Revolution Is All About Building…And Destroying Too
Introduction
Many people are confused by the term “Revolution”; they do not understand the depth and seriousness of the concept. But who could blame them? The term itself is used so lightly in capitalist ads and media that people don’t understand the process that “revolution” implies. Even worse, many people are afraid of the term “revolution” or being referred to as “revolutionary.” Here again, we can see the effect of years of counterrevolutionary and imperialist counterinsurgency propaganda that makes people associate revolution solely with naked violence, destruction, and failure. Consequently, it is of utmost importance for us to provide some clarification regarding what revolution is and why we understand it to be the only solution for the betterment of the living conditions of African people and humanity in general. The Eternal Revolutionary Pan-Africanist fighter Kwame Ture, when discussing the difference between a revolutionary movement and a reform movement, once said that the most important objective of Revolution is building, not destroying. So, we will use his analogy of building a house and explore it in-depth to explain the nature of revolution and the process that it implies. This analogy will also help us explore the various principles of the revolutionary Pan-Africanist ideology, such as dialectical materialism, humanism, collectivism, scientific socialism, and the necessity for positive action.
By looking at the revolution as the process of building a new house in place of an existing house, we specify early on that our revolutionary struggle is a materialist one. In other words, the struggle we are engaged in is to transform our concrete material reality and to improve the living conditions of our people. While we understand the importance and necessity of the struggle for ideas, we know that what will ultimately decide the outcome of the battle is the direct clash with the enemy. And as revolutionary Amilcar Cabral said, “Always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone's head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children”. So, when we talk about building a new house, we are referring to something that solves concrete problems (provides shelter, protection from bad weather, etc.), just like revolution solves concrete problems (housing, health, education, etc.).
Problem Of The Old House To Solve
To dive into our analogy, let’s imagine a house that is about to crumble due to its rotten foundations. You may not know when exactly it will crumble, but there is no doubt that it will collapse. Not only are the foundations rotten, but they keep getting weaker. One can even be tempted to speculate that maybe one more wind or one more bad storm, and everything will collapse. Each time the house goes through terrible weather without being carried, it is a surprise and a miracle.
Now, let's say you want to solve this problem of the old house. What do you think is the best approach? Do you think that changing the color of the house (repainting) will resolve the issue? Do you think that adding a new window, a new door, or even a new room will change the issue? Do you think that inviting new people or kicking out existing people will change the fundamental issue?
Obviously, No. As Kwame Ture clearly suggested, those approaches enumerated are simply remodeling; they are reforms. They do not address the root cause of the problem (rotten foundations). They may not even delay the process of the collapse of the house. The best they can do is to fool the people living in the house with some false sense of security. One can even add that the proponent of these reformist approaches will claim that it is the most practical and pragmatic. But what is pragmatic about increasing the number of rooms and people in a house that has rotten foundations? What is practical about bringing new furniture into a house that can collapse at any time? What does it change materially to have a chandelier in the living room if it will eventually shatter into pieces like everything else? At the bottom of these reformist approaches lies individualism, which highlights an inability to think long-term and to consider all the people who also would benefit from resolving the problem. There is also some laziness and a lack of concern about the seriousness of the problem of an old house.
What interests us is revolution. In fact, we can say with confidence that the best and only solution to this house problem is to destroy the house and its rotten foundations. We can say with no doubt that the only solution is to build a completely new house. The old house is unfit and unable to meet our needs now, and certainly won’t meet our needs in the future, because it will collapse. The only solution is to build a new house. The new house must be built on a stronger foundation. It must be built on new and higher principles. So, for that, we must learn and study from the old house why its foundations collapsed and make sure we don’t repeat similar mistakes. It is not enough to simply rebuild the old house; we must build a better house.
It is important to clarify a couple more things about how we have come to the conclusion that the old house must be destroyed. First, there is a dialectic relationship between building and destroying. You cannot do one without seriously considering the other. For instance, you cannot destroy something unless it has been built before; otherwise, the endeavor is already condemned to failure. In other words, you cannot end something that has no beginning, at least not in the physical world. In fact, by destroying something, you confirm that it has been built. Similarly, you cannot build something that cannot be destroyed. The very process of putting a brick on top of another implies that the process can be undone. And to build a new thing, you must first destroy the old one. In this dialectical pair of building and destroying, building is, of course, the principal component. Indeed, there is a time in the process of building when it will be harder to destroy. When the cement dries, there will be a qualitative change that will make it harder to destroy. Nevertheless, there will still be a possibility of destroying, even if it is infinitely small.
We also need to clarify that, in the case of the house problem, we did not decide to destroy just because we wanted to destroy for the sake of destroying. We are not obsessed with destroying houses. No, we would rather have an internal dynamic and understanding of the necessity for a new house. However, since our problem is a material one, we are simply applying a basic rule of the material world in nature: “no two things can be in the same place at the same time”. We cannot physically (at least in the material reality) build a new house with new foundations unless we destroy the old house. The destruction of the old house is simply a part of the process, not an end. It is a means that is necessary for us to start building a new house. We cannot run from that eventuality, because otherwise we will be remodeling. Moreover, we cannot reach the foundations unless we destroy everything that is on top of them. Still, the main objective we have is to build a new house. Destroying is the easy part. Building is the harder and longer part of the process, because by building you are also, in a way, justifying why you destroyed in the first place. You will have to keep building to confirm that the new house was indeed better than the previous one.
Connection To Revolution
Now, let’s map this analogy to our discussion of revolution. The old house here is the current system that prevails in the world and occupies our lands. The old house is the imperialist-neocolonialist capitalist system that has underdeveloped, exploited, and subjugated our people. Its foundations in genocidal expeditions, capital expansion, profit seeking, individualism, liberalism, and exploitation are rotten. These foundations are threatening anything that is under the domination of this system. For instance, the capitalist brutal and unethical exploitation of the natural resources of the Earth has led to the climate catastrophe that is already significantly impacting the lives of most people in the world. These foundations are obsolete; no system can prevail through exploitation. Given that human beings are social beings, individualism has also shown its inability to ensure the reproduction and maintenance of human beings.
This is the problem at hand, and every conscious person in the world has the responsibility to address it. For African people, the problem is even worse because in the global distribution of labor, Africa has been condemned to be solely a place for the exploitation of raw material. The current imperialist-neocolonialist capitalist system was never designed to meet the needs of the African masses. It only sees Africa as a source of cheap labor, a taken-for-granted market, and a land to ruthlessly plunder. As Africans, the question of solving this problem of the old house is an inescapable one.
As discussed in the case of building the house, reformist approaches are inadequate to solve the problem due to the current imperialist-neocolonialist capitalist system. Trying to adjust and fix the current imperialist-neocolonialist capitalist system is a useless, if not completely stupid, approach. Having more African capitalists will not solve the problem. Making capitalism fairer is basically impossible because its foundations are exploitation and growing social inequalities. Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah said that the essence of reform is to combine a continuity of a fundamental principle with a tactical change in the manner of expression of the fundamental principle. In other words, reformists' approaches do not bring any meaningful solution. Moreover, any reforms can also be overruled and removed anytime, just like the old paint can be put back on the house. Therefore, only an anti-capitalist revolution can permanently solve the problem caused by capitalism.
Need To Destroy The Old Foundations -The Ideological Struggle
This revolution will destroy all the foundations and principles of capitalism and will build a new system. For instance, the private ownership of the means of production must be destroyed, and a new system based on collective ownership must be implemented. Such a system, a socialist system, will be built on new principles and new foundations.
The destruction of the principles is a necessary step, if not a defining one. Indeed, failing to do so amounts to a compromise. As Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah said, “a compromise of principles is an abandonment of principles”. So new principles must be implemented. Moreover, the struggle to remove capitalism has a materialist basis, meaning that the law that “two things cannot be in the same place at the same time” still applies. So, during the revolutionary struggle, there is a serious effort to destroy all the principles of the old system. Capitalist individualism, liberalism, racism, and sexism must be combatted mercilessly.
This challenge of principles must happen seriously in the ideological arena. Revolutionary consciousness must be developed in diametrical opposition to the mindset and personality that dominate in the imperialist-neocolonialist capitalist society. Keeping the materialist basis in mind, we add that the revolutionary consciousness can only arise from practical struggle. As President Sékou Touré said, “Without revolutionary consciousness, there is no Revolution. History teaches us it is created and developed through ideological education and revolutionary practice.” Furthermore, the ideological struggle must also be directed to the structures, institutions, and tools that the system uses to exploit, dominate, and subjugate the people. Without this serious destruction of the principles of the system, any action will be at best a reform. Similarly to the house situation, the main objective remains building the new system.
When Kwame Ture says that revolution is mainly building, he means that what should characterize our struggle is not only the destruction of capitalism, but more the building of a new, free, and united society. This is a very logical position that can be demonstrated historically. If the Africans are only concerned about freeing themselves from slavery and not knowing what to do afterward, the Master can just change his tactics, rename it, and keep exploiting the Africans. If the Africans only want to end colonialist domination with no idea what to do when the colonizers remove their boots from Africa’s necks, the colonizers can just change their tactics, come with a smiling face, and set up some puppets.
For those of us concerned about revolution and building a new society, we can’t get too confused with the destruction part and forget that we must build. Even on the ideological ground, it is not enough to just say that we reject capitalist ideologies. We need to confirm that by learning, embodying, and practicing revolutionary ideology. For this reason, we must always clarify our objectives and our goals. Of course, if we are serious about it, we will understand that the destruction part, i.e., the confrontation and the struggle of annihilation of the old system, is a necessary step and integral part of the process of building.
Need To Study And Learn From The Old
We said that a new system must be built on stronger foundations. To do so, we must study the old system and understand why its foundations are prone to collapse. We must do a deep analysis of the old system and understand how it moves so that not only do we know how to destroy it, but also how to build a new system on higher principles. In the revolution, serious analysis and study must be permanent and an integral part of the struggle. Permanent and consistent political education must characterize our work, so that the struggle can help to advance humanity. The goal of the revolution must be to improve the lives of people, to advance humanity politically, economically, socially, culturally, and morally. The principles on which we build must be positive and higher than those of the imperialist-neocolonialist capitalist system.
One illustration of this is regarding the fight against hetero-patriarchy as an essential part of the revolutionary pan-Africanist struggle. Women’s exploitation, subjugation, and domination are integral to the imperialist-neocolonialist capitalist system and worldview. They arise from class struggle and are heightened in the colonial and neo-colonial context. So, the struggle for revolutionary Pan-Africanism is logically a merciless struggle against hetero-patriarchy and its related negative manifestations. The principles of our struggle must be higher than those of capitalism and help advance humanity. Humanity cannot advance if more than half of its population is triply oppressed (based on nationality/race, gender, and class). A practical implication of that understanding will be found in the cultural revolution that is integral and essential to the revolutionary pan-Africanist struggle. While this cultural revolution seeks to promote, celebrate, and enrich African culture, it must deal without pity and mercy with any backward, retrograde, or dehumanizing practices and taboos against African Women.
Our efforts must be to build the new system on such stronger foundations that it can last longer than the previous system. Hence, the importance of political education, which can only come from active and practical work in the struggle to defeat capitalism and build a socialist system.
Who Should Be Concerned About Building A New House?
To continue our analogy of building the house, a few questions still need to be addressed. First, who should be concerned about building the new house or wanting to solve the problem with the old house?
To start with, the first person who would seriously want to resolve the house problem is the owner of the house. The owner of the house has all to gain in building a new house, because they don’t have any other option as the house is their only shelter. Even though they would have some reluctance to bring about radical change because of being too attached to the old house, the owner would still want to improve at least the situation of the house. In comparison to revolution, this answer reflects the responsibility of the indigenous people to fight for a better system on their land. For instance, the Indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere are the rightful caretakers of that land and have all to gain in overthrowing the barbaric capitalist system that has polluted the water, decimated forests, and exterminated the animals. Similarly, the Palestinian people are totally entitled to wage their just struggle, by any means necessary, to defeat Zionism and settler-colonialism and free their land from imperialism. In the context of the African revolution, Malcolm X always said that “Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality”. In other words, given that the African revolutionaries claim Africa as their rightful land and the basis of our struggle, we have the responsibility to overthrow any structure and system that deprives us of accessing our land or that destroys our land.
Another way to answer the question of who would want to solve the problem with the old house is to look at the people living in the basement of the house, or those who do not fully enjoy the benefits of the house. These people will be the first ones to feel the collapse of the house, and they will be the first ones to get hit by the cold when the heating system fails. These are the people who do not need more explanation to understand the necessity to build a new house. They will take any opportunity to ease their plight, even if it means destroying the house.
These are the oppressed sectors of society, the working class under the weight of capitalism, the colonized masses at the mercy of the crisis of imperialism. The example of the climate catastrophe illustrates this perfectly when the poor populations of Madagascar or Mozambique are displaced or left homeless after a series of floods and typhoons. While no one will be ultimately spared when the house collapses, the privileged class still has more safety nets and contingency plans. The oppressed masses are condemned to suffer the consequences of the exploitative and unplanned nature of the system. Hence, they are the most revolutionary faction of the people, the ones that have nothing to lose by their chains. In the case of the African people, subjected to the most vicious forms of exploitation of imperialism, subject to destabilization and wars, the most oppressed sectors are the most revolutionary. No need to clarify that the puppets or the reactionary sections of the petit bourgeoisie are not of interest here. Most of them constitute what President Sékou Touré called the Anti-people class whose interests are either to hijack the desire of the people for revolution, or to replace the oppressor in exploiting the people. Unless the individuals from this Petit bourgeois class kill their own class interest and fully identify with the masses of the oppressed Africans, they will be a danger to the revolution.
On a side note, in the case of the people receiving only the crumbs from the house, they may have a legitimate decision or intuition to simply leave the house. We leave this possibility open.
On this list of people with interests in solving the problem of the house, we can also add any human being of goodwill and empathy. However, no faith or hope should be put in these people, because there is nothing that would force them to carry out the struggle to completion. In the worst case, they will claim to be the ultimate savior and the only one to be able to build a new house. While their contribution should be properly studied and analyzed, especially if they have a history of successfully solving their own house problem, caution must be taken in the application of their recommendations. Any action to resolve the problem of the house must be based on the historical material reality of the people in the house, and it must be spearheaded by the people who will live in the house. We see the importance of emphasizing this point because in the African context, the African masses have the ultimate responsibility to overthrow capitalism and build a new socialist society. We must learn from the experience of other people, for example, the Cubans, the Chinese, or the Vietnamese, but a Free, United Socialist Africa will only be built by the effort of the organized and conscious masses of Africans.
Here again, we see a particularity of the African context that confirms to us that the victory of the African revolution is inevitable: African people, through the forces of history and imperialism, are found on the continent (inside the house) and outside the continent (outside the house). Hence, the pan-African nature of the African revolution activates a wide range of people, bringing all types of perspectives that can only accelerate our march forward to victory. This does not, in any case, reject the possibility and necessity for establishing alliances and partnerships with other Free or oppressed people of the world.
Necessity To Have A Plan
Before we conclude, let us touch on an important feature of building a house, namely the strategy for the construction, in other words, the plans of the work. Discussing the plans is crucial because it highlights once more the materialist nature of the work. If we disregard completely the factor of time in the plans, we might as well say that it is impossible to build a new house altogether. By plans, we mean the sequence of events or steps in the destruction and building of the house. In other words, what is our strategy to achieve the solution we are presenting? What are the priorities in the specific conditions we are in now? Demystifying these aspects of the work would allow us to properly present our program and garner support.
Some may say that any discussion of the plans of the revolution does not consider the fact that a revolution is a long process, and everything cannot happen as planned. We argue against such a simplistic objection by saying that having a strategy and a plan reiterates the fact that we are engaged in a protracted struggle.
The very fact of having a strategy and a plan is what makes the difference between a spontaneous mobilization and a serious organization. Who has ever built a house without proper planning? How do you know how many materials and resources you will need? How do you know how much labor power and time you will need? The same applies to revolution. Not having a plan and trusting in a good wind to come is even contradictory with one of the purposes of the revolutionary struggle, which is to make the oppressed masses conscious agent of their history. Moreover, the lack of strategy opens the door to opportunists and reactionaries who might as well use the movement to worsen the situation in the house.
On the contrary, proper organization will ensure an inevitable victory. As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War that times and seasons are among the five constant factors that govern the art of war. In other words, understanding when, how, and for how long to engage in certain actions is a crucial and often decisive part of the struggle. In the context of the African revolution, the organization of the African masses must be of a scientific nature, so that the analysis of previous actions is always used to inform future actions. Hence, the time factor in the plans means that we can anticipate and prepare what must be done next based on what we have already done. At the same time, this scientific rigor prevents us from fooling ourselves into believing that we can predict exactly everything that will happen. The scientific nature of our ideology will ensure that we constantly study the success and failure of our plans and correct our analysis, so that we can devise even better actions firmly grounded in our uncompromising principles. We are even tempted to say that people who reject outrightly any planning in the revolutionary struggle, hence any discussion about the timeline, are afraid or unwilling to do the not-so-exciting task of seriously evaluating and correcting the course of their actions. Any such people may become a brake to the forward march of the people.
First Phase Of The Process- Demolition
When discussing the strategy for the construction, we are looking at the two main phases of the work, namely the demolition and the building part. During the demolition portion, an effective strategy is to devote two-thirds of the efforts to destroy the house, while using the remaining efforts to construct temporary structures. The role of these temporary structures is to prevent a situation where if the all house is brought down, the people are simply left outside with no shelter, at the mercy of any rain or storm. The temporary structures should never be understood as the final structures, because they cannot meet all the needs of the people. Hence, only a third of the energy must be put into them.
In the context of the revolution, for example, in the struggle to take state power, this would mean building alternative schools, food programs, and community safety programs that would give a shelter to the people as they are fighting to overthrow the existing system. These alternative programs, sometimes called “dual power”, are also spaces for experimentation with the visions of the revolutionaries. For example, these are spaces to try out the new pedagogical method of the revolutionaries or to experiment with socialist economic planning. The Black Panther Party called them “survival programs” because they would make sure that the basic needs of the people were met as they were preparing or engaging in the revolutionary struggle. In some cases, these programs must be total creations and not simply a substitute for old systems. For example, PAIGC revolutionaries established schools and clinics in liberated areas where Portuguese fascism and colonialism had failed to train even a single African doctor.
While these programs constitute important elements in the winning strategy, they should not be seen as the end in themselves. We should not be too focused on them that we forget to keep destroying the system. We should not forget that our struggle is based on the scientific law that two things cannot be in the same place at the same time. This will be confirmed by the struggle that the existing system will carry against those alternative programs. The oppressors will actively and cowardly try to discredit, sabotage, and destroy any program that the people try to put in place. As President Sékou Touré said, “If the enemy is not doing anything to you, you are not doing anything”. So, we must understand that the very existence of those alternative programs imposes on us the necessity to continue the struggle. We must constantly highlight the primary objective of our work.
Unfortunately, some people who call themselves revolutionary get lost in focusing on these alternative programs that they become very attached to them, to the point that they hijack the entire struggle by reducing the objectives to the alternative programs. In the best-case scenario, these so-called revolutionaries can sustain these isolated programs for a reasonable time. At best, they should not claim the title of being revolutionaries and clearly refer to themselves as a charity group or NGO group, especially if they have no prospect of overthrowing the existing system.
Here, we don’t say that people should look for trouble in an unconscious, opportunistic, or unstrategic manner. We simply mean that if those alternative programs are really inscribed in the larger goal of overthrowing the system, they will inevitably attract repression and resistance. In turn, this repression and resistance will motivate and encourage the revolutionaries to continue the work and the struggle to defeat the system.
An example would be the setting up of a health distribution center as a survival program. The goal of defeating the murderous capitalist health system must never be forgotten. The people involved in the center may originally have that objective, but as time goes on, they may get grants, funding, and donations to grow their project. They may see serious improvement among their community, but if they forget the principal struggle, they may become too comfortable in their health distribution center. This mistake will be very fatal, because when the system decides to attack the center, the people will be too busy trying to maintain the existence of the center that they will not address the bigger picture.
As a compromise, the system may back down, give some concessions, and use the health center as an excuse for not meeting the needs of the people. A practical manifestation of that phenomenon is the proliferation of NGOs and Non-profit organizations in Africa on the payroll of Western aid. Neocolonialist African States may see that as an opportunity for not meeting their responsibility in terms of providing basic services to the people. Consequently, the structural problem will not be solved, and we will be back to square zero. While support or survival programs are important, the most crucial thing remains the Struggle. The struggle must be carried on all fronts, with the most important one being the active front to defeat the enemy.
Here we see the dialectical nature of our analysis on display again. In this first phase of the struggle, that of destruction, there is already some building involved. However, the important thing in this phase remains the destruction of the system. Much of our effort must be to bring the house down, but we can only do that with firm resolution and determination if we know that we have a support infrastructure in place that has our back. Given that this is the nature of a protracted struggle and that all the fronts must be considered, there must be an effective and serious level of organization to carry out the struggle. “Organization decides everything” cannot be overemphasized too much.
Transition To The Send Phase-Building
The more the house is destroyed, the more the need for building will arise and dominate. After the transition to the second phase of the struggle, the one where building must take two-thirds of the effort, the strategy must evolve. New foundations for the new house will be established, the new first floor, the new kitchen, or the new roof. The alternative structures will be abandoned progressively and will be destroyed. They might as well be used as a model for the new rooms or the new floors. Overall, this phase will consist of consolidating the gains and the success from the previous phase. In the revolution, the new structures of society will be put into place. Using lessons from the survival programs and experiments before taking power, the revolutionaries will be able to properly inaugurate the new reality.
In this phase, the struggle will continue because constant effort must be made to demonstrate that the new house is better than the old one. Otherwise, dissatisfaction and frustration may develop, either genuine or externally manufactured, and this may complicate the effort to charter a new path forward.
Conclusion
In the African revolution, we know that the building phase can only be successful if inscribed in a revolutionary Pan-Africanist framework and ideology. Only the total liberation and unification of Africa under scientific socialism will allow the African masses to properly build a new system, to enjoy the resources of their land, and to contribute positively to the advancement of humanity. In this revolutionary struggle, the masses of African people must be consciously and seriously organized.
Together, armed with our revolutionary ideology, determined to overthrow imperialism/neocolonialism and to build a new Pan-African society, let us fulfill the responsibility of our generation.
We know that the journey to victory will be long and tortuous, but we will keep fighting and resisting until the end.
