5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

ISSUE 4

Amílcar Cabral,
Ghassan
Kanafani, and the
Weapon of Theory
Zeyad El-Nabolsy, York University,
Toronto

ENGLISH

The Weapon of Theory

Both Amílcar Cabral and Ghassan Kanafani can be

Asaid
A Pan-African
Pan-African
to belong to the Our
second generation of anti-
Journal
Journal and
and Issues Editors Podcast Contact
Platform Mission
colonial leaders in the wave of independence
Platform

movements that characterized the second half of the

twentieth century. In this essay I show that not only
was there a significant overlap between their primary
concerns, particularly revolving around the need for a

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 1/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

theoretical analysis of the limitations of the

leadership of the first wave of independence
movements, but also, a convergence with respect to
their understanding of the importance of social
analysis, and, more specifically, class analysis in the
struggle for liberation from colonialism. In fact, one
of the things that they wanted to point out when they
claimed that the leaders of the first wave of
independence movements did not develop an
adequate ideology was that these leaders failed to
understand the social structure of their own societies;
in particular, they failed to understand that liberation
from colonialism and neo-colonialism was not in the
interests of all members of the colonized societies
and that appeals to an amorphous entity called “the
people” were likely to backfire. In fact, both Cabral
and Kanafani pointed out that there were some
classes in their respective societies who benefitted
from colonialism and who therefore could not be
expected to support the struggle against it.

Cabral argued that the failures and difficulties

experienced by some African countries that had
already attained independence stemmed, in part,
from a lack of clear theoretical orientation: “the
ideological deficiency, not to say the total lack of
ideology, on the part of the liberation movements –
which is basically explained by ignorance of the

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 2/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

historical reality which these movements aspire to

transform – constitutes one of the greatest
weaknesses, if not the greatest weakness, of our
struggle against imperialism” (Cabral 1979 [1966], p.
122). Of course, it is important to emphasize that
Cabral is not making the claim that the ideological
deficiency of the first wave of independence
movements is the primary or only explanation of the
failures and difficulties experienced by African
countries like Ghana. Cabral was quite aware that
there were global structural elements which
contributed to these difficulties and failures. In fact,
the leaders of the first wave were subjected to
constant aggression from colonialists and neo-
colonialists, aggression which both Cabral and
Kanafani suffered from, and which eventually led to
their assassination in 1973 and 1972, respectively.
Nevertheless, Cabral is pointing out that at the
ideological-theoretical level these global structural
elements and their effects, including the creation of a
comprador bourgeoisie, were not adequately grasped
by the leadership of the first wave of independence
movements and this theoretical failing was a
contributing factor in the failures experienced by
these movements.

This diagnosis was echoed by the Popular Front for

the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) with Kanafani

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 3/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

being a key figure in giving shape to the theoretical

discourse of the PFLP. In the aftermath of the defeat
of 1967, the PFLP held that the petty bourgeoisie led
the progressive projects in Egypt and Syria. Kanafani
described them as “petty military bourgeois
governments” that were afflicted by a theoretical
weakness which rendered them incapable of
formulating an adequate strategy for waging a
successful war for independence (Kanafani 2024
[1970a], p. 198). This was the case because they
aimed at waging a conventional war (and a
conventional war was the only way that they could
keep their political position) without understanding
that the vast developmental gap between Israel and
its Western backers on the one hand, and Palestinians
and their allied Arab states on the other hand, meant
that the chances of winning a conventional war were
quite slim (PFLP 2017 [1969], 96). Hence, they
needed to adopt an alternative strategy: guerilla
warfare following the example of Vietnam and, by
extension, following the Maoist model (PFLP 2017
[1969], p. 99; Kanafani 2024 [1971], p. 171 - 173).
This Maoist influence was also reflected in the
Partido Africano para a Independência da Guiné e
Cabo Verde (PAIGC)’s military strategy (Tomás 2021,
p. 110).

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 4/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

Both Cabral and Kanafani were interested in how the

social analysis of colonized societies in terms of class
stratification can explain the history of liberation
struggles. Their successes and failures were to be
understood in terms of the class position of the
leadership of these movements and the class position
of the people who comprised the bulk of the
combatants. The fundamental basis for comparison
between Kanafani and Cabral is that both of them
drew upon historical materialism to frame their
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the
political movements responsible for the first wave of
independence. Both of them also drew on historical
materialism in order to analyze their own societies
and the impact of colonialism on their respective
societies with respect to social stratification. In fact, it
is entirely plausible to hold that Cabral influenced
Kanafani, given their convergence. While Kanafani
does not mention Cabral explicitly, the works of
Cabral were in circulation in Beirut during the 1960s
(Traboulsi 2022, p. 274). Moreover, Cabral’s work
was known in international circles that Kanafani
moved in, such as the Afro-Asian Writers’
Association. Thus, we have prima facie grounds that
point towards a possible influence of Cabral on
Kanafani. Indeed, as I will show below, some of the
social analysis presented in the theoretical writings of
Kanafani seems to be entirely in accord with the
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 5/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

social analysis that Cabral provided in his famous

speech in Havana during the first meeting of the
Tricontinental in January of 1966.

The Political Content of Afro-Arab Solidarity

Both Cabral and Kanafani were active in a moment

of heightened Afro-Arab solidarity. This solidarity
would eventually culminate in increased African
support for Arab states in their conflict with Israel in
the lates 1960s and early 1970s, as well increased
Arab support for African liberation struggles during
the same period (El Tayyeb 1985). Cabral himself
was in favor of both African and tri-continental
solidarity movements. However, for Cabral, such
movements could not be race based, since in Cabral’s
view racial uniformity does not guarantee political
agreement. Nor was it simply based on the fact that
the peoples in question were historically subjected to
colonialism. For the bare fact that a given people
were subjected to colonialism does not guarantee that
they would adopt any particular political response.
Furthermore, such a unity could not be based on an
assumption of cultural uniformity or kinship. For two
reasons: first, even from a purely African perspective
there are “various African cultures” (Cabral 1979
[1970], p. 149). Second, there is the fact that even
within a given society, culture itself has a “class

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 6/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

character” (Cabral 1979 [1970], p. 144).[1] The class

nature of culture influenced how culture was used to
respond to colonialism. Kanafani held the same view
(Kanafani 2024 [1970b], p. 147).

Rather, for Cabral and Kanafani, the unity in

question would have to be based on a particular
political response to colonialism and neo-colonialism.
This is, in fact, what happened historically. For
example, in the African continent during the 1960s,
the fundamental splits were at the level of political
disagreements as opposed to racial difference. The
countries in the Casablanca Bloc, which advocated a
more forceful and anti-accommodationist approach
to imperialism, were Morocco, Egypt, Guinea, Mali,
Algeria, and Ghana. While the countries comprising
the Monrovia Bloc were Tunisia, Libya, Sudan,
Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal, Cameroon, and
Nigeria. Thus, the split was not along racial, cultural,
or even linguistic lines but rather on explicitly
political lines (Sharawy 1984, p. 42).

For Cabral, the only unity worth having is that with

other liberation movements which recognize that “so
long as imperialism is in existence, an independent
African state must be a liberation movement in
power or it will not be independent” (Cabral 1979
[1972], p. 116). To be a liberation movement in

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 7/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

power is to recognize that it is through acting

systematically in the interests of the classes who have
the most vital interest in thwarting imperialism,
namely the peasantry and the workers, that a
liberation movement can maintain its independence.
This is what Kanafani meant when he talked about
class surrender as the auxiliary to nationalist
surrender (Kanafani 2024 [1970b], p. 146). Thus,
while Afro-Arab unity could be envisioned, it would
have to involve a clear understanding of the basis for
political agreement on the resolution of the problem
of colonialism and neo-colonialism. This point is
important for understanding, for example, the stand
of various Arab and African states towards the
genocide that is happening in Gaza. From the
standpoint of the analysis offered by Cabral and
Kanafani, it makes no sense to chide certain Arab
states for betraying “their kin.” This moralizing
language obscures the relationship between the class
interests which dominate these states and their
position on the Palestine question. Indeed, what
would be surprising and in need of explanation is if
the ruling classes in certain Arab states supported a
struggle against a global order that protects their
interests. In fact, if this were to happen, it would
show that ethnic-cultural kinship does trump class
interests and Cabral and Kanafani would be proven
wrong.
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 8/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

Cabral on Palestine

Cabral’s own stance on Palestine was well known in

the Arab world and it would not be surprising if
Kanafani came to know him through his
pronouncements on Palestine. Cabral was explicitly
in favor of the Palestinian struggle for independence
and he contended that the use of some forms of
violence to attain that end was justified. As Cabral
put it:

We are with the refugees, the martyrized

refugees of Palestine, who have been
tricked and driven from their own
homeland by the maneuvers of imperialism.
We are on the side of the Palestinian
refugees and we support wholeheartedly all
that the sons of Palestine are doing to
liberate their country, and we fully support
the Arab and African countries in general in
helping the Palestinian people to recover
their dignity, their independence and their
right to live (Cabral 1969 [1965], 82).

Cabral clearly understood that Israel played a key role

in a global imperialist order and that its purpose was
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 9/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

to enforce the dictates of the United States of

America by functioning as a weapon aimed at any
liberatory developments in the Arab region and on
the African continent more generally:

We have as a basic principle the defense of

just causes…On this basis we believe that
the creation of Israel, carried out by the
imperialist states to maintain their
domination in the Middle East, was
artificial and aimed at the creation of
problems in that very important region of
the world. This is our position: the Jewish
people who follow the Jewish religion have
the right to live and have lived very well in
different countries of the world. We lament
profoundly what the Nazis did to the Jewish
people, that Hitler and his lackeys
destroyed almost six million during the last
World War. But we also understand that this
does not give them the right to occupy a
part of the Arab nation. We believe that the
people of Palestine have a right to their
land. We therefore think that all the
measures taken by the Arab peoples, by the

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 10/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

Arab nation, to recover the Palestinian Arab

homeland are justified.

In this conflict that is endangering world

peace we are entirely in favor of and
unconditionally support the Arab peoples.
We do not wish for war; but we want the
Arab peoples to obtain the freedom of the
people of Palestine, to free the Arab nation
of that element of imperialist disturbance
and domination which Israel constitutes
(Cabral 1968, 125 quoted from George
n.d., 22).

There are several points to note in Cabral’s

discussion. First, there is the claim that the
Palestinian cause should be understood in terms of
the right of a colonized people to self-determination,
meaning that they have the right to be able to make
their own history collectively without the obvious
impediment of colonialism. The fact that Israel was
established in mid-20th century, when colonialism
seemed to be on the way out, did not confuse Cabral,
even though it confused many others during this

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 11/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

period, as Fayez Sayegh pointed out (Sayegh 1970).

Second, there is the claim that all the measures which
are taken by the Palestinians and allied peoples to
overcome the colonial situation are justified.
Although Cabral says that “all measures taken by the
Arab people are justified,” it is quite implausible that
he thinks that every conceivable measure that could
be taken by them is justified, more likely he means
that the measures which had been taken so far (up to
the time of the speech in 1968) are justified
including, of course, violent commando operations
carried out by the Palestinian resistance. Cabral
himself believed that even in wars of liberation there
are norms that ought to be upheld, as evidenced by
his treatment of Portuguese prisoners of war in
Guinea-Bissau (Cabral 1969 [1968], p. 127 – 130).

Nevertheless, the point remains that, according to

Cabral, the use of certain forms of violence to
overcome the colonial situation is justified. Cabral
does not expand upon this claim, but we can
reconstruct his reasoning by paying close attention to
the context. First, Cabral is clearly not in favor of
suffering and violence in general or of violence for
the sake of violence. However, one could argue that
in a colonial situation where systematic violence is
uninterrupted, it is not infrequently the case that
concentrated (even spectacular) violence is necessary

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 12/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

in order to overturn the status quo and bring about a

less violent mode of socio-political existence. Indeed,
this was what the historical experience of Algeria had
taught many anti-colonial intellectuals and leaders by
the 1960s (Young 2001, p. 293 – 307). Cabral held
that it is incoherent to claim that someone has a right
to some thing while denying that they have a right to
the sole means which would enable them to acquire
that thing.[2] Moreover, the justification for violence
is not premised on the promise of some future utopia
which will come about in the post-colonial situation.
Rather the justification is premised on the fact that
violence and the threat of violence by the colonized
party in a colonial situation can often immediately
alleviate systematized colonial violence and
dispossession by forcing the colonizer to make
concessions.

Furthermore, Cabral and other intellectuals involved

in the Tricontinental were aware that while non-
violent independence movements were able to
achieve gains in certain places (e.g., Ghana and India),
the adequacy of non-violence as a means was
dependent on the response of the colonizer and the
existing legal structures in the colony. For example,
the repeated rejection of petitions submitted by the
Palestinian elite to the officials of the British
Mandate led some elements of the Palestinian

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 13/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

leadership to recognize that, in their situation,

“without violence, politics was useless” (Hughes
2019, p. 96). Speaking more generally, it is important
not to conflate the fact that an occupying or
oppressing force chooses to negotiate with the non-
violent faction of a resistance force (which also
includes violent elements), with the claim that such a
non-violent faction would, by itself, have succeeded
in bringing the occupying or oppressing force to the
negotiating table, had there not been other violent
elements or factions struggling to overturn the
situation. Moreover, even if there are no violent
factions in a given liberation movement, it would be
naïve to think that the response of colonial
authorities in one society does not reflect their
awareness of the existence of violent movements for
independence elsewhere. For example, the
independence of India should be seen not just as the
outcome of Gandhi’s non-violent movement but also
as the product of the pressure exerted by violent
disturbances taking place on the sub-continent itself
as well as the weakening of the British Empire
through World War II and the series of violent
uprisings across the British Empire that started with
the Easter Rising in Ireland in 1916 (Losurdo 2015,
p. 106 – 107). We cannot simply assume, without a
compelling argument, that we can abstract from all of
these factors and present Gandhi’s non-violent
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 14/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

movement as having been sufficient for winning

India’s independence.

The Prism of Class: Unity and Fragmentation

Both Kanafani and Cabral emphasized the

importance of understanding the historical trajectory
of resistance against colonialism in terms of class
analysis. This is evidenced by Kanafani’s study of the
Revolt of 1936 and Cabral’s analysis of the social
structure of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde. Kanafani
made the point that the bulk of the fighters in the
uprisings of 1929 and 1933, which preceded the
Revolt of 1936, were peasants with smallholdings
who often had to sell their land to large Arab
landholders in order to buy weapons and
ammunition. Kanafani indicates that in some cases
the large Arab landholders in turn sold the land to
Jewish settlers (Kanafani 2014 [1972], p. 34). Thus,
Kanafani dissects the manner in which certain classes
in Palestine had interests which were antagonistic to
the interests of the small peasantry and their struggle
for liberation from colonialism. Moreover, Kanafani
shows how, during the 1936 Revolt, the fact that the
traditional Palestinian elite leadership (drawn from
large landowners and merchant families with an
urban base) was operating from exile in Damascus,
meant that “the role of the local leadership whose

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 15/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

social origins is to be found in the poor peasantry was

greater than in the previous period, and this local
leadership was closely connected to the peasantry”
(Kanafani 2014 [1972], p. 92 – 93). This is significant
because Kanafani argues that in the “entire history of
the Palestinian struggle the popular armed revolution
was never closer to success than it was during the
months between the end of 1937 and the beginning
of 1939” (Kanafani 2014 [1972], p. 93).[3] This is
quite a radical claim; Kanafani is maintaining that it
is only when the leadership was drawn from the
smallholding peasantry, or their educated children
who formed the revolutionary segment of the petty
bourgeoisie, that the armed struggle, waged as a
Maoist people’s war with the aim of encircling urban
centers from the countryside, seemed to have a good
chance at succeeding.[4]

Kanafani’s analysis is remarkable because unlike

some of his contemporary (non-Marxist) Arab
thinkers he did not fixate on a moralizing analysis
(e.g., the Islamist analysis of failure in terms of
turning away from God), rather he explained the
ability of the local leadership to mobilize the
peasantry in terms of their social origins. The revolt
failed because the British mounted a tremendously
brutal and effective counterinsurgency campaign and
because the local leadership of poor peasant origins

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 16/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

was unable to free itself entirely from its

organizational ties to the leadership in exile
constituted by the traditional Palestinian elite.
Furthermore, the Arab monarchies systematically
undermined the revolt in coordination with the
British (Kanafani 2014 [1972], p. 88), a role that they
would continue to play into the crucial decade of the
1960s (Kanafani 2024 [1970c], p. 247 – 259) and up
to the present.

For Kanafani, the analysis of the reasons for the

successes and failures of the Revolt of 1936 was not
purely academic, it provided an insight into the
contemporary situation. Thus, in the PFLP’s Strategy
for the Liberation of Palestine, which Kanafani helped
draft along with George Habash and Basil al-Kubeisi
(Barakat 2024), a prime place was accorded to what
were called the forces of “Arab reaction”: “in a real
liberation battle waged by the masses to destroy
imperialist influence in our homeland, Arab reaction
cannot but be on the side of its own interests, the
continuation of which depends on the persistence of
imperialism, and consequently cannot side with the
masses” ( PFLP 2017 [1969], p. 36). Like Cabral, the
PFLP was faced with Arab opposition to the idea that
a class analysis is suitable for understanding Arab
societies. The PFLP, with Kanafani playing a leading
intellectual role, responded to such claims by arguing

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 17/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

that while it is true that the classical picture of classes

in metropolitan societies does not apply to Arab
societies, it is nevertheless true that there are obvious
class divisions in Arab societies in general and in
Palestinian society in particular. This is evidenced by
the fact that “the overwhelming majority of
combatants are the children of workers and peasants”
(PFLP 2017 [1969], p. 45). These classes, according
to the PFLP, “form the majority of the Palestinian
people and physically fill all camps, villages and poor
urban districts” (PFLP 2017 [1969], p. 47). Kanafani
himself, in describing the trajectory of the Arab
Nationalist Movement (ANM) from progressive Arab
nationalism to the Maoist inflected Marxism-
Leninism of the PFLP, notes how experience and
historical reflection taught them that “they could not
win the war against imperialism unless they relied on
certain classes: those classes who fight against
imperialism not only for their dignity, but also for
their livelihood” (Kanafani 2024 [1972], p. 28).
Kanafani’s class analysis of the 1936 Revolt was
always geared towards making a political point about
the present situation. A very similar analysis could be
made of the position of the Palestinian Authority in
Ramallah vis-à-vis the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Indeed, just as the children of the camps carried the
weight of Palestinian revolt in the 1930s and 1960s,

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 18/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

the children of the camps in Gaza and Jenin continue

to do the same today.

Like Kanafani, Cabral claimed that the lack of

adequate class analysis explained the setbacks
suffered by the first generation of the leaders of
independence movements. For example, in Cabral’s
homage to Kwame Nkrumah he emphasizes
Nkrumah’s stature as an icon of African
independence, but he also asks “what economic and
political factors made the success of the betrayal of
Ghana possible despite Nkrumah’s personality,
courage, and positive action” (Cabral 1979 [1972], p.
116). More specifically, Cabral insists that we must
ask:

Just how far would the success of the

betrayal of Ghana have been linked or not
to the questions of class struggle,
contradictions in the social structure, the
role of the Party and other institutions,
including the armed forces, in the
framework of a newly independent state?
Just how far, we wonder, would the success
of the betrayal of Ghana have been linked
or not linked to the question of a correct
definition of that historical entity, that
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 19/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

craftsman of history, the people, and to

their daily action in defense of their own
conquests in independence? (Cabral 1979
[1972], 116).

It is clear that Cabral is essentially posing the same

question that Kanafani posed with respect to the
Revolt of 1936, namely the question of whether, in
fact, it makes sense to speak of the people as a whole
as involved in the struggle against colonialism and
whether all classes in a colonized society have an
interest in the termination of the colonial condition.
Cabral is possibly alluding to Nkrumah’s flirtation
with African Socialism as a social and political theory
which denied the existence of classes in African
societies and the relevance of class analysis for
African societies (El Nabolsy 2023). Nkrumah
himself after the coup that deposed him denounced
African Socialism (Nkrumah 1967). Cabral, like
Kanafani, was thus indicating that the lack of
adequate social analysis was an impediment to
liberation movements. Moreover, Cabral, like
Kanafani, identified the forces of liberation as being
comprised of an alliance between the peasantry, the
workers, and what Cabral calls the “revolutionary
sector” of the petty bourgeoisie, meaning, the

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 20/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

progressive intelligentsia such as Cabral himself

(Cabral 1979 [1966], p. 135). The petty bourgeoisie,
for Cabral, refers to engineers, lawyers, doctors,
schoolteachers, and the like. Yet, Cabral was also
aware that this petty bourgeoisie could turn on the
liberatory project. For according to Cabral, state
power ultimately rests on the economic power of the
ruling class, and the petty-bourgeoisie insofar as it
lacks economic power can never become a ruling
class (although it can be become the governing class).
As Cabral puts it: “history shows that whatever the
role (often important) played by individuals coming
from the petty bourgeoisie in the process of a
revolution, this class has never possessed political
power. And it never could, since political power (the
State) has its foundations in the economic capacity of
the ruling class” (Cabral 1979 [1966], p. 136). So, if
the petty bourgeoisie can lead the anti-colonial
revolution, but cannot become the ruling class, what
is its fate? To answer this question, we have to first
answer the following question: who, in the colonial
and neo-colonial situation, has or can have the kind
of economic power that is at the foundation of
political power? According to Cabral the answer is
that economic power is “retained in the hands of two
entities: imperialist capital and the native classes of
workers [and peasants]” (Cabral 1979 [1966], p.
136). Consequently, the petty bourgeoisie has no
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 21/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

option but to side with one of these two entities.

According to Cabral the petty bourgeoisie can either
choose to commit “suicide as a class” (Cabral 1979
[1966], p. 136) by abdicating state power in favor of
the peasantry and the workers or it can choose to ally
itself with “imperialist capital.”

What is especially remarkable is that Cabral thinks

that this choice cannot be articulated except in moral
terms. As he puts it, “if national liberation is
essentially a political question, conditions for its
development stamp on it certain characteristics that
belong to the sphere of morals” (Cabral 1979 [1966],
p. 136). In one sense, we could say that Cabral
recognized that an appeal to self-interest was not
enough to ensure that the petty bourgeoisie would
not turn into agents of imperialism.[5] Thus, while
Cabral was wary of moralistic explanations in
general, he does concede that on a fundamental level
there is no escaping from key moral questions in the
case of the liberation struggle.

It is quite clear that Cabral was describing the

decision that many liberation movements faced in
the aftermath of independence. Furthermore, he was
describing the situation that the petty bourgeoisie in
Palestine faced and continues to face. Kanafani and
the PFLP also reflected on the problems that stem

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 22/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

from the fact that it is a segment of the petty

bourgeoisie which is leading the alliance of workers
and peasants against Israel. Indeed, the analysis
offered by Kanafani and the PFLP is almost identical
to Cabral’s analysis which was offered three years
earlier in Havana:

…the reason for the existence of the petit

bourgeoisie at the head of the Palestinian
national movement is that, during the
stages of national liberation, this class is one
of the classes of the revolution, in addition
to the fact that its numerical size is
relatively great and that, by virtue of its
class conditions, it possesses knowledge
and power. Consequently, in a situation
where the conditions of the working class
from the viewpoint of political awareness
and organization are not developed enough,
it is natural that the petit bourgeoisie
should be at the head of the alliance of the
classes opposing Israel, imperialism and
Arab reaction (PFLP 2017 [1969], p. 54).

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 23/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

Cabral also indicates that the national movement has

to be led, at least initially, by the petty bourgeoisie
because it is the only class with an interest in
terminating the colonial condition which is able to
grasp the nature of the situation by virtue of its
“higher standard of living than that of the masses,
more frequent humiliation, higher grade of education
and political culture” (Cabral 1979 [1966], p. 135).
For Cabral, the peasantry is the social group that “has
the greatest interest in the struggle,” but, on its own,
it is unable to recognize this fact (Cabral 1969
[1964], p, 60). Kanafani would also register the
outsized role played by the intelligentsia in the
history of revolts in Palestine before the foundation
of the state of Israel in similar terms (Kanafani 2014
[1972], p. 48). However, as Cabral indicated, and as
Kanafani and the PFLP were aware, the petty
bourgeoisie is a vacillating ally, hence they warned
against deferring to the leadership of this class (PFLP
2017 [1969], p. 53 – 55). According to Kanafani the
surrender of leadership to this class or to the
comprador bourgeoisie would involve the liquidation
of the nationalist project in its entirety: “when
revolutionary theory confesses that class surrender is
the auxiliary of [Arab] nationalist surrender, and that
nationalist surrender provides the conditions to
impose class surrender, then the organization cannot

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 24/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

avoid ascribing priority to its worker and peasant

extensions” (Kanafani 2024 [1970b], p. 146).

Cabral and Kanafani’s articulation of the choice

facing the petty bourgeoisie turned out to be
prescient for Palestine. On the one hand, you have
members of the petty bourgeoisie such as Kanafani
and Habash who can be said to have chosen to
commit class suicide. On the other hand, you have
other members of the petty bourgeoisie who can be
said to have chosen to serve as agents of “imperialist
capital” by proxy through working as enforcers for
the Israeli occupation as leaders and functionaries in
the Palestinian Authority (Ajl 2024). To this extent,
Cabral and Kanafani’s writings remain important not
only for understanding the development of
Tricontinental Marxism in the 1960s, but also for
understanding our contemporary moment. Afro-
Arab solidarity is indeed possible, but it must have a
clear political and social basis beyond talk of a
common victimization by a racist imperialist
international order.

Bibliography

Ajl, M. (2024). Palestine’s Great Flood: Part I.

Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 13(1): 62
– 88.

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 25/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

Barakat, K. (2024). Introduction: A Fundamentally

Necessary Approach. In Ghassan Kanafani: Selected
Political Writings, edited by Louis Brehony and Tahrir
Hamdi, p. 93 – 95. London: Pluto Press.

Cabral, A. (1979 [1972]). Homage to Kwame

Nkrumah. In Unity and Struggle: Speeches and
Writings of Amílcar Cabral, translated by Michael
Wolfers, p. 114–118. New York: Monthly Review
Press.

------------. (1979 [1970]). National Liberation and

Culture. In Unity and Struggle: Speeches and Writings
of Amílcar Cabral, translated by Michael Wolfers, p.
138 – 154. New York: Monthly Review Press.

------------. (1968). Determined to Resist.

Tricontinental 8 (September-October 1968): 114–
127.

------------. (1969 [1968]). On Freeing Captured

Portuguese Soldiers – I. In Revolution in Guinea:
Selected Texts by Amílcar Cabral, translated and edited
by Richard Handyside, p. 127 – 130. New York:
Monthly Review Press.

-----------. (1979 [1966]). The Weapon of Theory:

Presuppositions and Objectives of National
Liberation in Relation to Social Structure. In Unity
and Struggle: Speeches and Writings of Amílcar Cabral,
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 26/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

translated by Michael Wolfers, p. 119–137. New

York: Monthly Review Press.

-----------. (1969 [1965]). The National Movements

of the Portuguese Colonies. In Revolution in Guinea:
Selected Texts by Amílcar Cabral, translated and edited
by Richard Handyside, p. 76 – 85. New York:
Monthly Review Press.

-----------. (1969 [1964]). Brief Analysis of the Social

Structure in Guinea. In Revolution in Guinea: Selected
Texts by Amílcar Cabral, translated and edited by
Richard Handyside, p. 56 – 75. New York: Monthly
Review Press.

El Nabolsy, Z. (2023). Questions from the Dar es

Salaam Debates. In Revolutionary Movements in
Africa: An Untold Story, edited by Pascal Bianchini,
Leo Zeilig, and Ndongo Sylla, p. 244 – 261. London:
Pluto.

----------------- and A. Ltifi. (2021). Tarikh Ifriqiya we

Taʾweil Amílcar Cabral lel Nazariya al Madiyah al-
Tarikhyiah. In Al-Pan-Africanism: Bayn al-Seraʿ al-
Tabaqi we al-Indwaʾ al-ʿarqi, edited by Kribso Diallo,
p. 283-304. 2021. Cairo: Moʾasasat Arwqa lel-
Derasat we al-Targama we al-Neshr.

El Tayyeb, M. A. (1985). African Perceptions of the

Arab-Israeli Conflict. In The Arabs and Africa, edited
https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 27/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

by Khair El-Din Hasseb, p. 344 – 366. London:

Routledge.

George, N. (n.d.). “In the Hour of Arab Revolution”

Tricontinental and the Question of Palestine.
[Unpublished Manuscript].

Honderich, T. (2007). Terrorisms in Palestine. Think

5(14): 7-22.

Hughes, M. (2019). Britain’s Pacification of Palestine:

The British Army, the Colonial State, and the Arab
Revolt, 1936 – 1939. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Kanafani, G. (2024 [1972]). On Childhood,

Literature, Marxism, the Front and al-Hadaf. In
Ghassan Kanafani: Selected Political Writings, edited
by Louis Brehony and Tahrir Hamdi, p. 21 - 38.
London: Pluto Press.

--------------. (2014 [1972]). Thawrat 36 – 39 fe

Falastin. Cairo: Dar al-Taqwah.

--------------. (2024 [1971]). The Underlying

Synthesis of the Revolution: Theses on the
Organizational Weapon: Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Hồ
Chí Minh, Stalin, Giáp, Lukács. In Ghassan Kanafani:
Selected Political Writings, edited by Louis Brehony

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 28/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

and Tahrir Hamdi, p. 165 – 176. London: Pluto

Press.

--------------. (2024 [1970a]). ‘A Conversation

Between the Sword and the Neck’: Ghassan Kanafani
Interviewed by ABC Journalist Richard Carleton.” In
Ghassan Kanafani: Selected Political Writings, edited
by Louis Brehony and Tahrir Hamdi, p. 193 – 200.
London: Pluto Press.

--------------. (2024 [1970b]). The Resistance and its

Challenges: The View of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine. In Ghassan Kanafani: Selected
Political Writings, edited by Louis Brehony and Tahrir
Hamdi, p. 121 - 164. London: Pluto Press.

--------------. (2024 [1970c]). The Secret Alliance

Between Saudia Arabia and Israel. In Ghassan
Kanafani: Selected Political Writings, edited by Louis
Brehony and Tahrir Hamdi, p. 247 – 259. London:
Pluto Press.

Losurdo, D. (2015). Non-Violence: A History Beyond

the Myth, translated by Gregory Elliott. New York:
Lexington.

PFLP. (2017 [1969]). Popular Strategy for the

Liberation of Palestine. Utrecht: Foreign Languages
Press.

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 29/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

Nkrumah. K. (1967). African Socialism Revisited.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/1967/african-
socialism-revisited.htm.

Sayegh, F. (1970). A Palestinian View. Cairo: General

Union of Palestine Students.

Sharawy, H. (1984). Al-‘Arab wā Al-Ifriqyiuon Wejehen

le Wejeh. Cairo: Dar Al-Thaqafa Al-Jadeeda.

Tomás, A. (2021). Amílcar Cabral: The Life of a

Reluctant Nationalist. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Traboulsi, F. (2022). Reading and Translating

Gramsci in the ‘70s. International Gramsci Journal
4(4): 274 – 281.

Young, R. J. C. (2001). Postcolonialism: An Historical

Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

[1] This is spelled out in much greater detail in (El

Nabolsy and Ltifi 2021).

[2] For an articulation of the stakes involved here and

for a defense of this principle, see (Honderich 2007).

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 30/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

[3] The translation from the original Arabic is made

by the author.

[4] In fact, it was only during this period that the

situation in Palestine approximated the conditions
that were modelled in theories of guerilla warfare in
the military texts associated with the Chinese and
Vietnamese Revolutions, meaning, the numerical
preponderance of the colonized and the possibility of
encircling urban settlements through control of the
countryside. As Kanafani notes, after 1948, that these
conditions were no longer present, and they could
only be replicated by conceiving of the struggle as an
Arab-Israeli struggle as opposed to a purely
Palestinian-Israeli struggle (Kanafani 2024 [1970b],
p. 136). In other words, using the Vietnam analogy,
the Hanoi in question would be Arab and not
Palestinian.

[5] Although, of course, the appeal to self-interest is

arguably a form of moral discourse as well.

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 31/32
5/9/25, 11:27 AM Amílcar Cabral, Ghassan Kanafani, and the Weapon of Theory

Our Mission Issues Editorial Team Submissions © Souffles Monde 2023

https://www.soufflesmonde.com/posts/amilcar-cabral-and-ghassan-kanafani-on-nation-and-class-in-colonized-societies 32/32