To suggest that Fanon could have a ‘Leninist’ moment is not to join a long line of people attempting to claim Fanon as their own. Of course, Lenin’s revolutionary theory differed in important ways from Fanon: they were influenced by different thinkers and they existed in different contexts. What this debate piece will argue is that both revolutionaries shared a common concern for the importance of strategy and that Fanon is directly influenced by Lenin’s discussion of the labour aristocracy of imperialist countries and the national bourgeoisie of colonised countries. Both Macey (2012) and Gordon (2015) state that Fanon breaks from orthodox Marxism; Hudis (2015) argues that Fanon should be considered a Marxist Humanist; Zeilig (2016) highlights ways in which Fanon was influenced by Marxism but explains how Fanon’s repulsion at the positions taken by the French Communist Party (PCF) halted this process. The publishing of Fanon’s book collection should dispel the myth that Fanon did not engage seriously with Marxist theory. The collection contains numerous works by Marx and Engels, Lenin and Mao (Fanon 2015) among others.1 Cherki (2006, 16) suggests that Fanon read the young Marx, Trotsky and Lenin while studying in Lyon. Certainly, those who favour the idea that Fanon rejects Marxism outright will find the following sentence in The wretched of the earth hard to explain: ‘Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial question’ (Fanon 1961, 31).2 Fanon’s support for Sartre’s Critique of dialectical reason volume 1, a book that attempts to make a Marxist analysis of Stalinism, would be difficult to explain by those who want to separate Fanon and Marxism.3 If Fanon’s relationship with Marxism is still contested, his relationship to the ideas of Lenin is largely ignored in the literature. The wretched of the earth mentions Marx, directly references Engels and Sartre, but does not mention Lenin. Does this rule out the influence of Lenin on Fanon’s ideas? The book was dictated, like Fanon’s other books, with the added difficult circumstances that the author was dying. It only contains five non-medical references, and ideas are mentioned without academic referencing, for example Marx’s concept of the lumpenproletariat. Fanon has undoubtedly been influenced by ideas that he does not directly mention, most notably Kojève's lectures on Hegel (Mercier 2016) and De Beauvoir’s The second sex (Gordon 2015, 47), both found in his library collection (Fanon 2015). Fanon’s hostility to the PCF as a self-proclaimed ‘Leninist’ party could be a probable reason for this omission. Similarly, a reluctance to be associated with members of the dissolved Algerian Communist Party (that became part of the National Liberation Front, FLN) may be another. Regardless of possible motivations, this debate piece will argue that Fanon has a similar conception of strategy to Lenin and that he was directly influenced by Lenin’s ideas on social class.
Going beyond Manichaeism
The wretched of the earth begins with the ‘Manichean world’ (Fanon 1961, 31) of colonialism. This world is divided into two zones, the zones of the settler and of the native. Between the two, no ‘conciliation is possible’ (30). Fanon portrays the life-or-death struggle between settler and native, in which the native seeks to take the place of the settler. In European capitalist countries the education system, counsellors and ‘bewilderers’ ‘separate the exploited from those in power’ (29), while in the colonised country there are no intermediaries, just the army and the police, violence against counter-violence. The Manichean division of the people versus colonialism gives way to a complex of class divisions within the native population itself expressing differing interests in the fight against colonialism. As Fanon points out:
the people who at the beginning of the struggle had adopted the primitive Manichaeism of the settler – black and whites, Arabs and Christians – realize as they go along that it sometimes happens that you get blacks who are whiter than whites and that the fact of having a national flag and the hope of an independent nation does not always tempt certain strata of the population to give up their interests or privileges. (115)
Macey (2012, 476) expresses his surprise that class is an important factor in Fanon’s work, highlighting the academic reception of Fanon, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s in anglophone institutions. Bhabha’s Remembering Fanon: self, psyche and the colonial condition, first published as an introduction to the 1986 edition of Black skin, white masks, is a good example of writings on Fanon in this period.4 We get a Lacanian Fanon who presents an ‘uncertain’ picture of the world, rejecting a unified theory of oppression. Those Marxists who had a one-sided focus on economic issues within the workplace (whom Lenin attacked as ‘economists’) and neglected questions of oppression are righty criticised, only for Bhabha to make the reverse mistake and reject class as outdated. Rather than counter-posing exploitation (class) and racism, Fanon (1964, 38) highlights the connection between the two, stating that ‘military and economic oppression generally precedes, makes possible, and legitimizes racism’ in his speech to the first congress of black writers and artists in 1956. Similarly, in Black skin, white masks he states: ‘The Negro problem does not resolve itself into the problem of Negroes living among white men but rather of Negroes exploited, enslaved, despised by a colonialist, capitalist society that is only accidentally white’ (Fanon 1952, 156). Black skin, white masks’ main theme is of course the experience of a black man in a colonised society (Martinique), a racist one (France) and a discussion of the strategic failures of ‘assimilationist’ and Negritude responses to the structural problem of racism and colonialism. The main theme of The wretched of the earth is the fight for national liberation against colonialism; for this task Fanon discusses the distinct roles of social classes. Lenin (1902) in What is to be done? highlights that this analysis is crucial for revolutionary strategy. He states:
Fanon details the changes in consciousness of the colonised within The wretched of the earth but he does not stop at an exclusive focus on the oppressed. He is interested in the victory of national liberation and a different social and economic society. Like Lenin, Fanon focuses on strategy, how the various classes that make up the colonised world interact; their strengths and weaknesses are outlined and their revolutionary or reactionary potential is assessed.The native working class: the 1% vs the 99%?
Fanon (1961, 86) describes the native working class as ‘pampered’, ‘privileged’, with ‘everything to lose’ in the fight against colonialism. They are the ‘bourgeois’ fraction of the colonised people; in a rhetorical flourish, Fanon (86) describes them as making up scarcely 1% of the population. The moderate nationalist parties orientated on the town rather than the countryside based themselves on this layer of the colonised population. Being materially better off than the majority of the population, the working class has too much of a stake in the colonial regime to be reliable in the struggle for national liberation. Fanon (96) accepts that the native working class has power beyond its numbers, stating that a ‘trade unionist can bring to a standstill, or at any rate slow down at any given moment, the colonialist economy’. He seems to support trade union organisation of workers (the FLN had trade unions in Algeria and France) but also describes strikes as letting off steam rather than conducting the real campaign for national liberation that armed struggle entails. This version of the native working class seems to be a unique reading of Lenin’s concept of the labour aristocracy. Fanon (2015) had in his library both Imperialism: the latest stage of capitalism and Lenin’s writings on national liberation. Lenin, in an attempt to explain why the majority of the parties of the Second International (including its leading force, the German SPD) supported their own governments during World War One and pursued reformist politics in general, developed the idea that a section of the working class within imperialist countries was bought off. The parties of the Second International were led by or acted in the interests of this labour aristocracy that benefited from the super-profits gained through imperialism. They are described as a ‘tiny upper stratum’ that made up the majority of craft unions and cooperatives in England, for example (Lenin 1917). There are problems with Lenin’s analysis itself.5 Fanon’s version portrays the native working class as a ‘labour aristocracy’ of the colonised population rather than it being a section of the working class in general. Furthermore, his version concerns the colonised country rather than imperialist countries that can afford to give a section of workers more through super-profits. When Fanon (1961, 86) describes the working class of imperialist countries, he states, ‘in capitalist countries the working class has nothing to lose’ and ‘the closing of factories, the paying off of workers and unemployment will force the European working class to engage in an open struggle against the capitalist regime’ (83). These lines will surprise those who want to characterise Fanon as the quintessential ‘third worldist’ who only sees people of the imperialist countries as enemies. He actually calls on ‘the indispensable help of the European peoples’ and demands they stop ‘playing the stupid game of the sleeping beauty’ (84).
The native bourgeoisie: ‘flesh eating animals, jackals and vultures which wallow in the people’s blood’ (Fanon 1961, 115)
The wretched of the earth is a call to support national liberation and a breakdown of which classes are likely to play a progressive or reactionary role in this fight. The book is also a warning that independence can still lead to continued exploitation and a neo-colonial relationship with the former ‘mother country’. The native bourgeoisie is sometimes described as the national middle class, in the sense that Marx described the middle-class merchants of feudalism becoming the ruling class with the emergence of capitalism. The native bourgeoisie is described variously as ‘underdeveloped’ (120), ‘useless and harmful’ (140) and ‘good for nothing’ (141). Fanon (122) contrasts the national bourgeoisie found in the Communist manifesto which has a ‘dynamic’ and ‘pioneer aspect’ to the native bourgeoisie of the colonised country. Here the native bourgeoisie lacks the material and intellectual resources to help develop the country; instead we find that the economy is geared towards serving the mother country. After independence, the native bourgeoisie sets itself up as an ‘intermediary’ between the bourgeoisie of the mother country and the former colonised people. It establishes a relationship of neo-colonialism in which the formerly colonised country continues to be economically exploited by the bourgeoisie of the mother country. After the struggle for independence, the majority of people find that they have ‘fulfilled their historic mission of leading the bourgeoisie to power’ (137) and are expected to leave them in peace and quiet to rule. The ‘Africanisation of the ruling class’ (125) is the end result. The native bourgeoisie is not only weak economically, it fails to carry forward a programme with a ‘minimum humanist content’ and ‘democratic ideas’ which the racist Western bourgeoisie is supposed to have put forward (131). This position has confused writers on Fanon. Macey suggests that here Fanon is rejecting the conventional Marxist position that the native bourgeoisie is divided into two parts: the national bourgeoisie with which the working class, peasantry and petty bourgeoisie can ally and the comprador bourgeoisie which is allied to imperialism (Macey 2012, 481). In rejecting any positive role for the native bourgeoisie, Fanon is actually rejecting Mao’s (1949) position of the ‘bloc of four classes’, what Macey believes is the orthodox Marxist position. Gordon believes that Fanon may have developed his views on the native bourgeoisie by reading E. Franklin Frazier’s (1957) book Black bourgeoisie, which documents the rise of a black middle class in the US that takes up a mediating role in race relations and therefore is incapable of leading a fight to end racism (Gordon 2015, 122). A more likely source is highlighted by Gibson (2011, 10) when he states that ‘in the face of the betrayal by the national bourgeoisie, Fanon sounds his most Leninist.’ Hudis (2015, 79) points out that Jean Ayme (a Trotskyist in France) had given Fanon a transcript of the first four congresses of the Communist International and that Fanon was particularly interested in the discussions around resisting colonialism. In Lenin’s speech on the session on the national and colonial question we find the following:
A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting country and that of the colonies, so that very often, even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a certain degree of agreement with the imperial bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it. (The Second Congress of the Communist International: Volume 1 1921)
Lenin and strategy
Vladimir ‘Lenin’ Ilyich was a Russian revolutionary and leader of what was known as the Bolshevik faction (renamed the Communist Party), which led the successful overthrow of the provisional government of Russia in 1917 and set up the Third International to help spread socialist revolution throughout the world. Following Le Blanc (2014), ‘Leninism’ can be seen as a coherent body of ideas deriving from the theory and practice of Lenin. These ideas include: working-class independence and leadership in political struggles, opposition to oppression, the united front, an analysis of imperialism and nationalism, seriousness around Marxist theory and an internationalist approach. During the revolution in 1905, Lenin read Carl von Clausewitz’s writings on war in the context of a debate about the importance of technically trained fighters. What he learnt from the counter-revolutionary Prussian officer would shape his revolutionary theory as a whole. Clausewitz (1832, 74) states: ‘tactics teaches the use of armed forces in the engagement; strategy, the use of engagement for the object of war.’ For Lenin, tactics concern one part of the class struggle such as electoral or trade union work. The combination of tactics comes together to form a strategy. As has been outlined earlier, a strategy should take into account the potential and political practices of all the various classes in the terrain which is being operated in. Strategic thinking differs from the idea of resistance in two crucial ways. First, strategy entails prioritisation in the use of resources, as Lenin (1902, 502) points out:
The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain.
The key link in the chain is what revolutionaries concentrate their resources on, based on an assessment of the balance of forces within the objective situation. Strategy is based on winning rather than purely defensive battles. In Lenin’s thinking, tactics come together to form a strategy, the end result of which is victory. Lukács (1924, 11) captures this part of Lenin’s revolutionary theory well in his conception of the ‘actuality of the revolution’. Throughout the tactical shifts and changing circumstances during the Russian Revolution, Lenin does not lose sight of the final goal of overthrowing the state. Instead, each situation is assessed not from abstract laws but through the lens of getting to the goal. Once Lenin and others decided that ‘revolution was already on the agenda’ (12), that it was possible, everyday decisions were assessed on this basis. Bensaïd (2002) sums up Lenin’s approach as based on ‘politics as strategy, of favourable moments and weak links’. Lenin’s assessment of the possibilities within Russia, which classes to work with and which to oppose, was based on the analysis of the objective situation, particularly his early work The development of capitalism in Russia. Turning his analysis of the objective situation into practice meant using tactical flexibility integrated into an overall strategy. Favourable moments such as crises within the ruling class and other political forces must be seized upon – timing is crucial. In the build-up to October, Lenin sends frantic messages to other Bolshevik leaders to not miss the opportunity to organise an insurrection (Ibid.). This is a question of intervening to shape the situation and being able to identify decisive moments.
‘Tactics are mistaken for strategy’
Fanon’s (1961, 105) statement ‘tactics are often mistaken for strategy’ has two main implications. First, it refers to arguments within the FLN over who should lead the organisation, the political leaders based in Algeria or the external leadership in exile. The internal leadership was represented by Fanon’s friend Abane, who won the position of leadership for the interior and the ‘primacy of politics’ at the Soumman congress (Gibson 2011, 28) over a purely military approach as favoured by the exiled leadership. Abane was subsequently murdered by opponents within the FLN. Fanon is first reaffirming his support for the primacy of politics over military questions in support of his deceased friend Abane. Second, The wretched of the earth argues for the importance of strategy in a way that has an affinity with Lenin’s interpretation of strategy. Throughout the book Fanon criticises nationalist organisations for their lack of ideology, an overarching system of beliefs that can act as a guide to practice. This leads nationalist organisations to put purely military matters above politics but also leads to a lack of vision of what a post-independence country should be like. The wretched of the earth is a book based on achieving victory and what victory would constitute. The book moves from a defence of spontaneous violent resistance to a strategic discussion of how to win. Fanon outlines various pitfalls he thinks other newly independent countries have fallen into and mistakes being made by the FLN itself. Victory for Fanon is defined in two ways. On the one hand, he has an unrelenting focus on freeing Algeria from French colonialism; this is the immediate goal. However, much of the book is about how an independent country can reproduce the same relations and exploitation as before, a neo-colonial relationship with the former ‘mother country’ and continued exploitation at the hands of a native bourgeoisie or ruling class that controls the national economy. Fanon defines the actual end goal of national liberation as real social and economic change. Similarly, Lenin for much of his revolutionary career had the immediate goal of overthrowing the Czarist monarchy but managed to integrate this goal into the wider fight for communism.
By way of a conclusion
A ‘Leninist’ strategy starts from an analysis of the objective factors to determine an intervention that moves the situation forward. Tactical flexibility is necessary in a constantly shifting situation without losing sight of the main goal. There is and will be many Fanons as each generation seeks to apply his work to the specific problems and contexts which they find. This does not mean that we can take an ‘anything goes’ attitude; this debate piece claims that the Fanon presented is more accurate than the standard presentation. As Hallward (2011, 105) points out, any ‘return to Fanon’ worthy of the name must involve the ‘forgetting of the forgetting’ of the post-colonial studies Fanon. In The wretched of the earth he supports armed struggle against colonialism led by a nationalist organisation made up of the peasant majority, intellectuals and the lumpenproletariat. This debate piece argues for the following: that Fanon was influenced by Lenin in his writings on the native bourgeoisie and working class; that Fanon’s class analysis within the colonial situation employed a key aspect of Lenin’s understanding of strategy; and finally, that Fanon argued for the importance of a strategy that would link the fight for national liberation to the pursuit of a different social and economic society, another key aspect of Lenin’s emphasis on strategy. In Black skin, white masks Fanon (1952, 177) says, ‘I undertake to face the possibility of annihilation in order that two or three truths may cast their eternal brilliance over the world.’ Fanon spoke more than two or three truths; just one of them was the importance of strategy along ‘Leninist’ lines.