Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists

Soviet Social-Imperialism Intensifies Aggression in Angola

First Published:The Workers’ Advocate Vol. 6, No. 2, February 1, 1976.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.

In this issue The Workers’ Advocate is reprinting documents about Angola including statements from UNITA, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola. The situation in Angola is very serious. The Soviet socialimperialists are continually escalating their intervention in Angola. Since the last issue of The Workers’ Advocate in December, the number of Cuban puppet troops has increased from over 3,000 to a figure reported at over 10,000, a Soviet naval flotilla has been amassed off Angola, and tremendous pressure was put on many African countries in an unsuccessful attempt to subvert or split the Organization of African Unity at its meeting in mid-January. The Soviet social-imperialists are attempting to overwhelm a small, struggling nation – there are only six million Angolans – with a barrage of sophisticated weapons, tanks, missiles, aircraft, and thousands upon thousands of puppet troops, mostly Cubans. Already more Angolans have been killed in the civil war instigated by Soviet agression than died in the entire national liberation war against Portuguese colonialism of 1961-1974. And the Soviet aggressors are the arch-criminals who, in splitting the unity of the Angolan people and preventing the creation of a government of national union, have allowed the other superpower, U.S. imperialism, to fish in troubled waters; thus the U.S. imperialists are also nosing around and have instigated the invasion of Angola by the vile racist regime of the Union of South Africa. The New Tsars of the Soviet Union want to turn Angola into a Soviet base in Southern Africa in order to contend for world hegemony with U.S. imperialism, plunder Angola’s abundant resources, and make preparations for a new world war. Victory for the Soviet social-imperialists would not only mean subjecting the Angolan people to a new servitude, but would move closer the threat of a new world war, more terrible than the last. This is a matter of grave concern for the entire world’s people, who should support the struggle of the Angolan people against intervention and aggression by the two superpowers. All those people who still have illusions about Soviet social-imperialism should study the situation in Angola closely. Just as Hitler plunged the world into World War II and committed Nazi crimes under the banner of fake “national socialism”, so today the New Tsars of the Soviet Union are seeking world hegemony, preparing for war and contending and colluding with the U.S. imperialists under the banner of sham “socialism” and sham “communism”.

The Angolan people have been tempered in the nearly five centuries-long struggle against Portuguese colonialism. What the U.S. imperialist-backed Portuguese colonialists with their NATO weapons couldn’t do, neither can the Soviet social- imperialists with their massive weaponry and Cuban and East European puppet troops and personnel. The Angolan national liberation organizations cannot be wiped out by force. The Angolan people demand a government of national union that will stop the civil war, expel all imperialist “aid” and intervention, reject superpower meddling and ensure total independence. Otherwise there will be a government of national betrayal, ruling Angola by military despotism in the interests of the Soviet New Taars and propped up by a foreign army of occupation. Such a government of national betrayal could not last long. The Soviet aggressors, their hands stained with the blood of Angolan patriots, will be defeated. As Chairman Mao has pointed out: “A WEAK NATION CAN DEFEAT A STRONG, A SMALL NATION CAN DEFEAT A BIG. THE PEOPLE OF A SMALL COUNTRY CAN CERTAINLY DEFEAT AGGRESSION BY A BIG COUNTRY, IF ONLY THEY DARE TO RISE IN STRUGGLE, TAKE UP ARMS AND GRASP IN THEIR OWN HANDS THE DESTINY OF THEIR COUNTRY. THIS IS A LAW OF HISTORY.”


The Angolan people have a glorious history of struggle against foreign domination. The Portuguese colonialists plundered Angola for its resources and subjected Angola to the barbaric slave trade. Angola suffered more than any other African country from the slave trade, with 3 1/2 million Angolans sent to Brazil alone. Whole areas of Angola were literally depopulated – so that even now Angola, which has over twice the area of France and has a mild climate, has only six million inhabitants. The Angolan people’s resistance to this aggression was so strong that although the Portuguese colonialists first reached Angola in the 15th century, by as late as the beginning of the 20th century only a handful of white settlers lived in the interior. Through uprisings, war, mass movements, diplomacy, even playing off one colonialist power against another, the Angolan people kept alive the spirit of resistance. The main lesson learned from these struggles was the necessity of the unity of the Angolan people to defeat foreign domination, colonialism, imperialism and white racism.

The nearly five-centuries-long struggle against Portuguese colonialism climaxed with the war of national liberation starting in 1961. By this time U.S. imperialism had replaced British imperialism in dominating Portugal and thus gained access to the Portuguese colonies. Portugal used the same tactics as its U.S. imperialist masters used in Viet Nam and was supplied with NATO weapons, but could not suppress the Angolan people. Several liberation organizations emerged in Angola. MPLA, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, was founded in 1956-58 and led by Augustinho Neto. FNLA, the National Liberation Front of Angola, was founded, then under a different name, in 1960-61 and led by Holden Roberto. But in the early ’60’ s the national liberation war faced severe problems and lost its initiative. It was badly directed by leaders residing abroad and torn by dissensions and rivalries, which even reached the point of armed fighting between different nationalist groups. To remedy this situation, in 1966 certain exiled leaders returned to Angola, organized themselves among the people and founded UNlTA, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, which is led by Jonas Savimbi. UNITA’s policies included: basing the organization and its leadership inside Angola and never retreating from Angolan soil; waging a protracted people’s war based on mobilizing the peasantry and recognizing the need for proletarian consciousness; self-reliance and not depending on outside assistance; staying independent from all imperialist powers, including both U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism; fighting for total independence and guaranteeing the continuing and sequence of the national democratic revolution with the socialist revolution; and constantly striving to unite all the Angolan liberation organizations in a united front and calling on them to transfer their bases of operation, located abroad, to Angola. UNITA also recognized its international responsibilities. For example, since 1968 cooperation and solidarity with the Afro-American people has been part of UNITA’s program. Also UNlTA cooperates in the struggle to liberate all Southern Africa and enjoys close relations with the fighters of SWAPO (the South West African People’s Organization, which is the liberation organization of Namibia, the so-called “South West Africa”). 3,000 SWAPO fighters have used UNITA camps in Southern Angola as their base in the fight against the domination of Namibia by the U.S. imperialist-backed regime of the Union of South Africa.

UNITA has made outstanding contributions to the Angolan people’s struggle, a fact which has resulted in it bearing the brunt of the slanders of both superpowers. The Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola (FALA), under UNITA’s leadership, armed themselves with NATO weapons captured from the Portuguese army and liberated entire regions of the country with large populations. This gave tremendous impetus to the war of national liberation. When, after the April 25, 1974 coup in Portugal, the Portuguese government finally started negotiations with the liberation movements in its colonies, it sought out PAIGC of Guinea-Bissau, FRELIMO of Mozambique and UNIT A of Angola. Thus it was shown that the Portuguese regarded UNITA as an opponent on the same level as PAIGC and FRELIMO, the organizations that successfully liberated Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique.

Thus three liberation organizations exist in Angola. All of them participated in the war of national liberation, all of them enjoy some popular support, all of them were recognized during the war of national liberation on an equal footing by the Organization of African Unity. To achieve total independence, the unity of the Angolan people is necessary. Thus UNIT A, when contacted by the Portuguese, laid down among its conditions for a cease-fire that negotiations must be conducted with all three Angolan liberation organizations and not just one of them. The Angolan liberation movements, aided by the Organization of African Unity, made a number of attempts to resolve their differences and unite. In the Angolan Independence Agreement signed in Alvor, Portugal, on January 15, 1975, the Portuguese government recognized the three liberation movements as “the sole representatives of the Angolan people”, agreed to the independence of Angola to be proclaimed November 11, 1975, recognized the territorial integrity of Angola, and provided for a transitional government to be composed of members of the three liberation organizations as well as the Portuguese government. After fighting broke out between MPLA and FNLA, the liberation organizations again attempted to compose their differences in the Nakuru Agreement of June, 1975. This agreement stated that the three organizations, “aware of the grave situation in which the country finds itself and of the national interests which must necessarily be put above any political and ideological divergencies, solemnly affirm to renounce the use of force as a way to solve problems and to honor all obligations resulting from the conclusion of the accord.”

Had these agreements been honored, an excellent situation would have resulted in the struggle for strengthening the unity of the Angolan people and ensuring total independence. The demand of the Angolan people is for national unity to ensure genuine independence and a government of national union. A government of national union would signify that all three liberation organizations keep the general interests of the Angolan people in mind, compose their differences, oppose the common enemies and expel superpower meddling and all outside imperialist powers. Without national unity, the Angolan people will remain divided and prey to interference and intervention from outside. It is impossible to rule Angola without a political settlement among the liberation movements of Angola, which have shed their blood for Angolan freedom. The only alternative to a government of national union is a government of national betrayal, ruling Angola by sheer military force supplied by an outside imperialist power.


But the ink was hardly dry on the Nakuru Agreement before it was violated. The fighting between MPLA and FNLA continued. In June and July MPLA launched attacks on UNlTA offices in various cities, climaxing in an attempt to assassinate President Jonas Savimbi of UNlTA by firing on his plane in the city of Porto Silva. Thus, UNITA, too, was drawn into the civil war.

Behind the breakdown of the various attempts to mediate the differences between the Angolan liberation organizations, including the Nakuru Agreement, lay the rivalry of the two superpowers and particularly the undisguised expansion and crude interference of the Soviet social-imperialists, who single-handedly provoked the civil war. During the war of national liberation the New Tsars had confined themselves to sending small amounts of aid to one organization only, seeking hegemony over one organization while slandering and instigating splits with the others, and to propagating such theories as that “a single spark” of national liberation war could produce a world war and that the world’s people should rely on “peaceful coexistence”, “disarmament” and “detente” between the two superpowers. However, as soon as the victory over Portuguese colonialism seemed imminent; the social-imperialists intensified their interference in a big way. They labelled one organization as “socialist” and the other two as “reactionary.” Following the cease-fire with Portuguese colonialism and the Alvor Agreement, the New Tsars continued sending their military supplies, under the guise of “aid”, to one organization only. In the year following November, 1974, the New Tsars sent more military supplies than in all fourteen years of the war of national liberation combined. Sophisticated weapons including tanks, missiles and aircraft were sent that had never been sent previously during the war against Portuguese colonialism. The New Tsars were faced with the fact that the Angolan people, on the threshold of victory over foreign domination, were determined to safeguard and cherish their independence. Thus, just as when U.S. imperialism found itself in a weak position in IndoChina, in desperation former President Nixon turned to the policy of making “Asians fight Asians”, so the Soviet Union adopted the exact same vile policy and provoked a war in which “Angolans fight Angolans”.

This policy of “making Angolans fight Angolans” reveals the complete contempt of the New Tsars towards the liberation struggles of Africa in general and Angola in particular. The Angolan people regarded the rivalries and dissensions between the liberation organizations as a curse and made many attempts to form a united front. Indeed, as pointed out above, it was revulsion at these fratricidal conflicts that was one of the reasons for founding UNITA in 1966. But the New Tsars regard these conflicts as a welcome opportunity to pull Angola into their sphere of influence. Making use of the serious error made by one liberation organization, that has consented to serve social-imperialist dreams in Southern Africa in exchange for “aid” in massacring the other liberation organizations, the New Tsars have plunged Angola into a sea of misery and even introduced puppet troops of occupation, mostly Cuban but also including East European and Soviet advisors and technicians of various sorts. Meanwhile the U.S. imperialists, anxious not to be outdone and to regain the “lost paradise” which the defeat of Portuguese colonialism deprived them of, have courted directly and indirectly another liberation organization. Meanwhile, UNITA opposes the disunity of the Angolan people and even now fights only for the purpose of stopping the civil war and obtaining a just political settlement that safeguards Angolan independence, but at present the civil war provoked by the Soviet social-imperiaIists rages on.

In splitting the unity of the Angolan people, the Soviet social-imperialists have become the arch-criminals who have unleashed a whole series of calamities upon Angola. These include:

– The transitional government agreed on in the Alvor Agreements of January, 1975 was first paralyzed and then destroyed. Instead the disunity of the Angolan people has become reflected in two different governments now operating in Angola.

–The Portuguese authorities, taking advantage of the split, attempted to go back on their agreements. On August 14, 1975, the Portuguese government issued a unilateral statement to resume government power of Angola. On August 29 the Portuguese suspended the Alvor agreement on Angolan independence. However, Portugal, which itself is racked internally by the contention of the two superpowers, was defeated in these plots and forced to withdraw from Angola on November 10, 1975, Thus Angola became independent on November 11, as agreed.

–Thousands of Cuban and other puppet troops trample Angolan soil and massacre the Angolan people. The presence of such puppet troops of the Soviet Union severely curtails the independence of Angola.

–The U.S. imperialists instigated an invasion of Angola by the vile racist regime of the Union of South Africa.

These events, along with the civil war itself, are the bitter fruit of the New Tsars’ temporary success in splitting the Angolan people. The social-imperialists oh so innocently shout about the South Africans, but this is just demagogy to cover up that were it not for the crimes of the New Tsars in provoking the civil war, the South Africans would not be on Angolan soil.


Since December, like a desperate gambler frenziedly raising the stakes in hopes of making a killing, the Soviet social-imperialists have increased their aggression against Angola. The number of Cuban puppet troops has more than tripled, increasing from over 3,000 to a number reported to be above 10,000. Cuban troops are now brought to Angola directly by Soviet jets, abandoning even the pretext of being brought over by Cuban planes. Soviet arms continue to flood the country. The lack of popular. support for Soviet domination gives rise to the constant necessity for further escalation. Totally deluded by some temporary successes in conventional, positional warfare – a type of warfare where an overwhelming advantage in sophisticated weaponry operated by foreign troops can compensate a while for lack of popular enthusiasm, the social-imperialists and their friends have become very arrogant. They actually believe they can accomplish what the Portuguese colonialists could never accomplish in almost 500 years – the military destruction of the Angolan movement for independence and the submission of the Angolan people to foreign domination. This is a startling exposure of the imperialist thinking of the Soviet New Tsars. Actually since each of the three liberation organizations has bases of support among the masses, there is no way that only one liberation organization could rule Angola. That is why the alternative to the government of national unity is a government of national betrayal, ruling by military despotism and dependent on the Soviet social-imperialists. Such a government would not last long. The Angolan people have stood up in the struggle against Portuguese colonialism. They have already inflicted defeat after defeat against the hegemonistic designs of the superpowers. Following in the traditions of the Indochinese people, the small nation of Angola will certainly be able to defeat a large imperialist power. The Angolan people will win victory against Soviet social-imperialism, expel the meddling of’ the two superpowers and establish a free and totally independent Angola.


An important part of the aggression of the Soviet social-imperialists has been the tremendous pressure they have exerted on all the independent African countries to subvert the just stand of the Organization of African Unity(OAU). The O.A. U. was founded in 1963. The principal aim in the charter of the O.A.U. is to, promote integration and solidarity among the African countries. The O.A.U. has in its past history on several occasions settled disputes among African countries via mediation and it has waged struggle against imperialism, colonialism, and hegemonism. In regard to Angola, the O.A.U. has made a number of attempts to resolve the differences among the Angolan liberation movements and help establish a government of national unity, The O.A.U. has aimed at preventing outside interference and intervention in Angola and against any “internationalizing” of the Angolan problem. These just actions by the O.A.U. were a great embarrassment to the social-imperialists with their aim of establishing hegemony in Angola through fomenting disunity. The social-imperialists therefore relied on intimidation, threats and pressures in an attempt either to force the O.A.U. to reverse its just stand at its meeting in mid-January 1976 or to split the O.A.U. The Soviet Union even temporarily suspended diplomatic relations with Uganda in order to pressure the current chairman of the O.A.U., who is also President of Uganda, to reverse his stand against Soviet intervention in Africa. Despite the vile antics of the Soviet Union, the meeting of the O.A.U. was a great rebuff to Soviet plans. On the crucial resolution, whether to recognize MPLA’s “People’s Republic of Angola” and thus endorse the military destruction of the other two liberation organizations and close one’s eyes to Soviet aggression or to condemn all outside imperialist aggression and call for a government national union the vote was 22 to 22 with 2 abstentions. This tie vote thwarted the Soviet scheme to have the O.A.U. endorse its aggression against Angola. The O.A.U. also preserved its existence against the threat of a split. Frustrated on the diplomatic front, Soviet social-imperialism continued its arms build-up in Angola, staking everything on a military victory.

This hostile stand by the Soviet Union to the O.A.U. is not something new. A united fighting Africa is unfavorable to the social-imperialists’ plans to dominate the world. They have no respect for the independent African states or the unity of the Third World, of which Africa is a part. Instead, the social imperialists constantly seek to divide the African people, set one nation against another, arbitrarily label one set of countries “progressive” and another “reactionary” at the least, and set Africans fighting Africans. Whether to safeguard African unity or to divide Africa and undermine its unity is now a crucial question in the struggle against Soviet social-imperialism in Africa.

Consider, for example, the splitting and sabotage activities of the Soviet Union at the time of the O.A.U. ministerial council held in April, 1975. At this time the Soviet social~imperialists published several articles accusing “certain African leaders” of “betraying the interests of the oppressed southern African people” and condemning the “presidents and prime ministers of 24 African countries” for seeking “detente” with Southern Africa. Yet after the meeting the New Tsars resumed their old tune that “international detente had created favorable conditions for the liquidation of colonialism and racism”. And the New Tsars have been supporting the vile “detente” scheme in Zimbabwe and seeking to undermine the Chimurenga (war of national liberation) there. Why does the Soviet Union denounce the African countries for the same “detente” that the Soviet Union advocates? Clearly the Soviet Union was demagogicilly playing on the African countries’ legitimate hatred for the South African regime in order to aggravate the difficulties that this regime’s “detente” scheme caused black Africa, prevent Africa from uniting, and set Africans against Africans.


The Soviet Union is the land of the’ Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 led bY Lenin. The Soviet people led by the Communist Party of Lenin and Stalin consolidated socialism in the U.S.S.R. In World War II the Soviet people led by Stalin smashed the Nazi hordes. But after Stalin’s death, the revisionist Khrushchov seized power on behalf of a clique of new bourgeois elements, vilified Stalin, and restored the . man-eating capitalist system inside the Soviet Union. Kosygin and Brezhnev have followed in Khrushchov’s footsteps. Chairman Mao points out: “THE RISE TO POWER OF REVISIONISM MEANS THE RISE TO POWER OF THE BOURGEOISIE.” “THE SOVIET UNION TODAY IS UNDER THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE, A DICTATORSHIP OF THE BIG BOURGEOISIE, A DICTATORSHIP OF THE GERMAN FASCIST TYPE, A DICTATORSHIP OF THE HITLER TYPE.” Having restored capitalism, the revisionist leaders naturally could not avoid the political consequences that follow from capitalism and the now capitalist Soviet Union became imperialist. The Soviet revisionist leaders continued to flaunt the signboard of socialism in order to mislead the world working-class movement and to present their seeking of world hegemony as the extension of socialism. They can justly be called social-imperialists, socialists in words, imperialists in deeds. This was a great betrayal of the world’s people,as well of the Soviet people and it split the international communist movment.

Since Russia had experienced almost four decades of socialism, from 1917 to after the death of Stalin in 1953, the country had made great advances on all fronts. The social-imperialists utilized the fact that Russia had been built up economically, technologically and scientifically to make it into a superpower once capitalism had replaced socialism as its economic system. They began to build up an empire and spheres of influence. They made most of Eastern Europe into client states of their empire. They are now contending with the U.S. imperialists for world hegemony.

The Soviet social-imperialists are in Angola as part of their drive for world hegemony. They are interested in plundering Angola’s rich natural resources, including oil, copper, industrial diamonds, iron ore, coffee and other riches. Angola is also a strategically important country. A Soviet base in Angola could be used to establish Soviet penetration into the South Atlantic Ocean. The South Atlantic ocean is a center for many trading routes and Soviet ability to disrupt and dominate these sea-lanes would be an important blow at u.S. imperialist hegemony and increase Soviet pressure on Western Europe, the focus of the contention of the two superpowers for world hegemony. The Soviet Union is also interested in Angola as a base for its contention with U.S. imperialism in redividing the whole area of Southern Africa and the surrounding waters. With the independence of Mozambique and Angola and the sharpening struggles in Zimbabwe (“Rhodesia”) and Namibia (“South West Africa”), the position of the vile racist regime of the Union of South Africa and thus of U.S. imperialist hegemony is becoming shakier and shakier. The liberation struggles of the African people are surging ever further south on the continent. This has not escaped the notice of the Soviet social-imperialists who would like to subvert these struggles so they can replace U.S. imperialism and gain hegemony in southern Africa. A liberated southern Africa truly independent of imperialism would definitely weaken both superpowers. Soviet hegemonism in this area, however, would introduce a new oppressor to replace the old, encourage the contention of the two superpowers, and bring the world closer to a new imperialist world war to redivide the world.

The Soviet Union engages in the pretense that it is sending aid to Angola to help fight the Union of South Africa. Actually the social-imperialists are only interested in extending their hegemony in Angola. It is their policy of making Angolans fight Angolans that allowed South Africa to invade Angola. The Soviet Union also slanders UNITA, the organization that aids the SWAPO guerillas fighting South African occupation of Namibia. Further proof can be seen by examining Soviet behavior in Zimbabwe (“Rhodesia”). In an article starting on pg. 4 it is shown that a serious situation exists for the liberation forces in Zimbabwe led by ZANU due to the fraud of constitutional talks being promoted by the racist Ian Smith. The social-imperialists, far from giving aid to ZANU and the war of national liberation, are in fact supporting Nkomo and the scheme to undermine the armed struggle. The social-imperialists are thus working in favor of the South African “detente” scheme. If the social- imperialists favor detente with South Africa in Zimbabwe, how can they be in favor of armed struggle against South Africa in Angola? Why aren’t the social-imperialists sending their tanks, missile-launchers, machine-guns, etc., to ZANU if they are so interested in fighting South Africa? Conversely, if the Soviet Union really wants “detente”, why doesn’t it have “detente” with the Angolan people and withdraw its puppet troops? Clearly, whether the Soviet propaganda machine talks of “detente” or “fighting South Africans”, the real aim is the same, to establish hegemony: that is why the New Tsars are mortally afraid of the fiercely independent ZANU that is fighting Ian Smith in Zimbabwe, while in Angola the New Tsars send arms and troops to massacre the Angolan people.

Furthermore, if the Soviet social-imperialists send “aid” to Angola to be used against South African invasion, then why, we may ask, does it turn out that this “aid” only kills Angolans? If but one-tenth or one-twentieth of the Angolans killed by Soviet “aid” were South Africans, the entire South African invasion force would be annihilated to the last man and a big dent would have been put into the South African forces occupying Namibia to boot. But only a handful of South Africans have been killed. It seems that Soviet “aid” is only effective when used to massacre black Angolans but not when used to repel white South Africans. Perhaps this reflects the racism of the Russian New Tsars themselves, who face periodic revolts against racial discrimination from the African students studying in Lumumba University in Moscow. The motive may be inferred from the effect. Russian “aid” massacres huge numbers of Angolans because it was sent to kill Angolans, pour oil on the flames of the civil war, destroy any possibilities of a government of national union and create a government of national betrayal subject to Russian hegemony and kept in power by Cuban bayonets.


As the Soviet social-imperialists escalate their interference in Angola, a notable feature is the use of thousands upon thousands of Cuban puppet troops. Trying to disguise its aggression in Angola, the Soviet New Tsars are using Cuban puppet troops as their cats’ paw. Fidel Castro’s use of Cubans as cannon-fodder for Soviet aggression is a great crime against the Cuban people. Castro has become a most abject lackey and fawning yes-man of the social imperialists. He has dutifully followed the Soviet baton and praised Soviet aggression around the world. Even most of the revisionist parties couldn’t stomach the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, but Castro approved of it. Castro has also publicly humiliated himself in front of the U.S. imperialists and, grovelling in the dirt, has withdrawn his criticism of Krushchov’s betrayal of Cuban sovereignty in the Cuban missile crisis. Castro’s present role of hangman of Angolan independence clearly exposes him as an anti-Cuban, anti-Third World puppet of a superpower. How this came about should be examined closely as it reveals the ugly features of how social-imperialism sabotages and subverts the people’s just struggles against imperialism. This is extremely important for Americans to look into because for a time in the late 60’s and early 70’s Castroism was widely promoted throughout North and South America as the new revolutionary theory and alternative to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. In the U.S. and Latin America, Castroism was never fully and decisively repudiated. Even today trips are organized for American youth to visit Cuba and see the joys of being a Soviet client state, while in Latin America Castroism is used to do anti-China propaganda. Castro functions as a Trojan Horse for the Soviet Union in the Third World and at nonaligned conferences.

The Cuban people overthrew the dictator Batista, front man for U.S. imperialism, in 1959. This was. a high point in a protracted struggle against foreign domination, first against Spanish colonialism and, after 1898, against U.s. imperialist domination. Since Castro actually seized power by military force, in contrast to the “peaceful” road of degeneration and betrayal of the official revisionist parties treacherously calling themselves communist, Castroism developed a great prestige. And the American people correctly supported the Cuban revolution against the many attempts of the U.S. imperialists to regain their “lost paradise” through such vile means as blockade, invasion (Bay of Pigs), economic and diplomatic sanctions, etc. However, Castro has gradually compromised the independence of Cuba. Nominally independent, Cuba is today an economic client state of the Soviet Union. The one-crop economy, the sugar cashcrop economy, that for years was a corner-stone of U.S. domination of Cuba is still the mainstay of the Cuban economy 17 years after the overthrow of Batista. Today the sugar economy links Cuba to its “guaranteed” market supplied by Russia and its new empire. Cuba has joined the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (C.M.E.A.), which is the body the Soviet Union uses to “integrate” the economies of its East European dependencies with the Soviet economy. Cuba’s budget is heavily dependent on Russian aid and Cuba has amassed a debt of several billion dollars to the Soviet Union. In short, Castro is tied both hand and foot, economically and politically, to the New Tsars who pull the strings. But the glorious Cuban people, who defeated both Spanish colonialism and U.S. imperialism, will surely be victorious in overthrowing Soviet domination and the traitor Castro.

Castroism itself, despite its outward superficial appearance of militancy, was actually never a revolutionary philosophy, but a liberal bourgeois philosophy. Castro took power by a coup d’etat, not a people’s war; this was possible as U.S. imperialism did not at first feel threatened by Castro’s coup. Castroism as a theory negates the role of the masses and holds to the liberal bourgeois view of a handful of enlightened ones, guerrillas or “focos”, operating independently of the masses. The revolution is made for the masses by a handful of elite ones, rather than being the conscious act of the masses themselves. Castroism also negates the leading role of politics and takes a purely military and putschist view of revolution. Such a theory cannot guide a revolution to victory. Thus although Castro did manage to come to power, Castroism was completely incapable of guiding Cuba through a revolutionary transformation and consolidation after the seizure of power. Instead Castro casted around for support from various quarters internationally, finally proclaimed himself a “communist” to curry favor with the social-imperialists and degenerated to complete dependence on revisionism and the New Tsars. Castro’s betrayal was so thorough that he forced Che Guevara, who was a heroic revolutionary and martyr despite the fact that he followed a wrong theory of revolution, to rely on the revisionist parties in Latin America when he started his guerrilla band in Bolivia. The revisionist parties, following their longstanding practice of “peaceful” betrayal of the people, betrayed information about Che Guevara to the political police and this was the immediate reason for the tragic death of Che Guevara.

The painfull lesson of Cuba bears serious attention. Castro’s degeneration to a traitor to the Cuban people and a hangman of Angola shows that to support the Soviet social-imperialists on the pretext of fighting U.S. imperialism is to sell out the interests of the world’s people. Siding with either superpower in the struggle against the other increases their contention and makes one a tool in their preparations for a new world war. There are some American groups that are making this serious error today and who hail every extension of Soviet hegemony, every new crime of the New Tsars as a set-back for U.S. imperialism. This is not a revolutionary activity. It simply shows that some people who have no faith in the revolutionary struggle of the masses, but who nevertheless see that U.S. imperialism is sinking, are shifting their loyalties to what they foolishly hope is a rising imperialism. These opportunists will come to no good end. All progressive people must learn from Castro’s negative example and resolutely denounce both superpowers.


The press of both’superpowers and their sympathizers has propagated a large amount of lies and nonsense concerning Angola. On certain points both superpowers give the same lies; this reflects the fact that while the two superpowers are fiercely contending, nevertheless they are both imperialist, share a common outlook and certain common interests, and collude against the liberation struggles of the world’s people. One example of this is that it serves the interests of both superpowers to maintain the pretense that Russia is still socialist; the Soviet New Tsars commit aggression under the signboard of “socialism” while the U.S. imperialists use this lie in order to keep the working-class movement in the U.S. split and under the influence of revisionism and to propagate the lie that to oppose Soviet social-imperialism one must be “anti-communist”.

Since UNITA has led the Angolan people in opposition to both superpowers, it has been the most vilified organization. Both superpowers constantly reiterate that one liberation organization is “Marxist” while UNITA is supposedly a “pro-Western, anti-communist” faction. This exposes the Soviet dream of recolonizing Africa under a socialist banner while the U.S. dreams of regaining its “lost paradise”. Both superpowers propagate the big lie that invasion of Angola was by the invitation of “the pro-Western, anti-communist” Angolans. This allows the Soviet New Tsars hypocritically to don the mask of fighting South Africans, while the U.S. imperialists pretend that they are not responsible for the South African invasion, oh no, it was by the consent of the Angolans.

It is not surprising, of course, that the press of the superpowers tells lies. Most ordinary Americans are quite aware of this. It is common- place for American politicians to moan about the “credibility gap” while CBS recently sighed that 85% of Americans do not believe the Warren Report on the assassination of the imperialist chieftain Kennedy. What is remarkable, however, is that a certain section of opportunists, who like to present themselves as super-revolutionaries and knowledgeable and certainly more “advanced” than the ordinary man, have soft ears for the distortions and concoctions from the imperialist press.

When the Soviet social-imperialists launched their efforts to create an international debate concerning which liberation movement in Angola is good and which is bad, the opportunists immediately jumped in. The opportunists showed no respect for the struggling Angolan people and the Angolan liberation organizations which have shed their blood against Portuguese colonialism and did not support the national liberation movement of the Angolan people as a whole. Instead the opportunists were anxious to engage in all sorts of speculation on what imperialist political pundit said what about which group, and posed as pure and noble souls carefully measuring the various organizations against various abstract and eternal principles. An atmosphere of gossip and rumor was created stories and fantastic tales planted in the press and in these circles by revisionists and agents of the Soviet Union circulated widely. All these activities constituted blatant interference in the internal affairs of Angola and were designed to aggravate differences among the Angolan people and help Soviet social-imperialism in its dirty work of provoking civil war in Angola. We may may also note that this atmosphere of gossiip and rumor affected a number of liberals – you certainly could not call them revolutionaries –who would have liked to support the Angolan people but got queasy stomachs from reading The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor.


It is an important part of the proletarian internationalist duty of the American people to support the Angolan people in their struggle against the hegemonism of the two superpowers, for a government of national union and for total independence. There is quite a barrage of revisionist propaganda in the U.S. from supposed “left” groups supporting the fratricidal policy of making “Angolans fight Angolans”. This is a reflection in the ’’left’’ of the great-power chauvinism of the U.S. and Soviet imperialists themselves. Nevertheless, more and more Americans are standing up to condemn the massacre of the Angolan people. On Saturday, January 10, in New York City, over 300 people demonstrated on a biting cold day. Most banners called for throwing the superpowers out of Angola and for a government of national union, while the speeches concentrated on attacking Soviet social-imperialism for instigating the civil war. In Detroit on January 10, 200 AfroAmericans attended a meeting called by an Afro-American organization and heard a representative of UNITA speak. The COUSML has held a number of meetings in major American cities denouncing the Soviet social-imperialists for provoking civil war in Angola. The Seattle Branch of the COUSML united with the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Forum (Seattle) and the Angolan People’s Liberation Support Committee to denounce the Soviet social-imperialists and oppose the meddling of both superpowers in the internal affairs of the Angolan people in a meeting on January 17. This is not to mention Canada where People’s Canada Daily News has given firm support to the Angolan people’s struggle and carried documents from UNIT A. It will suffice to mention that on December 27th in Toronto at a meeting to celebrate the founding of the Communist Party in India, over 1000 people enthusiastically welcomed a representative of UNITA and denounced Soviet social-imperialism as well as denounced the international opportunist trend as supporters of the two superpowers. The resolution on Angola from this meeting is reprinted on page 10. A just cause finds abundant support. Support for Angola will undoubtedly grow and help expose to many Americans the evil features of Soviet social-imperialism and the importance of combatting the hegemonism of the two superpowers.