“All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”
“It was commonly thought that the time had come for the world, and particularly for the Third World, to choose between the capitalist system and the socialist system. The underdeveloped countries […] must, however, refuse to get involved in such rivalry. [They] must endeavour to focus on their very own values as well as methods and style specific to them. […] The choice of a socialist regime, of a regime entirely devoted to the people […] will allow us to progress faster in greater harmony.”
Marx’ depiction of change in a modern, capitalist society – evoked, he argues, by the constant revolutionising of the instruments of production – is part of a theory, which, in its various manifestations in the 20th century, provided the basis for a modernity radical opposed to the prescribed one. The Cold War between the two opposing political and economic systems, of which Fanon speaks, can indeed be regarded as a competition between these two versions of modernity propagated by Washington and Moscow, respectively. Fanon’s directive for Africa, reflecting the truly global dimension of this contestation, may seem contradictory at first sight, but, as will be shown, is referring to a distinct version of the modernity propagated by the latter, an Afro-Marxist modernity, which will be the topic of this essay. Using Africa as one common geographical frame bears risks, given the massive differences in social and political developments throughout the 19th and 20th century. Still, the combining colonial experience and the later discussed Pan-African movement, closely intertwined with Marxism, justify the common analysis. After defining modernity as well as its Marxist and, finally, Afro-Marxist notions, the proliferation of these ideas is outlined, both in the form of the Soviet Union’s as well as Cuba’s ties to the various African movements and independent states and the education of Africans outside Africa. Finally, the realization of these ideas and the differing manifestations are described, using Ghana and Angola as two case studies contrasting a non-violent nation-building project, and a radical, militant struggle. Sources by Kwame Nkrumah, leader of the Ghanaian independence movement and the MPLA, one of the parties in the Angolan war against the Portuguese and the subsequent civil war help to show that the manifestation of spread ideas depended heavily on single African actors as well as the Cold War geopolitical situation. In order not to overcomplicate the terminology and to find a depth of the ideological differentiation appropriate to the length of the essay, Marxism is used in a broad sense as relating to the basic Marxist claim for the control of the means of production by the working class (even in their absence as in many developing countries at the time) or, in broader terms, a mass-based politics with an anti-capitalist stance.
To begin with, modernity, in general terms, is understood as an overall approach to or concept of life in the modern age, in ideological terms defined as post-enlightenment era and, to differentiate it from post-modernity, based on the first and second industrial revolutions. “As the basic characteristic and embodiment of the developmental process of modern society, modernity manifests itself in all aspects of social life.” Following Marshall Berman, we find the crucial phase of modernisation, i.e. the striving for a – more or less radical – changing of society, based on new ideas, in the time after the “great revolutionary wave of 1790s”, in which an abruptly emerged modern public “shares the feeling of living in a revolutionary age”, but at the same time remembers the material and spiritual conditions of the pre-revolutionary era. Modernity also “entailed some very distinct shifts in the conception of human agency, and of its place in the flow of time. It carried a conception of the future characterized by a number of possibilities realizable through autonomous human agency”. This striving for another organization of society, however, we have to understand as split into a global multitude with overlapping similarities, but also clear local distinctions.
Marxism constituted the most radical form of this new understanding of human agency. By developing an alternative, but all the more enthusiastic, model of a just, industrialized society, enjoying the benefits of modern technology and industrial goods, Marx delivered a blueprint for the reorganization of societies which enjoyed unforeseeable popularity in the 20th century. Even more important for our case was, however, the realization of this rather vaguely defined concept of modernity by the Bolsheviks and the perception of this experiment in the rest of the world. Soviet modernity was a way of the engagement of the masses – including women – in the ideological vision of the party. In its refutation of Marx’ idea, that the socialist revolution could only be successful in developed, capitalist societies, the Soviet Union constituted a form of modernization based on mechanisation, industrialisation and overall-control of the economy and society by a vanguard party which came to power only by means of militancy and violence. In the Cold War context after 1945, finally, “modernity came in two stages: a capitalist form and a communal form, reflecting two revolutions – that of capital and productivity, and that of democratization and the social advancement of the underprivileged.” In this above described rivalry for notions of modernity, both sides had to prove “the universal applicability of their ideologies” by exporting them to the not yet developed world.  Marxism thus became a concept of development and, paradoxically – given Marx’ idea that nations would vanish after the realization of communism – nation-building and therefore became a popular approach to modernity. For this essay, we distinguish between three forms of dissemination of this Marxist modernity: material support, ideological connections and the loose spread of ideas.
Afro-Marxist modernity, finally, can be seen as an adaptation of these ideas to the African context. Pan-Africanism, i.e. the idea that the liberation of one country is only the first step towards the liberation and unification of the whole of Africa, played a crucial role in many anti-colonial movements, most prominently in Nkrumah’s concept of African socialism. Despite being Marxist in word and deed, Afro-Marxist movements stressed that they were “departing in significant ways” from classical Marxism. This also meant that Afro-Marxism did not necessarily entail any form of political alignment with Moscow in the Cold War. In fact, the non-aligned-movement was very popular among anti-capitalist African governments. “The eclectic nature of Afro-Marxism allowed adoptive regimes a certain autonomy with regard to Moscow while still being allowed to present themselves as ‘progressive’.”
Despite this non-necessity of direct links to Moscow, the Soviets played a crucial role for many Afro-Marxist movements. While the Bolsheviks took an anti-imperialist stance from the beginning on, which they tried to spread through the Comintern, the actual support as well as the strength of Marxist movements in Africa was relatively poor initially. In the 1930s, the support increased even further due to the common fascist threat with the imperial powers. In the decade after 1945, then, sub-Saharan Africa was considered “relatively unimportant in terms of geopolitics.” After Khrushchev dropped Stalin’s two-camp theory, a more pragmatic approach defined Moscow’s relationship with Africa. Even countries without a distinct anti-capitalist stance received material supply, which was regarded as an anti-Western investment. In general terms, one can distinguish between two phases of Soviet influence in Africa: after supporting newly-independent countries, especially Guinea, Mali and Ghana from 1958 onwards, the USSR, as well as Cuba, intervened in several armed conflicts or civil wars in the 1970s, most importantly in Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia.
While the USSR was also the host for students from – not only anti-capitalist – African countries, most prominently at the People’s Friendship University in Moscow, and thereby tried to actively propagate Soviet modernity among Africans, the education of Africans in the West was even more important in many cases. Often already “dedicated to such staples of modernity as technology and systematization” through colonial education, links to communist parties especially in Britain, France and Portugal helped African elites to develop their Afro-Marxist ideas of how to gain political as well as economic independence from the West and to build a just and progressive society thereafter. The Western education also helps to explain the focus on science and education, “which were at the heart of the project to build modern states in the Third World.” The links to European and Soviet communists, however, must not be overestimated. Afro-Marxist leaders “were out to win power for themselves rather than to place their movements and countries under external communist domination.”
The actual Afro-Marxist nation- and state-building can be distinguished, like the Soviet support, in two phases: “During the late 1950s and early 1960s countries such as Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Tanzania and Zambia, claimed to have adapted socialism to their own national circumstances, producing territorial variants of what was vaguely described as ‘African Socialism’, or ‘Populist Socialism’”, which favoured “broad-based hegemonistic mass movements of the anti-colonial struggle” over Leninist vanguard parties. Since the realization of their socialist programs failed, these first Afro-Marxist regimes faced deep troubles in the late 1960s and many fell victim to military coups. The result was, however, no retreat from the Marxist path of modernization. Rather, a more radical Marxist approach was presented as an answer to the failure of these regimes. The first African “People’s Republic” in Congo (Brazaville), established in 1969 after a putsch by radical soldiers, is the first example of this more radical Marxist state model. Yet, a Marxist-Leninist party was only established years after the acquisition of power. The same is true for Somalia, Benin and Ethiopia. This more radical Marxist approach was even “used by political dissidents to challenge the legitimacy of established Marxist rulers.” The most radical and militant manifestation of Afro-Marxism, however, could be seen in the former Portuguese colonies and the civil wars resulting from the late decolonization process.
The history of Ghanaian, and indeed African independence cannot be written without the person of Kwame Nkrumah. The leader of the independent movement and first president of the newly independent country “became a symbol of hope for other colonised people around the world”, especially in Africa, and most important advocate of Pan-Africanism. Through his western education, both in the US and the UK, he came into contact with Marxist ideas as well as communist and African organisations. He also played a key role in the 1945 Manchester fifth Pan-African Congress, where he discussed his ideas with other key African politicians like Frantz Fanon. In 1947 he was invited to become head of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC). He “arrived in a country facing serious postwar difficulties. Unemployment was rampant, prices had soared and the all-important cocoa crop was threatened by disease”, which in 1948 led to riots and demonstrations. Nkrumah, more radical than the other UGCC members, founded the Convention People’s Party (PCC) in 1949, which “demanded ‘Self-Government Now’ and began to mobilise trade unionists, farmers, youth and ex-servicemen’s associations” and thereby channelled the anti-colonial mood in the country. In 1951, while in prison for organising demonstrations, he won the general election with over 90 percent. During this campaign his party propagated a resolute modern programme, including “free education and medical care, the introduction of heavy industry, railroad electrification [and] the mechanization of agriculture” and were thus already promoting a modernity with a Marxist stance. Following his appointment as prime minister of the Gold Coast in 1952, he and the CPP led the country peacefully to “internal self-government” and, finally, to independence in 1957, when Nkrumah became first president of renamed Ghana. Having already determined the discourse about the future of the country in the late colonial era, the term “development” became ubiquitous after 1957. “Development, the objective good, was the one tenant upon which the Cold War powers in the United Nations, as well as the Third World powers at Bandung, could all agree.” The introduction of annual development plans, focusing on industrialisation and infrastructure projects led the county on a modernization path established first in the Soviet Union. Development also included a focus on, especially technical, education and technology.
These symbols of modernity in the first independent sub-Saharan African country were not established in an explicit Marxist framework at the beginning. Indeed, Nkrumah’s foreign policy swayed between East and West several times while officially being part of the Non-Aligned Movement, which illuminated the “cultivation of an enlightened, humanist, and morally and socially reforming modernity”. Soviet material assistance for Ghana started in 1960, when an agreement was signed providing for cultural and technological cooperation as well as the exchange of teachers and students. In another agreement following soon after, the exchange of Soviet industrial products for Ghanaian raw materials was arranged. This cooperation, however, was only one part of Ghana’s foreign aid, albeit presenting the educational, technological and industrial modernity more symbolically than the US loans. It was not until 1964, that Ghana in word and deed ultimately moved closer to a Soviet-Marxist modernity, although Nkrumah never fully accepted it while being president.
At this point it is worth looking closer at one of Nkrumah’s most important publications, “Africa Must Unite” from 1963. In a chapter titled “Building Socialism in Africa”, he describes his vision of an African socialism. Although he names different parts of Marxist modernity like “industrialisation”, “public ownership of the means of production”, a government-controlled economy as well as the role of the PCC, which is “entirely Ghanaian in content and African in outlook, though imbued with Marxist socialist philosophy”, he denies the Soviet Union as the role model of this modernization and states, that “there is no universal pattern for industrialization that can serve as an absolute model for new nations emerging out of colonialism.” Two things become clear in Nkrumah’s view: Afro-Marxist modernity is perceived as a distinct African adaptation of the spread ideas of Marxist theory, and the Soviet role model is denied, despite the mentioned material support for the realization of this modernity. Nkrumah’s more radical Marxist or rather anti-Western course caused his downfall in 1966, when a military coup overthrew his government while he was on a piece mission in Vietnam. While in exile, he continued publishing and reverted to a more radical Marxist, which made his ideology, “Nkrumahism”, a source of inspiration even for Marxist Afro-Americans, as evident in a pamphlet published by the “All-African People’s Revolutionary Party” in Washington in 1982, where his Pan-Africanism is extended to the idea of an African nationhood and one – centuries old – common, as well as global and anti-capitalist struggle all Africans around the world are part of. “Scientific socialism” is presented as an answer and “historical necessity”, realized by a vanguard party formed out of the – male and female – intelligentsia of Africans in Africa and in the diaspora. His ideology thus became a means of dissemination of a specific notion of modernity itself.
Angola presented a quite different case, both in the type of the colonial rule and, resulting from it, the way the decolonization process took place. For the Portuguese governments, especially after the erection of Salazar’s Estado Novo in 1926, Angola and its other colonial possessions constituted overseas departments of the Portuguese nation and played a crucial part in the Portuguese economy. In the 1960s, large-scale development plans and an increase in the settler population emphasized Angola’s importance for the regime. At the same time, violence – remaining the only viable expression of anti-colonial opposition due to the government’s stance on the colonial question – broke out between the government and different nationalist movements which, one the one hand, consisted of the so-called mestiços (mixed) and assimilados (Westernized), which were parts of the urban population and felt increasingly threatened in their position by the growing number of settlers and, on the other hand, of mostly rural Africans hardly affected by the colonial modernity. This split in terms of class (and, to an extent, race) in the anti-colonial movement also features the two main factions in the civil war, the MPLA and the FNLA. The former emerged from contacts between Angolan students in Portugal and the Portuguese Communist Party – which acted as an intermediary of Soviet modernity due to their close links to Moscow – and became more and more radical Marxist. While these movements also represented different ethnic groups, these splits were not the reason for the civil war. Quite on the contrary, the territorial integrity of the Angolan “nation”, defined by the Portuguese imperialists, remained unquestioned by the anti-colonial movements.
Already during the anti-colonial, but most importantly during the following civil war resulting from the “Carnation Revolution” in 1974, Angola became a Cold War proxy war with a multitude of players involved. While the US, South Africa, China and Zaire supported MPLA’s opponents, UNITA and the FNLA, the Angolan Afro-Marxists received large-scale military aid from the Soviet Union (as well as its European allies), various African countries, including Ghana and Congo Brazaville (where the MPLA had its base prior to the declaration of independence in 1975) as well as the supply of 12,000 Cuban troops in late 1975, which proved crucial for the survival of the MPLA during Pretoria’s invasion. These ideological connections to the communist world, however, were the result of a quest for international supply initially in the West, which was denied due to their Marxist reputation despite the initial refusal of the leadership of a clear Marxist stance. In 1964, finally, the MPLA positioned itself in the Socialist Camp and established the connections which guaranteed its victory in the civil war. Apart from the overt Marxist program, the anti-imperialist struggle of other movements, especially in Vietnam and Algeria, became crucial for the MPLA’s understanding of being part of a global struggle.
Modernity in the Angolan case was closely connected to the term “national liberation”. In a speech over Radio Tanzania from 1968, the leader of the MPLA, Agostinho Neto, outlined his stance on the war against the Portuguese, which he regarded as part of a global, anti-capitalist struggle. It becomes clear, that militancy is part of modernity, the armed action is a “school” for the warriors which shall lead the nation in the struggle for full independence, i.e. from the Portuguese and the foreigners owning the natural resources. Unlike Nkrumah, Neto did not propagate Pan-Africanism, but stressed the “anti-racial” stance of his movement, a reference to the racial background of the MPLA. He also addresses modernity in a direct manner when speaking of the MPLA’s strive for the “liquidation of ignorance, disease and primitive forms of social organization” and the need for industrialisation, all implemented by a strong “vanguard party” which “must control the life of the country during every moment.” Although Neto didn’t address the links to the Soviet Union in this speech, the MPLA was transformed into a Marxist-Leninist ‘vanguard worker’s party’ after the proclamation of the People’s Republic of Angola in 1975 and a visit of Neto in Moscow in 1976. In the new program, “there was no mention of ‘African socialism’, a formula which Moscow distrusted as unscientific.” Despite these close ties, the Angolan economy remained oriented towards the West.
A triptych from about 1975, depicting the three leaders of the Marxist struggle in Angola (Castro, Neto, Brezhnev), exhibited in London in 2016 (red4.jpg), marks not only the cultural implementation of Afro-Marxist modernity in Angola, realized through global Marxists cooperation, it also shows the post-modern reception of the topic in the post-colonial metropolis. As we have seen, Afro-Marxist modernity manifested itself in different ways throughout time. In Ghana, ideological links as well as the material support in form of Ghanaian-Soviet cooperation, were only established during the end of Nkrumah’s reign. However, the spread of Marxist ideas was influential for his entire thinking, beginning with his Western education, and, consequently, the implementation of a form of Afro-Marxism in Ghana, closely linked to the idea of Pan-Africanism, and shaped the discourse around the term “development”. Angola presents a different picture: the proliferation of modernity happened most importantly in the form of military assistance as a means of material support. Moreover, ideological connections with communists in Portugal, Cuba and the Soviet Union defined the movement from the beginning on. The inevitability of radical militancy made the MPLA leaders use these ties to manifest an Afro-Marxist modernity which in ideological and military terms relied much more on non-African Marxist powers than in Ghana. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, however, as well as the on-going UNITA insurgency and the failure of the implemented economic system made the MPLA finally open the country towards a market-oriented model and a multi-party system. Has Afro-Marxist modernity thus “melted into air” and been replaced by a neoliberal, universal postmodernity, in which it is reduced to the topic of a post-modern exhibition?
“All-African People’s Revolutionary Party. Some aspects of its origins, objectives, ideology & program.” Political pamphlet, published by the All African People’s Revolutionary Party, Washington D.C. in 1982 or 1983. Source: African Activist Archive. URL: http://africanactivist.msu.edu/document_metadata.php?objectid=32-130-1C55.
Fanon, Frantz: The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 2004).
Marx, Karl: The Communist Manifesto, edited by Frederic L. Bender (New York: Norton & Company, 1988).
Neto, Agostinho: “A message to companions in the struggle.” Speech, delivered on 06.06.1968 over Radio Tanzania in the program “The Voice of Angola in Combat”. Source: African Activist Archive. URL: http://africanactivist.msu.edu/document_metadata.php?objectid=32-130-1188.
Nkrumah, Kwame: Africa Must Unite (London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1963).
Ractliffe, Jo: “Mural portraits depicting Fidel Castro, Agostinho Neto and Leonid Brezhnev, painted on the wall of a house in Viriambundo, Angola, circa 1975.” Triptych, part of: Courtesy of Stevenson, Cape Town/Johannesburg. URL: http://calvert22.org/images/uploads/pages/Red_Africa/slideshow1/_element_slideshow/red4.jpg. Published in the exhibition “Red Africa” of the Calvert 22 Foundation, London, 4 Feb – 3 Apr 2016. URL: http://calvert22.org/red-africa/.
Adi, Hakim; Sherwood, Marika: Pan-African History. Political figures from Africa and the diaspora since 1787 (London: Routledge, 2003).
Berman, Marshall: All That Is Solid Melts Into Air. The Experience of Modernity (New York: Penguin Books, 1988).
Eisenstadt, S.N.: Multiple Modernities, Daedalus, 129/1 (2000), pp. 1-29.
Gleijeses, Piero: Conflicting Missions. Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1956-1976 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002).
Guimarães, Fernando Andresen: The Origins of the Angolan Civil War. Foreign Intervention and Domestic Political Conflict. (London: Macmillan Press, 1998).
Howell, Thomas A.; Rajasooria, Jeffrey P.: Ghana & Nkrumah (New York: Facts on File, 1972).
Hughes, Arnold: The appeal of marxism to Africans, Journal of Communist Studies, 8 (1992), pp. 4-20.
Kret, Abigail Judge: ‚We Unite with Knowledge‘. The Peoples’ Friendship University and Soviet Education for the Third World, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 33/2 (2013), pp. 239-256.
Mazov, Sergey: A Distant Front in the Cold War. The USSR in West Africa and the Congo, 1956-1964 (Standford: Standford University Press, 2010).
Nugent, Paul: Africa Since Independence. A Comparative History (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Poe, D. Zizwe: Kwame Nkrumah’s Contribution to Pan-Africanism. An Afrocentric Analysis (New York: Routledge, 2003).
Schmidt, Elizabeth: Foreign Intervention in Africa. From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Steele, Jonathan: Soviet relations with Angola and Mozambique, in: Cassen, Robert (Ed.): Soviet interests in the Third World. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (London: SAGE Publications, 1985), pp. 284-298.
Webber, Mark: Angola: Continuity and change, Journal of Communist Studies, 8 (1992), pp. 126-144.
Westad, Odd Arne: The Global Cold War. Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
White, Evan: Kwame Nkrumah: Cold War Modernity, Pan-African Ideology and the Geopolitics of Development, Geopolitics, 8 (2003), pp. 99-124.
Ziyi, Feng: A contemporary interpretation of Marx’s thoughts on modernity, Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 1 (2006), pp. 254-268.
 Marx, Karl: The Communist Manifesto, edited by Frederic L. Bender (New York: Norton & Company, 1988), p. 58.
 Fanon, Frantz: The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 2004), pp. 55-56.
 Ziyi, Feng: A contemporary interpretation of Marx’s thoughts on modernity, Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 1 (2006), pp. 254-268, here p. 255.
 Berman, Marshall: All That Is Solid Melts Into Air. The Experience of Modernity (New York: Penguin Books, 1988), p. 17.
 Eisenstadt, S.N.: Multiple Modernities, Daedalus, 129/1 (2000), pp. 1-29, here p. 2.
 Westad, Odd Arne: The Global Cold War. Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 52, 92.
 Ibid., pp. 4, 40.
 Nugent, Paul: Africa Since Independence. A Comparative History (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 138.
 Westad: Global, p. 107.
 Hughes, Arnold: The appeal of marxism to Africans, Journal of Communist Studies, 8 (1992), pp. 4-20, here pp. 17-18.
 Ibid., p 5.
 Mazov, Sergey: A Distant Front in the Cold War. The USSR in West Africa and the Congo, 1956-1964 (Standford: Standford University Press, 2010), p. 11.
 Hughes: Appeal, p. 16.
 Schmidt, Elizabeth: Foreign Intervention in Africa. From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 26.
 Kret, Abigail Judge: ‚We Unite with Knowledge‘. The Peoples’ Friendship University and Soviet Education for the Third World, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 33/2 (2013), pp. 239-256.
 Westad: Globa,, p. 74.
 Ibib., p. 93.
 Hughes: Appeal, p. 6.
 Ibid., pp. 10-14.
 White, Evan: Kwame Nkrumah: Cold War Modernity, Pan-African Ideology and the Geopolitics of Development, Geopolitics, 8 (2003), pp. 99-124, here p. 100.
 Poe, D. Zizwe: Kwame Nkrumah’s Contribution to Pan-Africanism. An Afrocentric Analysis (New York: Routledge, 2003), p.2.
 Adi, Hakim; Sherwood, Marika: Pan-African History. Political figures from Africa and the diaspora since 1787 (London: Routledge, 2003), p. 144.
 Howell, Thomas A.; Rajasooria, Jeffrey P.: Ghana & Nkrumah (New York: Facts on File, 1972), p. 7.
 Adi: History, p. 144.
 Howell: Ghana, p. 12.
 Adi: History, p. 144.
 White: Nkrumah, pp. 105-106.
 Ibid., pp. 111-112.
 Howell: Ghana, pp. 62-63.
 White: Nkrumah, p. 113.
 Nkrumah, Kwame: Africa Must Unite (London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1963).
 Adi: History, p. 145.
 Pamphlet found in the African Activist Archive. URL: http://africanactivist.msu.edu/document_metadata.php?objectid=32-130-1C55.
 Webber, Mark: Angola: Continuity and change, Journal of Communist Studies, 8 (1992), pp. 126-144, here p. 127.
 Guimarães, Fernando Andresen: The Origins of the Angolan Civil War. Foreign Intervention and Domestic Political Conflict. (London: Macmillan Press, 1998), pp. 4-32.
 Gleijeses, Piero: Conflicting Missions. Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1956-1976 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), pp. 246-272.
 Guimarães: Origins, p. 72.
 Webber: Angola, pp. 127-128.
 Speech found in the African Archivist Archive. URL: http://africanactivist.msu.edu/document_metadata.php?objectid=32-130-1188.
 Guimarães: Origins, p. 170.
 Steele, Jonathan: Soviet relations with Angola and Mozambique, in: Cassen, Robert (Ed.): Soviet interests in the Third World. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (London: SAGE Publications, 1985), pp. 284-298, here p. 289.
 „Red Africa“, Calvert 22 Foundation, London, 4 Feb – 3 Apr 2016. URL: http://calvert22.org/red-africa/.
 Webber: Angola, pp. 130-137.