俄国，整个欧洲都处于恐怖状态。拿破仑用刀剑在欧洲大陆传播法国革命的成果是毋庸置疑的，但同时他也是法国殖民主义的捍卫者。詹姆斯试图解释为什么海地革命中黑人成功地击败了法国，而欧洲在一段时间内却失败了。因此，詹姆斯的任务是通过武装反抗欧洲统治和帝国主义的契机来追溯非洲历史形态的结构。这是一种书写马克思主义非洲历史的新途径。

Du Bois’s work *Black Reconstruction* is one of the monuments of American historiography, setting forth the failure of the attempt by Black Americans to integrate into the democratic system after the American Civil War of 1860–1865. There is no doubt that the establishment of capitalist America was based on the exploitation of Black labor and the trampling of the corpses of Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Du Bois attributed the continued discrimination against African-descended Black people to the failure of unity between the African-American working class and the Euro-American working class, a failure that was the result of the latter’s racism. At the international level, Du Bois emphasized the necessity for the Black American working class to unite in solidarity with the Black working class in other parts of Africa, especially South Africa. In his later work *The World and Africa*, Du Bois, through empirical evidence and excellent theoretical grounding, argued that Egyptian civilization was built by Black Africans, despite the attempts of European historians to incorporate it into “white civilization.” There is no doubt that Egyptian civilization was the creation of African genius, and that Greek civilization, which served as the foundation of European culture, proliferated under the influence of Egyptian civilization.

杜波伊斯的著作《黑人的重建》是美国史学的丰碑之一，书中阐述了1860—1965年美国内战后，美国黑人试图融入民主制度努力的失败。毫无疑问，资本主义美国的建立是基于剥削黑人劳工和践踏美洲土著尸体之上的。杜波伊斯将非洲裔黑人持续受到歧视归咎于非洲裔美国工人阶级和欧美工人阶级团结的失败，这次失败是后者种族主义的结果。在国际层面，杜波伊斯强调美国黑人工人阶级有必要与非洲其它地区，尤其是南非的黑人工人阶级团结一致。在后来的《世界与非洲》(The World and Africa)一书中，杜波伊斯通过实证证据和出色的理论根基论证了埃及文明是由非洲黑人构建的，尽管欧洲历史学家企图将其纳入“白人文明”。毫无疑问，埃及文明是非洲天才人物的创造，而作为欧洲文化基础的希腊文明，在埃及文明的熏陶下繁衍开来。

The publication of these two works sought to bring coherence to the diversity of African history, while at the ideological level, classical Pan-Africanism split into two wings, one moving in the direction of Stalinism and the other developing in the direction of Trotskyism. Within the African context, both aimed to liberate Africa from European colonial rule. James [C.L.R. James] adhered to Trotskyism and sought possible forms of socialist democracy within the African context. Padmore [George Padmore] embraced Stalinism, using the Comintern to represent the African people in their struggle to overthrow colonialism and imperialism. Both versions of Marxism followed specific historical principles. When A. Césaire (Aimé Césaire) resigned from the French Communist Party due to disagreements arising from its refusal to support the Algerian Revolution, he said: “Marxism should serve the historical needs of Black people, not the other way around.” When both James and Padmore realized that the institutional forms of Marxism to which they had pledged allegiance no longer served the interests of the African people, they broke with those institutional forms. On the one hand, Padmore conflated communism with Stalinism, which ultimately led him to abandon historical materialism. On the other hand, although James ultimately rejected Trotskyism, he never abandoned Marxism.

这两本著作的出版试图将非洲历史多样性连贯起来，与此同时在思想层面上，古典泛非主义分裂为两翼，一翼向斯大林主义方向前进，另一翼则朝着托洛茨基主义方向发展。在非洲范围内，两者都旨在将非洲从欧洲殖民统治中解放出来。詹姆斯信奉托洛茨基主义，并在非洲范围内寻求可能的社会主义民主形式。帕德莫尔则拥护斯大林主义，以借助共产国际的力量代表非洲人民，为他们推翻殖民主义和帝国主义服务。这两个版本的马克思主义都遵循特定的历史原则，在因法国共产党拒绝支持阿尔及利亚革命引发分歧而辞去法国共产党党籍的时候，A.塞泽尔(Aimé Césaire)说：“马克思主义应该是为黑人的历史需要服务的，而非相反。”当詹姆斯和帕德莫尔都意识到各自宣誓效忠的马克思主义的制度形式不再符合非洲人民的利益时，他们就同这些体制形式决裂了。一方面，帕德莫尔混淆了共产主义与斯大林主义，这最终导致他抛弃了历史唯物主义。另一方面，尽管詹姆斯最终拒绝托洛茨基主义，但他从未放弃马克思主义。

At the same time, African historians for the first time attempted to map the social geography and conceptual structure of African history. Imperialist rule had shattered the structure of African history, concealing Africa’s contribution to human civilization in darkness. Therefore, the process of revealing the history of the African continent in a new way politically became particularly urgent. These two great African historians—the Senegalese Marxist historian C.A. Diop (Cheikh Anta Diop) and the Burkinabe historian J. Ki-Zerbo (Joseph Ki-Zerbo)—scientifically revolutionized the structure of African history and enriched our intellectual understanding of African history.

与此同时，非洲历史学家首次尝试绘制非洲历史的社会地理和概念结构。帝国主义的统治打破了非洲历史的结构，把非洲对人类文明的贡献掩盖在黑暗之中。因此，在政治上以新的方式揭示非洲大陆历史的这一进程显得尤为迫切。这两位伟大的非洲历史学家，即塞内加尔马克思主义历史学家C.A.迪奥普(Cheikh Anta Diop)和布基纳法索历史学家J.K.-泽尔博(Joseph Ki-Zerbo)科学地革新了非洲历史的结构，并在思想上丰富了我们对非洲历史的理解。

To understand the significance of Diop’s contribution, recall that since the Renaissance, European historians systematically denied that Egyptian civilization was an African civilization. Philosophers and historians such as Hume, Kant, Hegel, and L. von Ranke (Leopold von Ranke) considered Egyptian civilization not an African civilization but a “white civilization”; in their view, we Africans never had a concept of history but lived outside of history. In his work *The African Origin of Civilization*, Diop, drawing on empirical evidence collected from the works of Aristotle, Herodotus, Euclid, and others, forcefully argued that Egyptian civilization belongs to African civilization. In the era of Greek civilization, Egyptian civilization was an African civilization; without Egyptian civilization, Greek civilization would have been impossible—this is a self-evident historical fact. But in the bourgeois era of the Enlightenment and Romanticism, due to the emergence of racism and modern imperialism, this fact was disputed to deny the contribution of African genius to human civilization. Diop forcefully reaffirmed the contribution of African genius to human history. In other words, this was a Marxist correction of the legacy of racist bourgeois thought.

为了理解迪奥普贡献的意义，请回顾一下文艺复兴以来，欧洲历史学家系统地否认埃及文明是非洲文明的事实。哲学家和历史学家如休谟、康德、黑格尔和L.兰克(Leopold von Ranke)认为，埃及文明不是非洲文明，而是一种“白人文明”,在他们看来，我们非洲人从来就没有历史概念，而是生活在历史之外。迪奥普在著作《非洲文明的起源》(The African Origin of Civilization)中依据亚里士多德、希罗多德、欧几里德等人著作中收集的经验证据，有力地论证了埃及文明属于非洲文明。在希腊文明时代，埃及文明是一种非洲文明，没有埃及文明就不可能有希腊文明，这是不言自明的历史事实。但在启蒙运动和浪漫主义的资产阶级时代，由于种族主义和现代帝国主义的出现，这一事实被争议为否认非洲天才对人类文明的贡献。迪奥普有力地重申了非洲天才人物对人类历史的贡献。换句话说，这是马克思主义对种族主义资产阶级遗留问题的修正。

Diop’s critique of the European bourgeois legacy from Hume to Hegel and Ranke is correct, as recently confirmed by M. Bernal (Martin Bernal) in his *Black Athena*. This British historian, employing Western academic conventions, substantiated Diop’s thesis that Egyptian civilization was a “Black civilization.” He systematically demonstrated that Greeks like Herodotus and Aristotle accepted, in the natural order of things, the fact that Egyptian civilization was an African civilization; it was only with the emergence of bourgeois culture that Africans were displaced from history. After *Black Athena* was published in London, it sparked a controversy over the historical authenticity of its thesis.

迪奥普对从休谟到黑格尔和兰克的欧洲资产阶级遗留问题的批判是正确的，最近M.伯纳尔(Martin Bernal)在其《黑色的雅典娜》(Black Athena)一书中证实了这一点。这位英国历史学家采用西方学术规约确证了迪奥普的论点，即埃及文明是“黑人文明”。他系统地阐明，像希罗多德和亚里士多德这类希腊人在事物的自然秩序中接纳了埃及文明是非洲文明这一事实，只是随着资产阶级文化的出现，非洲人才被历史所取代。《黑色的雅典娜》在伦敦出版后，引发了一场关于其论文历史真伪的争议。

Among the various responses to *Black Athena*, the one that interests us most is that of the British historian P. Anderson (Perry Anderson). In an important review of *Black Athena* in *The Guardian Weekly*, Anderson advanced a clever argument. While Anderson acknowledged that the book’s thesis seemed plausible—that Egyptian civilization played a role in the emergence of Greek civilization—he argued that the former’s contribution to the latter did not lie in those areas involved in the formation of Western civilization, areas that entered into Western civilization transmitted through the Renaissance to the Enlightenment and down to the present. This is a euphemistic way of denying the contribution of African genius to the construction of human civilization. In other words, Anderson’s position is a continuation of the bourgeois Enlightenment myth tinged with Marxism.

在对《黑色的雅典娜》做出各种回应的人物中，我们最感兴趣的是英国历史学家P.安德森(Perry Anderson)。在《卫报周刊》对《黑色的雅典娜》的重要评论中，安德森提出了一个巧妙论点。安德森虽然承认这本书的论据似乎是合理的，即埃及文明在希腊文明的出现中发挥了作用，但是他认为前者对后者的贡献并不在于西方文明的形成所涉及的那些领域，这些领域进入了通过文艺复兴传播到启蒙运动直到现在的西方文明。这是一种以委婉方式来否认非洲天才人物对人类文明建设所做的贡献。换句话说，安德森的立场是具有马克思主义色彩的资产阶级启蒙运动神话的延续。

To understand what Anderson really means, it is necessary to examine the arguments he put forward in two works, *Lineages of the Absolutist State* and *Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism*. In these two monumental works, Anderson attempts to answer the question originally posed by M. Weber (Max Weber): why did capitalism emerge in the West, that is, in Europe, and not elsewhere? Anderson links this Weberian question to his examination of Marxism. Another place where capitalism might have emerged from feudalism was Japan, yet this possibility was not realized. Anderson argues that it was the combination of the Greco-Roman tradition (democracy, philosophy, and law) transmitted and transformed during the Renaissance that made the emergence of capitalism and bourgeois civilization possible. Therefore, it can be concluded that in those aspects fundamental to “white civilization,” “Black civilization” made no contribution. The entire thrust of Anderson’s argument in this review is debatable. After all, the subsequent reasoning is all predetermined, and its origins can be traced in his earlier arguments. Even if these areas may not have been important in Egyptian civilization, the fact that they have become the main legacy of Greek civilization to human culture today is partly due, in essence, to the contribution of “Black civilization” to “white civilization,” just as many things in Africa today are contributions of European bourgeois culture. Therefore, saying this does not diminish the tragedy of imperialist interference in Africa; we are merely pointing out the dual nature of the dialectics of history.

为了理解安德森所说的真正含义，有必要看看他在两部著作《绝对主义国家的谱系》(Lineages of the Absolutist State)和《从古代到封建主义的过渡》(Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism)中提出的论点。在这两篇巨著中，安德森试图回答最初由M.韦伯(Max Weber)提出的问题：为什么资本主义出现在西方，也就是说，出现在欧洲而不是其它地方?安德森把这个韦伯式问题与他对马克思主义的考究联系起来。资本主义可能在封建主义中出现的另一个地方是日本，然而这种可能性并没有实现。安德森认为，正是文艺复兴时期传播和改造的希腊罗马传统(民主、哲学和法律)的结合，使资本主义和资产阶级文明的出现成为可能。因此，可以断定在对“白人文明”具有基础意义的方面，“黑人文明”没有任何贡献。安德森在这篇评论中的论点其整个要旨都是值得商榷的。毕竟，接下来的论证都是被预先设定的，这可以在他之前的论证中寻其滥觞之所出。即使这些领域在埃及文明中可能并不重要，但当今它们成为希腊文明对人类文化的主要遗产，部分原因也是本质上由于“黑人文明”对“白人文明”的贡献，正如今天非洲许多事物都是欧洲资产阶级文化的贡献一样。因此，我们这样说并不是削减帝国主义干涉非洲造成的悲剧，我们只是指出历史辩证法两面性的本质。

Another great African historian we mention is J. Zerbo. Although he is not a Marxist, Zerbo’s contribution to African historiography is immense. His work *Die Geschichte Schwarz-Afrikas* and his many methodological and historical essays in the first volume of UNESCO’s *General History of Africa* have formed a new conceptual form of African history.

我们提及的另一位伟大的非洲历史学家是J.泽尔博。尽管他不是马克思主义者，但是泽尔博对非洲历史学的贡献却是巨大的。他的著作《黑非洲的历史》(Die Geschichte Schwaz-Afrikas)以及他在联合国教科文组织《非洲通史》(General History of Africa)第一卷中的许多方法论和历史论文形成了非洲历史的新的概念形式。

From what we have said so far, one of the core objectives of classical African Marxism is to reconstruct the structure of African history that was destroyed by European imperialism. In other words, the collapse of African history is the dialectical result of European capitalist accumulation, which was based on the slave economy of the Caribbean and the Americas. It is estimated that over the three centuries of modern slavery, approximately 70 million Africans were taken from Africa, and of these, about 35 million died in one form or another. This massacre is rarely mentioned in the historical works of European scholars, even in those of European Marxists. The fact is that contemporary European bourgeois civilization is built upon the corpses of 70 million Africans—this is an indisputable historical fact. In this context, W. Benjamin’s view that culture is a product of both barbarism and civilization possesses profound historical truth. Those who question the veracity of what we have said should consult the work of the Guyanese Marxist W. Rodney, *How Europe Underdeveloped Africa*. That book systematically analyzes the forms of destruction of African civilization by Europe after the major European bourgeois states occupied and partitioned the African continent. Of course, we African Marxists still have to explain why Africa was unable to resist this European colonial incursion.

从我们迄今所说的来看，经典非洲马克思主义的核心目标之一就是重建被欧洲帝国主义所破坏的非洲历史的结构。换句话说，非洲历史的崩溃是欧洲资本主义积累的辩证结果，这种资本主义积累的基础是加勒比和美洲的奴隶经济。据估计，在现代奴隶制的三个世纪中，大约有7000万非洲人被带离非洲，而这些非洲人中约有3500万人以这样或那样的形式死亡。在欧洲学者的历史著作中，甚至在欧洲马克思主义者的著作中也很少提及这场大屠杀。事实是，当代欧洲资产阶级文明是建立于7000万非洲人尸体之上的，这是一个无可争议的历史事实。在此背景下，W.本雅明(Walter Benjamin)关于文化是野蛮和文明的产物这一观点具有深刻的历史真理性。那些质疑我们所说的真实性的人应该参考圭亚那马克思主义者W.罗德尼(Walter Rodney)的著作《欧洲如何使非洲欠发达》(How Europe Underdeveloped Africa)。该书系统分析了欧洲主要资产阶级国家占领和瓜分非洲大陆后，欧洲对非洲文明的破坏形式。当然，我们非洲马克思主义者仍然要解释为什么非洲无法抵抗这种欧洲殖民侵入。

The urgent task of classical Pan-Africanism was to construct a new social geography of African history and to attempt to combine it with classical Marxism. In 1960, with the independence of many African countries, classical Pan-Africanism achieved its greatest political objective: the elimination of classical European colonialism from the African continent. But it would be naive and foolish to expect European imperialism and American imperialism to accept this defeat without a historical response. After all, imperialism is a historical process; when its classical form, colonialism, was defeated, imperialism responded in a new form, namely, neocolonialism. As mentioned earlier, classical Pan-Africanism was invincible, but its failure and demise as a philosophy of survival came when it was defeated by neo-imperialism in the Congo Crisis of 1960. [11]11 The Congo Crisis (1960–1965) was a period of political upheaval and conflict in the Republic of the Congo (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) following its independence from Belgium, involving secessionist movements, Cold War rivalries, and the assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. There is no doubt that Africa’s defeat in the Congo Crisis was an incalculable disaster, the serious consequences of which still persist in Africa today. One need only look at the countless neocolonial regimes from Senegal to Zambia. Nkrumah’s work *Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism* (1964) not only announced a new stage in African history but also demonstrated the infeasibility of classical Pan-Africanism in a new historical phase. Nkrumah is an important transitional figure in the attempt to combine classical Pan-Africanism and classical Marxism into the emergence of classical African Marxism. If the legacy of the classical form of Pan-Africanism remains significant in the present, it is the attempt to establish the spiritual unity of all Black people in the world.

古典泛非主义的当务之急是构建非洲历史的新社会地理学，并试图与经典马克思主义相结合，1960年，随着许多非洲国家的独立，古典泛非主义实现了其最大的政治目标：从非洲大陆消除古典欧洲殖民主义。但是，如果指望欧洲帝国主义和美帝国主义接受这次失败而没有作出历史性回应，那将是天真和愚蠢的。毕竟，帝国主义是一个历史过程，当其古典形式的殖民主义被打败时，帝国主义以新的形式作为回应，即新殖民主义。如前所述，古典泛非主义是无法战胜的，但是其作为一种生存哲学的失败和消亡，是在1960年的刚果危机中被新帝国主义所击败的。毫无疑问，非洲在刚果危机的溃败是一场无法估量的灾难，其严重后果仍存于当今非洲。人们只需看看从塞内加尔到赞比亚的无数新殖民主义政权就知道了。恩克鲁玛的著作《新殖民主义——帝国主义的最后阶段》(Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism)(1964年)不仅宣告了非洲历史的一个新阶段，而且还表明了古典泛非主义在一个新的历史阶段的不可行性。恩克鲁玛是古典泛非主义和经典马克思主义尝试结合到非洲经典马克思主义出场的重要过渡人物。如果泛非主义的古典形式的遗产在当下仍具有重大意义，那就是试图在世界上建立所有黑人的精神统一。

Therefore, classical African Marxism emerged to confront the neocolonialism that was rapidly developing on the African continent at that time. Within the international context of Marxist thought, classical African Marxism arose during the gradual exhaustion of the Western Marxist philosophical system. This intellectual tradition, the legacy of Lukács, Gramsci, Bloch, and many others, came to an end in the “May 1968 events” in France. [12]12 The “May 1968 events” in France were a series of student and worker protests and general strikes that nearly toppled the French government, marking a peak of radical leftist political and cultural ferment in Western Europe. In South America, Latin American Marxism, founded by the Peruvian Marxist J. C. Mariátegui, was transforming into Guevarism, aiming to liberate Latin America from the stranglehold of neocolonialism and potentially bring about the national unification led by S. Bolívar. In Asia, Mao Zedong Thought was gradually moving toward crisis during the “Cultural Revolution,” [13]13 The “Cultural Revolution” (1966–1976) was a sociopolitical movement in China launched by Mao Zedong to purge capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society, resulting in widespread chaos, violence, and persecution. while the Vietnamese Revolution was in the process of resisting American imperialism. In the Soviet Union, the conservatism of the Brezhnev regime plunged the Soviet republics into a quagmire of corruption and pessimism. Within the United States itself, the civil rights movement and the student movement united to strive for new democratic positions. The formation of classical African Marxism belongs to this historical confluence of political and cultural forces.

因此，经典非洲马克思主义应运而生，以对抗当时在非洲大陆迅速发展的新殖民主义。在马克思主义思想的国际背景下，经典非洲马克思主义是在西方马克思主义哲学体系逐渐枯竭的过程中产生的。这种思想传统是卢卡奇、葛兰西、布洛赫等其他许多人的遗产，在1968年的“五月风暴”中终结。在南美洲，由秘鲁马克思主义者J.C.马里亚特吉(José Carlos Mariategui)创立的拉美马克思主义正转变为格瓦拉主义，其目的是将拉丁美洲从新殖民主义扼杀中解放出来，并可能带来S.玻利瓦尔领导的国家统一。在亚洲，毛泽东思想在“文化大革命”中逐渐走向危机，而越南革命正处于反抗美帝国主义的进程中。在苏联，勃列日涅夫政权的保守主义将苏维埃共和国陷入腐败和悲观的泥潭中。在美国本土，民权运动和学生运动联合起来，争取新的民主立场。经典非洲马克思主义的形成就属于这种政治和文化力量的历史合力。

Classical African Marxism, as expounded in the works of F. Fanon and A. Cabral, is the product, within the African context, of the Algerian Revolution and the Guinea-Bissau Revolution. [14]14 The Algerian Revolution (1954–1962) was a war of independence against French colonial rule; the Guinea-Bissau Revolution (1963–1974) was a war of independence against Portuguese colonial rule, led by Amilcar Cabral. Taking Anderson’s reflections on Western Marxism as a classic summary of the Western Marxist tradition, if we compare Western Marxism with classical African Marxism, we find the following contrasts: the former is a product of defeat, while the latter is a product of victory; the former is primarily concerned with the philosophical realm, while the latter focuses on political dialectics; the former represents the separation of theory and practice, while the latter is an expression of the profound perfection of theory and practice; the former theorized aesthetics, while the latter theorized a new historical domain. In many respects, classical African Marxism is a continuation of the main themes of classical Marxism, rather than of Western Marxism. However, it is necessary here to examine the specific concepts and distinctive features of classical African Marxism.

F.法农(Frantz Fanon)和A.卡布拉尔(Amilcar Cabral)的著作中所阐述的经典非洲马克思主义，是阿尔及利亚革命和几内亚(比绍)革命在非洲范围内的产物。将安德森对西方马克思主义的思考作为西方马克思主义传统的经典总结，如果我们将西方马克思主义与经典非洲马克思主义进行比较，我们会发现以下对比：前者是失败的产物，而后者是胜利的产物；前者主要涉及哲学领域，而后者则聚焦政治辩证法；前者是理论和实践的分离，而后者则是理论和实践深刻完善的表现；前者理论化了美学，而后者理论化了一个新的历史领域。在许多方面，经典非洲马克思主义是经典马克思主义主旨的延续，而不是西方马克思主义。但是，这里有必要审视经典非洲马克思主义的具体概念和鲜明特征。

It was Fanon who painted a political picture in which classical African Marxism, by incorporating the perspective of classical Pan-Africanism, revolutionized our understanding of African history, becoming the basis for political unity between Arabs and Africans, thereby opposing the dominant positions of Pan-Africanism and Pan-Arabism. The essence of Fanon’s theoretical and political practice in the Algerian Revolution was the establishment of this North (Arab)-South (Black African) unity. In Fanon’s view, the Algerian Revolution was the first and most important dialectical process leading to an African revolution. Following the logic of his political stance, Pan-Arabism and Pan-Africanism would find their historical expression in the concept of the Third World. Thus, it was Fanon who elaborated the concept of the Third World as a serious political category, endowing it with rich historical content. The Third World countries, including Africa, Asia, and Latin America, were to be understood and analyzed in relation to the capitalist Western countries, which Fanon called the First World, and the Eastern socialist countries, which he called the Second World. At the time of the formation of African Marxism in the late 1950s and early 1960s, this concept of the Third World helped to forge a political consensus among the exploited peoples of the world.

正是法农描绘了这样一幅政治图景，在这幅图景中，经典非洲马克思主义通过结合古典泛非主义的视角，使我们对非洲历史的理解发生了革命性的转变，成为阿拉伯人和非洲人在政治上的团结基础，从而反对泛非主义和泛阿拉伯主义的主导地位。法农在阿尔及利亚革命中的理论和政治实践的本质是建立这个北(阿拉伯人)—南(非洲黑人)的统一。在法农看来，阿尔及利亚革命是走向非洲革命的第一个也是最主要的辩证过程。按照他的政治立场逻辑，泛阿拉伯主义和泛非主义者将在第三世界的概念中找到他们的历史表现。因此，正是法农将第三世界的概念阐述为一个严肃的政治范畴，赋予它丰富的历史内容。第三世界国家，包括非洲、亚洲和拉丁美洲将与被法农称为第一世界的资本主义西方国家和其称为第二世界的东方社会主义国家联系起来加以理解和分析。在20世纪50年代末和60年代初非洲马克思主义形成之际，第三世界的这一概念有助于世界上被剥削人民形成一种政治共识。

Although Fanon’s propositions and the political practice of Arab–African unity were historically correct, they lacked sociological categories and achievable geographical coordinates. On the other hand, Fanon’s critique of the ideological mediocrity, economic bankruptcy, and political impoverishment of the rising African national bourgeoisie at the time was extremely profound. It was precisely the disintegration of this class and its alliance with imperialism that led Fanon to regard socialism as the only path for the collective development of the Third World peoples. But he added an important proviso: that Third World countries should not define the specific forms of their own socialist development according to socialism as defined by other nations, other continents, and other historical circumstances. This is the background to Fanon’s argument, namely that the application of classical Marxism in a colonial context is always extended and becomes more flexible. This should not be understood as Fanon advocating a form of African socialism; for him, there was only one form of socialism, namely Marx’s socialism, which must be specified according to the historical particularities of each Third World country. Undoubtedly, this is an extremely complex issue.

尽管法农的主张和阿拉伯—非洲统一的政治实践在历史上是正确的，但它缺乏社会学的范畴，以及可以实现的地理坐标。另一方面，法农对当时兴起的非洲民族资产阶级的思想平庸、经济破产和政治素养匮乏的批判极为深刻。正是这一阶级的瓦解及其与帝国主义的结盟，使法农认为社会主义是第三世界人民集体发展的唯一道路。但他要补充一个重要的附带条件，即，第三世界国家不应该根据其他民族、其他大陆和其他历史环境所定义的社会主义来定义自身社会主义发展的特定形式。这是法农论证的背景，即经典马克思主义在殖民背景下的应用总是被延伸并变得更具灵活性。这不应该被理解为法农主张的一种非洲社会主义形式，对他而言，只有一种形式的社会主义，即马克思的社会主义，这必须根据每个第三世界国家的历史特殊性来规定。毫无疑问，这是一个极具复杂性的问题。

Fanon’s flexible application of classical Marxism in the colonial context led him to regard the peasantry as the only revolutionary class, while the working class was privileged and conservative. In this sense, even within a limited historical space, Fanonism can be compared with Mao Zedong Thought. Mao Zedong also emphasized the revolutionary role of the peasant class, but the real difference between the two lies in the fact that Mao advocated the primacy of the peasantry because, within the evolving social structure of China, the historical weight of the proletariat was very small. Fanon, on the other hand, excluded the working class from revolutionary potential due to its corrupt nature within the colonial sphere. Mao Zedong Thought skillfully interpreted a complex historical form, while Fanonism misread this intricate political space. Cabral aimed to provide an epistemological and political correction to Fanonism’s historical misreading within the historical scope of classical African Marxism. It is precisely this dialectical reciprocity and exchange between Fanonism and Cabralism that constitutes the unity of classical African Marxism.

法农在殖民背景下对经典马克思主义的灵活运用使他认为农民是唯一的革命阶级，而工人阶级则是享有特权和保守的。在这种意义上讲，即使在有限的历史空间内，法农主义也可以与毛泽东思想相提并论。毛泽东也强调农民阶级的革命性作用，但两者之间的真正区别在于，毛泽东主张农民至上是因为，在不断发展的中国社会结构中，无产阶级的历史权重很小。而由于工人阶级在殖民地范围内的腐败性质，法农排除了其具有革命性的可能。毛泽东思想巧妙地解读了一个复杂的历史形式，而法农主义则误读了这个错综复杂的政治空间。卡布拉尔旨在经典非洲马克思主义的历史范围内，为法农主义的历史误读提供认识论和政治纠正。正是在法农主义和卡布拉尔主义之间的这种辩证互惠与交流，构成了经典非洲马克思主义的统一。

It should be remembered that Fanonism was the ideology of the Algerian Revolution, yet today, for reactionary reasons, it is denied by certain elements within Algeria. This particular version of classical African Marxism is superior to Western Marxism because it insists on the unity of theory and practice, one of the fundamental tenets of classical Marxism, while the fantasies of classical African Marxism as practiced by Fanon are no more debilitating than the traditions of Adorno, Althusser, and Gramsci. Another contribution of Fanonism is that it successfully sparked a political revolution against French imperialism, especially against its classical colonial form, although the Algerian Revolution later proved unable to escape its own contradictions. Is Leninism denied from the outset by the severe limitations that have followed the October Revolution from its very beginning?

应该记住，法农主义是阿尔及利亚革命的意识形态，然而今天由于反动的原因，它被阿尔及利亚境内的某些分子所否定。这一特定版本的经典非洲马克思主义优于西方马克思主义，因为它坚持理论与实践的统一，这是经典马克思主义的基本要点之一，而法农所实践的经典非洲马克思主义的幻想却并不比阿多诺、阿尔都塞和葛兰西的传统更令人感到衰弱。法农主义的另一个贡献是，它成功地引发了一场反对法国帝国主义的政治革命，尤其是反对其古典殖民形式的政治革命，尽管后来证明阿尔及利亚革命无法摆脱其自身的矛盾。难道列宁主义从一开始就被十月革命开始以来的严重局限性而否定吗?

Undoubtedly, *The Wretched of the Earth* implanted a revolutionary ideology in Africa, especially where there was no ideology. It has distinctive features: first, the use of revolutionary violence by the oppressed and exploited against the counter-revolutionary violence of imperialism and colonialism. Second, the national bourgeoisie of the Third World is always at a historically underdeveloped stage culturally and economically, and national interests are always subordinated to the consciousness of imperialism and neocolonialism. Third, in the colonial context, only the peasant class is the truly revolutionary class. Fourth, culture should become a tool of the national liberation struggle. Fifth, culture and politics are inseparable. Sixth, the Third World should construct itself as a historical entity. Fanon’s ideology had an extremely uneven impact on African historical and political consciousness, leaving the entire African cultural imagination untouched, yet it inspired Steve Biko’s Black Consciousness Movement in South Africa in the 1970s against white South African fascism, and the struggle of the Mulele sect against President Mobutu’s neocolonial politics. [15]15 Pierre Mulele (1929–1968) was a Congolese revolutionary and a follower of Patrice Lumumba; the Mulele sect refers to the Maoist-inspired Kwilu Rebellion (1963–1968) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo against the government of President Mobutu Sese Seko.

毫无疑问，《全世界受苦的人》(The Wretched of the Earth)在非洲植入了一种革命意识形态，特别是在没有意识形态的地方。具有鲜明特征：第一，用被压迫者和被剥削者的革命暴力来反对帝国主义和殖民主义的反革命暴力。第二，第三世界民族资产阶级始终处在一个文化、经济上欠发达的历史阶段，国家利益总是服从于帝国主义和新殖民主义的意识；第三，在殖民地背景下，只有农民阶级才是真正的革命阶级；第四，文化应成为民族解放斗争的工具；第五，文化与政治是不可分割的；第六，第三世界应该将自己构建成一个历史实体而存在。法农的意识形态对非洲历史和政治意识的影响极不均衡，使得整个非洲文化想象都未被触及，但却启发了S.比科(Steve Biko)在20世纪70年代反对南非白人法西斯主义的南非黑人觉醒运动，以及穆勒勒教反对蒙博托总统的新殖民主义政治的斗争。

Although Fanonism is an extremely rich source in the formation of classical African Marxism, it must be viewed in its complementarity with another branch of African materialist philosophy, namely Cabralism. Undoubtedly, Cabral is one of the great Marxist intellectuals produced by our turbulent century, and his theoretical conception forms the foundation of classical African Marxism, because African Marxism is a direct continuation of the classical Marxism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. In the centuries to come, Africa will see many intellectual breakthroughs, which can only be built on the basis of classical African Marxism, because this historical materialism is the living philosophy of Africa today. It cannot be transcended until the African people have completed all the historical tasks it demands.

尽管法农主义在经典非洲马克思主义的形成过程中是一个极其丰富的源泉，但必须把它与非洲唯物主义哲学的另一个分支即与卡布拉尔主义的互补性角度来看待。毫无疑问，卡布拉尔是我们这个动荡不安的世纪产生的伟大马克思主义知识分子之一，他的理论构想构成了经典非洲马克思主义的基础，因为非洲马克思主义是马克思、恩格斯和列宁的经典马克思主义的直接延续。未来几个世纪，非洲还将出现许多思想上的突破，这些突破只能建立在经典非洲马克思主义的基础上，因为这种唯物史观是非洲今天的生活哲学。在非洲人民完成它所要求的所有历史任务之前，不可能超越它。

Cabral revolutionized the conceptual structure of African history and specified an ideology according to the particularities of African history. Moreover, he raised fundamental questions about the intellectual structure of classical Marxism. Cabral posited classical African Marxism as a response to the ideological deficiencies he encountered in Africa. It is necessary to be clear: when we speak of classical African Marxism, we are more concerned with its coordinates as a system of thought and political tradition. For Cabral, the entire historical period from the Second World War to the present has seen the African revolution unfold in complex and changing times, characterized by national liberation struggles across the three continents of the Third World, on a scale far exceeding the class struggles of late capitalist countries, and even far exceeding the struggle between capitalism and socialism. It is these national liberation struggles that are regarded as the main driving force of our historical development. The reason these struggles are emphasized is that, for Cabral and Fanon, national liberation struggles are an important means for the oppressed, exploited, and wretched of the Third World to rewrite their own national history, from which they were once expelled by imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism. In short, armed revolutionary struggle is the fundamental method for re-entering and rewriting history.

卡布拉尔在重新绘制了非洲历史的概念结构并根据非洲历史的特殊性来规定一种意识形态方面进行了一场革命。此外，他对经典马克思主义的思想结构提出了根本性问题。卡布拉尔将经典非洲马克思主义假定是对他在非洲遇到的意识形态缺陷的回应。有必要明确的是，当我们谈论经典非洲马克思主义时，我们更关注其作为思想体系和政治传统的坐标。对于卡布拉尔来说，从第二次世界大战至今的整个历史时期，非洲革命在复杂多变的时代中展开，其特点是第三世界三大洲的民族解放斗争，规模远远超过在资本主义国家晚期的阶级斗争，甚至远远超过资本主义与社会主义之间的斗争。正是这些民族解放斗争被视为我们历史发展的主要动力。之所以重视这些斗争，是因为对卡布拉尔和法农来说，民族解放斗争是第三世界被压迫、被剥削和不幸者重新书写他们自己民族历史的重要手段，而曾经他们被帝国主义、殖民主义和资本主义从自己的民族历史中驱逐出去。简而言之，武装革命斗争是重新进入和改写历史的根本方法。

In 1966, at a celebration of the Cuban Revolution held in Havana, Cabral delivered a speech titled “The Weapon of Theory,” in which he argued for the establishment of a new Marxist conception of history, particularly concepts related to the history of the African continent. The theory Cabral put forward in “The Weapon of Theory” reflected the developmental process of the revolution in Guinea-Bissau, of which he was the principal theoretician, and it can be said to confirm the Marxist principle: without revolutionary theory there can be no successful revolution. Thus, Cabral sought to characterize the essence of history in African societies that lacked class or class struggle as their defining features. Since he affirmed class struggle as the motive force of history, he then asked: does this mean that in those societies lacking such a motive factor, those people live outside history? This was a crucial question, because when imperialism penetrated African societies, it used the pretext that these societies existed outside history and civilization. Cabral argued that the imperialist invasion of Africa forced the African people to leave African history and enter the history of the European empires. In this sense, armed struggle was a process of withdrawing from colonial and imperial history, a process of re-entering African history (national history) and the history of the people. He then argued that, whether before or after class struggle, the mode of production is the motive force of history. With this generalization of a new Marxist understanding of history, he sought to establish the continuity of the pattern, lineage, and form of African history from ancient times to the present. Even in the era of colonial rule, we lived and experienced our African history in a specific way.

1966年，在哈瓦那举行的庆祝古巴革命的庆典上，卡布拉尔发表了一场题为“理论武器”(The Weapon of Theory)的演说，他主张建立一种新的马克思主义历史观，特别是与非洲大陆历史有关的概念。卡布拉尔在“理论武器”中所提出的理论反映了他作为主要理论家的几内亚(比绍)革命的发展过程，可以说，这证实了马克思主义的原理：没有革命理论就没有革命的成功。因此，卡布拉尔试图在那些没有阶级或阶级斗争为特征的非洲社会中概括历史的本质。既然确认阶级斗争是历史的动力，那他继续问：那么，这是否意味着在那些没有这种动机因素的社会中，那些人是否生活在历史之外呢?这是一个至关重要的问题，因为当帝国主义渗透到非洲社会时，就是以这些社会存在于历史和文明之外为借口的。卡布拉尔认为，帝国主义侵入非洲迫使非洲人民离开非洲历史并进入欧洲帝国的历史。从这个意义上说，武装斗争是一个从殖民和帝国历史中退出的过程，是重新进入非洲历史(民族历史)和人民历史的过程。他接着认为，无论是在阶级斗争之前还是之后，生产方式都是历史的动力。以这种对历史的新的马克思主义理解的概括，他试图建立非洲历史从古至今的模式、谱系和形式的连续性。即使在殖民统治时代，我们也以特定的方式生活和经历了我们的非洲历史。

In characterizing the evolution of African history, Cabral elaborated three stages in the gradual structural complexification of the mode of production in the process of human history: the first stage is characterized by a low level of productive forces, in which there is no private appropriation and no classes. In the second stage, private appropriation of the means of production occurs, followed by social and economic contradictions, leading to the emergence of classes. In the third stage, the means of private appropriation are eliminated, thereby abolishing the concepts of class and class struggle. The formation of social structure corresponds to these stages, moving from horizontal (absence of the state) to vertical (formation of the state) and back to horizontal (abolition of the state). Here Cabral not only elaborates abstract concepts of social structure and history, but also elucidates their actual connections within the complexity of social reality. In other words, Cabral is tracing the social determinants of history and the historical relationship between abstraction and reality. In an indirect sense, though it is not the central object of Cabral’s concern, Cabral is engaging in polemics with so-called African socialist theorists who assume that no class formation existed in African history before the imperialist invasion.

对于非洲历史演进的概括，卡布拉尔阐述了人类历史进程中生产方式结构逐渐复杂化的三个阶段：第一阶段的特征是低水平的生产力，在其中没有私人占有，也没有阶级。在第二阶段，私人占用生产资料，随后出现了社会和经济矛盾，导致了阶级的出现。在第三阶段，消灭私人的占有手段，从而消除了阶级和阶级斗争的概念。社会结构的形成与这些阶段相对应，即从横向(国家的缺失)到纵向(国家的形成)回到横向(国家的废除)。在这里卡布拉尔不仅阐述了社会结构和历史的抽象概念，而且还阐明了他们在社会现实的复杂性中的实际联系。换句话说，卡布拉尔正在追溯历史的社会决定因素和抽象与现实之间的历史关系。从间接意义上讲，它不是卡布拉尔关注的中心对象，卡布拉尔正在与所谓的非洲社会主义理论家进行论战,他们假定在帝国入侵之前非洲历史上没有阶级形成。

In this speech, Cabral also sought to explore the process of skipping stages of historical development: whether African societies could skip capitalism and move directly from the feudal stage to socialism. This question was related to the role of imperialism in African history. The nature of the national liberation struggle in Guinea-Bissau, as well as the political and armed practice of the African people of Guinea-Bissau, posed these theoretical questions to Cabral. Here, we see in the core viewpoint of classical African Marxism the unity between theory and practice, a unity whose absence severely weakened Western Marxism. For example, after the 1920s, the collapse of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, the defeat of the Turin workers’ council under the leadership of A. Gramsci, and the failure of the German Revolution led by R. Luxemburg. In Cabral’s view, European imperialism successfully fulfilled its historical mission in African history: expanding class differentiation, accelerating the development of productive forces, and enriching the cultural themes of the African people. One reason for imperialism’s failure was that it did not allow the then-emerging African bourgeoisie to accumulate capital.

在这次演说中，卡布拉尔还试图探索绕过历史发展阶段的过程：非洲社会是否可以绕过资本主义，直接从封建阶段进入社会主义。这个问题与帝国主义在非洲历史中的作用相关。几内亚(比绍)民族解放斗争的性质，以及几内亚(比绍)非洲人民的政治和武装实践，都向卡布拉尔提出了这些理论问题。此处，我们在经典非洲马克思主义的核心观点中看到了理论与实践之间的统一，这个统一的缺失严重削弱了西方马克思主义。例如在20世纪20年代后，匈牙利苏维埃共和国的崩溃、A.葛兰西领导下的都灵工人委员会的失败以及由R.卢森堡(Rosa Luxemburg)领导的德国革命的失败。在卡布拉尔看来，欧洲帝国主义在非洲历史上成功地完成了它的历史使命：扩大阶级分化，加速生产力的发展，以及丰富非洲人民的文化主题。帝国主义失败的原因之一就是不允许当时新兴非洲资产阶级进行资本积累。

To oppose imperialism’s distortion of African history, the national liberation struggle was a necessary political instrument. As Cabral wrote: “The national liberation of a people is the restoration of that people’s historical personality, returning them to the process of history through the destruction of imperialist domination.” In this sense, for Cabral, the national liberation struggle was not only a process of opposing neocolonialism and revitalizing productive forces, but also a revolution. The return of the African people to the history of civilization had the potential effect of eliminating tribalism and overcoming their social and cultural backwardness. Cabral agreed with Fanon on the necessity of using revolutionary violence: using the liberating violence of nationalist forces to counter the criminal violence of imperialist agents. Through the process of armed struggle, the African people continuously developed and cultivated revolutionary consciousness, although revolutionary consciousness varied by class.

为了反对帝国主义对非洲历史的歪曲，民族解放斗争是必要的政治工具。正如卡布拉尔所写的：“一个民族的民族解放就是恢复该民族的历史个性，通过摧毁帝国主义统治使其重返历史进程中”。从这个意义上讲，民族解放斗争对于卡布拉尔来说，不仅是反对新殖民主义和复兴生产力的过程，也是一场革命。非洲人民重返文明历史具有潜在的消除部落主义和克服其社会和文化落后的效果。卡布拉尔同意法农关于使用暴力革命的必要性：用民族主义力量的解放暴力对抗帝国主义代理人的罪恶暴力。通过武装斗争的过程，非洲人民不断发展和培育革命意识，尽管革命觉悟因阶级而异。

The essence of this revolutionary consciousness corresponded to the position of each social stratum within the social structure. It was this understanding of Cabral’s that prompted him to analyze the social structure of Guinea-Bissau. In 1964, at a seminar at the Fanon Center in Milan, Cabral presented a paper titled “Brief Analysis of the Social Structure in Guinea,” which confirmed the status of classical African Marxism. He analyzed the process of structuring African social formations, with neocolonialism as the object of critique, and it was precisely in this historical process that the emergence of an African materialist philosophy was promoted.

这种革命意识的本质与社会各阶层在社会结构中的地位相对应。正是卡布拉尔的这种认识促使他分析了几内亚(比绍)的社会结构。1964年，卡布拉尔在米兰法农中心的一次研讨会上，提出了《几内亚(比绍)社会结构的简要分析》(Brief Analysis of the Social Structure in Guinea)一文确认了经典非洲马克思主义的地位。他分析了非洲社会形态的结构化过程，批判的对象是新殖民主义，正是在这一历史进程中，促使了非洲唯物主义哲学的出现。

Although this article takes the social structure of Guinea-Bissau as its empirical object, its theoretical framework has universal applicability, particularly in Africa. This empirical analysis proves that, long before imperialism invaded the domain of African history, African societies were already in a state of class stratification.

虽然本文以几内亚(比绍)的社会结构为实证对象，但其理论框架具有普遍适用性，特别是在非洲。这种实证分析证明了，早在帝国主义入侵非洲历史领域之前，非洲社会就已处于阶级分层状态。

The entire analysis covers nearly all the ethnically differentiated social geography of Guinea-Bissau. He integrates the historical differences arising from this structure into a complex whole. Cabral specifies the class positions of the following social groups: the nobility, religious figures, artisans, peasants, workers, and chiefs. This specification makes the concept of “class” in the African “feudal mode of production” and the concept of “class” in the capitalist mode of production historically very distinct. Cabral seeks to trace the transformation between the two paradigms. Within the incipient structure of the capitalist mode of production, he proposes the concept of the “declassed person,” which is a problematic category in the feudal order. Cabral reveals the complex social structure of the capitalist colonial order: the formation of the petty bourgeoisie, the meta-morphology of officials (senior officials, middle officials, junior officials), the nature of the declassed (beggars

整个分析几乎涵盖了几内亚(比绍)全部种族分化的社会地理。他将从这种结构中产生的历史差异结合到一个复杂的整体中。卡布拉尔规定了以下社会群体的阶级地位：贵族、宗教人士、工匠、农民、工人和酋长。这种规定使得非洲“封建生产方式”的“阶级”概念和资本主义生产方式的“阶级”概念在历史上有很大的区别。卡布拉尔试图追溯两种范式的转换。在资本主义生产方式的萌芽结构中，他提出了“堕落的人”的概念，这在封建秩序中是一个存在问题的范畴。卡布拉尔揭示了资本主义殖民秩序的复杂社会结构：小资产阶级的形成、官员的元形态(高级官员、中间官员、小官员)、堕落的人的本性(乞丐、妓女、暴民)。正是在这样一个复杂的秩序中，帝国主义干预并带来其它复杂情况：“民族资产阶级的出现和演变”。这种关系模式毫无疑问地证明了非洲历史的存在，一种帝国历史试图挑战和摧毁的存在。

Cabral made a detailed analysis of the racial geography of Guinea-Bissau, with the aim of identifying the various contradictory modes within which the national liberation struggle could unfold. After all, the historical logic behind Cabral’s great thought was to defeat imperial hegemony in African history and to expel imperialism and neocolonialism from the African political landscape. Therefore, within the structure of classical African Marxism, theory is preceded by practice, and theory is also followed by practice. It is in this context that it is necessary to describe in detail the morphological structure of classes. Moreover, only on the basis of the integration of theory and practice could Cabral correct Fanon’s assumption that, during the colonial period, only the peasantry was the revolutionary class, while the proletariat was a privileged class and a reactionary force. Cabral clearly pointed out that the role of the peasantry in the national liberation struggle is that of a material force, which must be distinguished from a historical force. He argued that the peasant class is revolutionary only as a material force opposing colonialism, but not as a historical force, whereas the working class is the revolutionary historical force for realizing the transition from capitalism to socialism.

卡布拉尔对几内亚(比绍)的种族地理作了详尽的分析，其目的是找出民族解放斗争可以在其中展开的各种矛盾模式。毕竟，卡布拉尔伟大思想背后的历史逻辑是为了在非洲历史上挫败帝国霸权，将帝国主义和新殖民主义驱逐出非洲政治版图。因此，在经典非洲马克思主义的结构中，理论的背后是实践，理论之前也是实践。正是在这种背景下，有必要详细地描述类的形态结构。而且，只有在理论和实践相结合的基础上，卡布拉尔才能够纠正法农的假设，即在殖民地时期，只有农民才是革命阶级，而无产阶级则是特权阶级和反动派。卡布拉尔明确指出，农民在民族解放斗争中的作用是物质力量，必须把它同历史力量区别开来。他认为，农民阶级只是作为一种反对殖民主义的物质力量才是革命性的，但不是历史性的力量，而工人阶级才是实现资本主义向社会主义过渡的革命历史力量。

So far, I have emphasized the historical role of classical African Marxism in reconstructing the conceptual forms of social geography and African history, as well as its dialectical relationship with the revolutionary practice of seeking to defeat imperial rule. It can be argued that African materialist philosophy focuses on these issues. But in fact, it is also deeply concerned with a series of other matters, such as the theory of the nature of revolutionary democracy (socialist democracy) as posed in the African context, and the role of the revolutionary party among the masses. I will discuss these issues shortly, as they relate to the future of African socialism. But for now, I want to stress that classical African Marxism encapsulates the dialectical problem of culture: here I will concentrate on Cabral’s contribution.

目前为止，我一直强调经典非洲马克思主义在重建社会地理和非洲历史概念形式方面的历史作用，以及与寻求击败帝国统治的革命实践的辩证关系。可以认为非洲的唯物主义哲学着重关注这些问题。但事实上，它还深切关注其他一系列内容，例如，在非洲背景下提出的革命民主(社会主义民主)的本质理论到革命政党在群众中的作用。我将很快讨论这些问题，因为它们关系到非洲社会主义的未来。但现在我要强调的是，经典非洲马克思主义概括了文化的辩证问题：在这里我将集中讨论卡布拉尔的贡献。

Cabral’s focus on the question of culture and tradition, explored in his essay “National Culture and Liberation,” examines the revolutionary potential of African culture. He argues that the imperialist invasion constituted an act of suppressing the history of different African peoples, and on the cultural level, this invasion was also a form of negating African national culture, in the sense that European culture established hegemony over them. This cultural domination reveals a direct and dialectical relationship between economic exploitation and cultural domination. Cabral holds that culture is an expression of human history, revealing the dialectical unity of humanity and nature. Imperialism attempts to erase the cultural memory of a people’s history. In response, various forms of cultural resistance emerge in the colonized regions. Historically, the prelude to the national liberation struggle is usually the enhanced cultural expressiveness of the dominated nation. As Cabral wrote, “The value of culture as an element of resistance to foreign domination lies in the fact that culture is the vigorous manifestation on the ideological or idealist level of the material and historical reality of the society that is dominated or that is to be dominated.” Cabral’s radical formulation leads him to regard culture not only as an expression of history but as history itself; it is a manifestation of the movement of productive forces. In resisting foreign or imperial cultural domination, the national liberation struggle becomes an act of creating and expanding cultural space.

卡布拉尔聚焦文化与传统的思考，在《民族文化与解放》(National Culture and Liberation)一文中探讨了非洲文化的革命潜力。他认为，帝国主义的入侵构成了压制不同非洲民族历史的行为，同样在文化层面上，这种入侵也是一种否定非洲民族文化的形式，在某种意义上欧洲文化对他们建立了霸权。这种文化统治揭示了经济剥削与文化统治之间的直接和辩证关系。卡布拉尔认为，文化是人类历史的一种表达，揭示了人与自然的辩证统一。帝国主义试图抹去一个民族历史的文化记忆。作为回应，被殖民地区出现了各种形式的文化抵抗。从历史上看，民族解放斗争的前奏通常是被统治民族的文化表现力的增强。正如卡布拉尔所写的那样，“文化作为抵制外国统治的一个要素其价值在于，文化是在被统治或将要被统治的社会的物质和历史现实的意识形态或理想主义层面上的有力表现”。卡布拉尔激进的表述使他认为文化不仅是历史的表达，而且是历史本身，它是生产力运动的表现。在抵制外国或帝国文化统治时，民族解放斗争成为创造和扩大文化空间的行为。

In Cabral’s view, although culture is essentially popular, it is distributed unevenly across the horizontal and vertical dimensions of a social formation, even among individuals within the same social group. It is in this sense that culture is seen not only as historical content but also as an ideological process. In societies characterized by horizontality, culture is more or less evenly distributed, whereas in cultures where verticality predominates, cultural distribution is complex and uneven. When carrying out the national liberation struggle, these historical differences must be taken into account, not only when writing the history of national culture. Where class, race, and ethnicity intertwine, the complexity of cultural distribution becomes even more profound.

在卡布拉尔看来，尽管文化本质上具有大众性，但它在社会形态的横向和纵向上分布不均即使在同一社会群体中的个体之间也是如此。正是在这个意义上，文化不仅被视为历史内容，而且被视为一种意识形态过程。在以横向为特征的社会中，文化或多或少地均匀分布，而在纵向占主导地位的文化中，文化分布是复杂且不均匀的。在开展民族解放斗争时，必须考虑到这些历史差异，而不仅仅是体现在编写民族文化历史的时候。在阶级、种族和民族相互交织的地方，文化分布的复杂性更加深刻。

Beyond the revitalization of African national culture through the national liberation struggle, the transmission of African culture shows that it is itself a historical treasure trove of immense richness. From Carthage, Giza, Zimbabwe, and Meroë to Benin, Ife, Timbuktu, and Kilwa, the cultural transmission demonstrates the continuity of African culture. In the fields of dance, music, oral and written literature, cosmology and religious systems, and philosophy, the universality of African culture should be evident. Given the impact of African cultural expressiveness on the world—from Picasso’s works influenced by the “African mask” to Stravinsky’s borrowing from Scott Joplin’s music—it is necessary to quote Cabral’s useful warning here:

除了通过民族解放斗争振兴非洲民族文化之外，非洲文化的传承表明它本身就是一个极具丰富性的历史宝库。从迦太基、吉萨、津巴布韦和梅罗到贝宁、伊夫、廷巴克图和基尔瓦的文化传承表明了非洲文化的连续性。在舞蹈、音乐、口头和书面文学，宇宙学和宗教体系以及哲学领域，非洲文化的普遍性应该是显而易见的。鉴于非洲文化表现力对世界的影响，从毕加索受“非洲面具”(African mask)影响的创作到斯特拉文斯基(Stravinsky)对S.乔普林(Scott Joplin)音乐的借鉴，这里有必要引用卡布拉尔的这句有益的警示：

But, in the urgent need to make progress, the following attitudes or behaviors are equally harmful to Africa: indiscriminate praise; systematic eulogy of virtues without condemning errors; blind acceptance of cultural values without considering their current or potential regressive elements; confusing what is an objective and material expression of historical reality with what seems to be a creation of the mind or the product of a particular temperament; absurdly linking artistic creation to supposed racial characteristics, whether for good or ill; and finally, unscientific or uncritical evaluation of cultural phenomena.

但是，在迫切需要取得进步的情况下，以下态度或行为对非洲的危害同样是严重的：不分青红皂白的赞扬；系统地颂扬美德而不谴责错误；盲目接受文化的价值观而不考虑它目前或潜在的倒退元素；混淆了什么是客观和物质的历史现实的表达，什么似乎是心灵的创造或特殊气质的产物；无论好坏，都要荒唐地将艺术创作与假定的种族特征联系起来；最后，对文化现象的非科学的或科学的批判性评价。

As Cabral saw it, the task facing Africa today is less one of cultural eulogy than a series of developments on the cultural front; it is the combination of these cultural developments that constitutes the new cultural terrain of the current national liberation struggle.

正如卡布拉尔所看到的那样，今天非洲面临的任务与其说是在文化上颂扬，不如说是文化战线上的一系列发展正是这些文化发展的结合构成了当前民族解放斗争的新文化阵地。

In his essay “Identity and Dignity in the Context of the National Liberation Struggle,” Cabral elucidates the dialectical relationship between culture and tradition. He puts forward a controversial but reasonable view: that imperialism has not only negative but also positive contributions to African culture. On the one hand, the accumulation of capital at the center, plundered from the periphery through the historical system of imperialism, made possible the development of modern science and technology, and also spurred the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Here, Cabral’s argument follows Marx’s famous thesis on the positive and negative instances of capitalism, that is, the dialectic of progress and regression. Capitalism forced countries later classified as the Third World into modern civilization, gradually reducing humanity’s dependence on nature; this is indeed a great historical achievement. On the other hand, because it destroyed great civilizations such as the Aztecs and made it possible for a minority to dominate the majority, capitalism should be destroyed by the forces of socialism, such as African Marxism.

在《民族解放斗争下的身份和尊严》(Identity and Dignity in the Context of the National Liberation Struggle)一文中，卡布拉尔阐明了文化和传统之间的辩证关系。他提出了一个存在争议但具合理性的观点，即帝国主义对非洲文化不仅存在消极影响，也存在积极贡献。一方面，通过帝国主义的历史体系从外围掠夺的资本中心积累，使现代科学技术的发展成为可能，同时也促使了文艺复兴和启蒙运动的出现。此处，卡布拉尔的论证遵循了马克思发展的著名论点，资本主义有其积极和消极的实例，即前进和倒退的辩证法。资本主义迫使后来被列为第三世界的国家步入现代文明，逐步减少了人类对自然的依赖，这确实是一项伟大的历史成就。另一方面，由于它摧毁了阿兹特克等伟大文明，也使少数人占有多数文明成为可能，资本主义应该被社会主义的力量所摧毁，就像非洲马克思主义这样的力量。

On the one hand, imperialism, by studying the dominated countries in order to better exploit them, promoted the expansion of human knowledge in the fields of sociology, history, ethnology, ethnography, and culture. The national liberation struggle, for its part, in order to expel and defeat imperialism and neocolonialism, requires revolutionaries to understand their own society even more deeply; it is this dialectical process that gave rise to the extraordinary brilliance of African Marxism. No work in the entire field of European academic research can compare with the works of Cabral, Fanon, and Nkrumah on the problems of the Third World, let alone works related to Africa. Here, classical African Marxism is clearly a direct product of imperialism, but it is historically destined to annihilate imperialism; it resembles the Hegelian master-slave relationship, which is the essence of materialist dialectics.

一方面，帝国主义通过研究被统治的国家以更好地进行开发，促进了人类在社会学、历史学、民族学、人种学和文化领域知识的扩展。民族解放斗争，就其本身而言，为了驱逐和打败帝国主义和新殖民主义，革命者就必须更进一步了解自己的社会，正是这一辩证过程造就了非洲马克思主义的非凡光辉。整个欧洲学术领域研究中没有任何著作可以与卡布拉尔、法农和恩克鲁玛关于第三世界的问题的著作相提并论，更不用说与非洲有关的著作了。在这里，经典非洲马克思主义显然是帝国主义的直接产物，但它在历史上注定要消灭帝国主义，它类似于黑格尔的主奴关系，这是唯物辩证法的精髓。

On the other hand, although imperialism has indeed had a harmful effect on the ability of the African national bourgeoisie and elite to construct their own cultural identity, it has never managed to penetrate the cultural fabric of the masses of the people. In Cabral’s view, this cultural resistance of the people is one of our great victories as Africans. The cultural influence of colonialism and neocolonialism is limited to a small segment of the population, but unfortunately, with the support of imperialism and its agents, this elite rules nearly all neocolonial states. The cultural crisis in Africa today is a crisis of the bourgeois elite stratum, not a crisis of the popular masses, no matter how economically and culturally dominated they may be by this depleted elite stratum. One of the central tasks of classical African Marxism is to achieve the hegemony of a national culture, replacing the servile, false, and slavish elite culture.

另一方面，虽然帝国主义确实对非洲民族资产阶级和精英建立自己的文化认同的能力产生了有害影响，但它从未设法渗透到人民群众的文化结构中。在卡布拉尔看来，人民的这种文化抵抗是我们作为非洲人的伟大胜利之一。殖民主义和新殖民主义的文化影响仅限于一小部分人，但不幸的是，在帝国主义及其代理人的支持下，这些精英统治着几乎所有的新殖民主义国家。今天非洲的文化危机是资产阶级精英阶层的危机，而不是人民大众的危机，无论他们在经济和文化上如何被这个枯竭的精英阶层所支配。经典非洲马克思主义的中心任务之一是实现一个民族文化的领导权，取代奴役的、虚假的和奴性的精英文化。

While forming cultural resistance against imperialist cultural penetration, the popular masses also construct individual and collective identities. During the national liberation struggle, this individual and collective identity was historically realized through material practice. Cabral made a useful distinction, to a large extent, between original identity, determined by biological factors, and actual identity, whose primary determinants are sociological. In both forms of identification, the dialectic of race and class plays an important role. In the former, the racial factor is dominant, while in the latter, the concept of class is the decisive factor. The historical mission of the national liberation movement in struggle is to consolidate the actual identity of the popular masses. The forging or restoration of a people’s actual identity, particularly its cultural form, stands in a dialectical relationship with the restoration of a non-exploitative social structure. For this identity can only fully emerge on the basis of a dialectically harmonious social structure, and the purpose of the actual identity of the majority is to attain supreme dignity.

人民群众在形成对帝国主义文化渗透的文化抵抗的同时，也建构了个人和集体的身份认同。在民族解放斗争期间，这种个人和集体认同在历史上是通过物质实践来实现的。卡布拉尔在很大程度上对由生物学因素决定的原始身份和主要决定因素是社会学的实际身份之间做了有益区分。在这两种形式的识别中，种族和阶级的辩证法都起到了重要作用。前者，种族因素占主导地位，而后者，阶级概念才是决定性因素。民族解放运动在斗争中的历史使命是巩固人民群众的实际身份。一个民族的实际身份的锻造或恢复，特别是其文化形式，与非剥削性社会结构的恢复有着辩证关系。因为这种身份只有在辩证和谐的社会结构的基础上才能充分出现，而大多数人的实际身份的目的是获得至高无上的尊严。

Expelling the aggression and penetration of imperialism and colonialism into African history cannot be fully accomplished by the spontaneity of the masses. Therefore, classical African Marxism had to construct a system of civilization that would become the embodiment of the people’s will. It is in this context that this materialist philosophy of history theorized the concept of the Party in the African context. Furthermore, the classical Marxism of Cabral and Fanon had to formulate and implement forms of revolutionary democracy. From Algeria, Angola, and Guinea-Bissau to Mozambique, all the different forms of African revolution were not led by a party in the Leninist sense, but by national fronts, although these national fronts later, more or less, transformed into parties in the Leninist sense. Even the Ethiopian Revolution, perhaps the only revolution in 20th-century Africa in the classical Marxist sense, and one driven largely by internal class contradictions rather than directly by foreign rule, deemed it necessary to establish a party after the victory of the revolution. The concept of the Party emerged while these organizations were still national fronts, just as the African National Congress is a national front. In his Havana lecture “The Weapon of Theory,” Cabral emphasized that the concept of the Party or the single party is specific to African historical conditions and cannot be confused with the European concept of the Party.

驱逐帝国主义和殖民主义者对非洲历史的侵略和渗透，这是群众的自发性所不能完全实现的。因此，经典非洲马克思主义不得不建构一种文明体系，这将成为人民意志的体现。正是在这种情况下，这种唯物主义的历史哲学则把非洲语境中党的概念理论化了。此外，卡布拉尔和法农的经典马克思主义必须制定并实施革命民主的形式。从阿尔及利亚、安哥拉和几内亚比绍到莫桑比克，所有不同形式的非洲革命都不是由列宁主义意义上的政党领导的，而是由民族阵线领导的，尽管这些民族阵线后来或多或少地转为了列宁主义意义上的政党。即使是埃塞俄比亚革命，也许是非洲20世纪唯一的经典马克思主义意义层面上的革命，在很大程度上也是由内部阶级矛盾而不是直接由外国统治所推动的革命，也认为在革命胜利后有必要建立一个政党。政党的概念在这些组织仍然是民族阵线的时候就产生了，就像非洲人国民大会是一个民族阵线一样。在哈瓦那的《理论武器》讲演中，卡布拉尔强调，党或一党的概念是非洲历史条件所特有的，不能与欧洲的政党概念相混淆。

In 1965, Cabral delivered a series (nine lectures) widely known as “Party Principles and Political Practice” for cadres of the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde, in which he elucidated certain Marxist principles of the Party in the African context. First, the Party must embody unity in struggle; by unity, Cabral meant the unification of various positions to achieve specific goals. By struggle, he meant opposition to imposed hegemonism, a process of acquiring knowledge to intervene in social reality. In the colonial context, this principle refers to the unity and struggle of different classes against imperial rule; in the neocolonial context, it specifically refers to class struggle. In other words, unity and struggle together form a process of overcoming social-historical contradictions. Second, for unity and struggle, the Party must understand the fundamental nature of the social reality in which its practice intervenes. This historical reality is a unity of culture, society, economy, and politics. Third, the Party’s leadership must be led by people who align with the interests of the masses, political leaders comparable to revolutionary intellectuals. Fourth, there must be independent thought and action within the Party. Fifth, the Party itself must faithfully implement these principles, meaning Party members should reject all forms of opportunism. Finally and most importantly, the Party must establish revolutionary democracy. Cabral wrote:

1965年，卡布拉尔为非洲几内亚(比绍)和佛得角独立党(African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde)的干部作了一系列(九次)被广泛称为“政党原则和政治实践”的讲座，他在非洲背景下阐明了政党的某些马克思主义原则。第一，党要体现团结斗争，卡布拉尔所说的团结，就是通过统一各种立场以实现特定的目标。他所说的斗争是指反对强加的霸权主义，是为获取知识以介入社会现实的过程。在殖民地语境中，这一原则指不同阶级在反对帝国统治时的团结和斗争；在新殖民主义的语境下，它特指阶级斗争。换言之，团结和斗争共同形成了一个克服社会历史矛盾的过程。第二，为了团结和斗争，党必须了解其实践所介入的社会现实的根本性质。这一历史现实是文化、社会、经济和政治的统一。第三，党的领导必须由符合群众利益的人领导，是同革命知识分子相媲美的政治领袖。第四，党内要有独立的思想和行动。第五，党本身要忠实地执行这些原则，这意味着党员应该拒绝一切形式的机会主义。最后也是最重要的，即党必须建立革命民主制。卡布拉尔写道：

As I have said, we must constantly advance, placing power in the hands of our people, profoundly changing the lives of the people, even placing all means of defense in the hands of the people, so that the people can become the defenders of our revolution, this is the revolutionary democracy of our country tomorrow.

正如我所说，我们必须不断前进，把权力交到我们人民的手中，使人民的生活发生深刻的改变，甚至把一切防卫手段交到人民手中，这样人民才能成为捍卫是我们革命的人民，这就是我们国家明天的革命民主。

In short, a unique historical goal of classical African Marxism is the realization of revolutionary democracy.

简言之，经典非洲马克思主义的一个独有的历史目标是实现革命民主。

To sum up, classical African Marxism is not only a product of the African revolution but also, at the level of theorization, an embodiment of the unity of theory and practice. This materialist philosophy has fundamentally reshaped the history of the African continent, and its main objective is the unyielding defeat of the neocolonialism that currently rules Africa. Classical African Marxism can achieve complete victory only when it expels the new form of imperialism, namely neocolonialism, from Africa, just as classical Pan-Africanism achieved complete victory when it expelled classical colonialism. After fulfilling this historical mission, classical Pan-Africanism lost its historical significance and was replaced by classical African Marxism. After defeating neocolonialism, classical African Marxism will lose its historical legitimacy. The same is true of Marxism itself: once it achieves victory in the workers’ movement and in political and economic power worldwide, it will disappear from history. It may then still exist as an ideology, just as Christianity exists today as an ideology, rather than as a living philosophy.

综上所述，经典非洲马克思主义不仅是非洲革命的产物，在理论化环节也是理论与实践统一的体现。这种唯物主义哲学从根本上重塑了非洲大陆的历史，它的主要目标是不屈不挠地打败当今在非洲实行统治的新殖民主义。经典非洲马克思主义只有将新形式的帝国主义即新殖民主义从非洲驱逐出去时才能获得彻底的胜利，正如古典泛非主义在驱逐古典殖民主义的时候取得彻底的胜利一样。在实现这一历史使命后，古典泛非主义失去了它的历史意义，被经典非洲马克思主义所取代。在击败新殖民主义之后，经典非洲马克思主义将失去其历史合法性。马克思主义也同样如此，一旦在工人运动中，在世界各地的政治和经济权力上取得胜利，它就会从历史上消失。那时它仍然可能是一种意识形态，就像基督教今天是一种意识形态，而不是作为一种活的哲学。

The historical task of classical African Marxism remains unfinished: it still needs to theorize the series of revolutions that erupted on the African continent in the 1970s. What is their socialist orientation? What should the form of African socialist democracy be today? Given the intractable problem of nationalism, is it possible to achieve the political and economic unity of this continent? Can this African philosophy of history grasp and withstand the coming storm of revolution in South Africa? Due to the nature of these questions, classical African Marxism is still in its infancy and must be expanded and deepened by resolute African Marxists. (Notes omitted.)

经典非洲马克思主义的历史任务仍未完成：它仍需将20世纪70年代在非洲大陆爆发的一系列革命进行理论阐释。 它们的社会主义方向是什么? 当下非洲社会主义民主的形式应该是什么?考虑到棘手的民族主义问题，它是否有可能实现这个大陆的政治和经济统一?这种非洲历史哲学能否把握并经受住即将到来的南非革命风暴?由于这些问题的性质，经典非洲马克思主义仍然处于起步阶段，必须由坚定的非洲马克思主义者进行扩展和深化。（注释略）

(Author’s bio: N. Masilela (Ntongela Masilela, 1948–2020), renowned South African historian and Marxist, Professor Emeritus at Pitzer College, Claremont, California, USA. Translator’s affiliation: Center for African Marxist Studies, Zhejiang Normal University.)

（作者简介：N.马西莱拉(Ntongela Masilela,1948—2020),南非著名历史学家和马克思主义者，美国加利福尼亚州克莱蒙特皮策学院名誉教授。译者单位： 浙江师范大学非洲马克思主义研究中心）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑