1w ago

Why were communists killing each other in Angola?

The Angolan Civil War is a very strange period of history for me. By all logic it doesn't make sense that there are not only two large, powerful communist parties but that they were fighting each other - with one even being backed by the West of all people. I've heard the division was caused primarily by an ethnic dispute with the two parties representing two different ethnicities.

Is this accurate or was there more to it than that? I'd appreciate any insight anyone has - or at least resources if available - in order to better understand why this war happened.

15 comments

Angolan Civil War seems less complex
MPLA has a typical Soviet Marxist Leninist urban working class approach, not being sectarian regarding tribe or ethnicity, and so thus supported by USSR, Warsaw Pact and Cuba
UNITA has support from majority peasant Ovimbundu and supported by Maoist China early on but mostly Amerikkka and Apartheid South Africa, and I'd argue they ceased to be Maoist by then and purely reactionary.
But tell me about Horn of Africa and it's a huge fuck up of Communists fighting each other over ethnicity
DERG VS SOMALI VS Eritrea VS Tigray
But ah well, to destroy a deviationist Communist party is no loss, to keep them is not gain, even if they're under the ML banner
- Derg main issue was Amhara chauvinism (I think it wasnt really set out to be that way, just amhara socialists ended up not dying & Ethiopia was an empire with its own baggage), Somalia wasnt an ML/socialist state more like Niger or Mali today thats why the soviets eventually switched to the derg primarily, Eritrea was a liberatory fight against Ethiopia due to aforementioned chauvinism and geopolitical concerns, it was actually supported by the arab states and cuba at first, while israhell & usa supported imperial Ethiopia but then the roles switched lol
  Eritrea acted as the gulf/Zionist guard against Yemen & Houthis, but their relationship has tapered off, Eritrea kicked out UAE bases recently.
  Tigray was in allied to Eritrea at first but wanted a soviet union style Ethiopia not balkanization, there is also historic cultural & religious tensions between the two (Eritrea as coastal territory got more investments by the arabs, turks and then italians), which eventually led to their falling out, TPLF became the leaders of post-communist Ethiopia (a conflicted mediated by Jimmy Carter), so it kinda becomes obvious why they would eventually be captured by Zionist interests.
  Horn politics are underrated, sadly marxist barely have good resources for the whole conflict - so whacko african warlord stories are the norm.

Fun fact, if you're into podcasts, Blowback Season 6 is all about Angola and the conflicts.
- How do you get season 6 without paying for it? The rss feed I found by googling only gas S06E01.
  
  Check your DMs ;)
- Nice. I've been meaning to check out Blowback; thanks.

Lack of political theory and class consciousness are why the 2 sides were fighting.
The leader of UNITA was not a communist he was a political opportunist who used Marxist rhetoric. (There is a reason China cut off funding and supplies once the liberation war ended and the civil war started.) Savimbi was more than happy to be sponsored by the usa to have a civil war instead of working with the MPLA because he was not interested in setting up a socialist state, he was interested in personal power. His followers were focused on ethnic divisions rather than on class divisions. (this was likely widespread on both sides as the literacy rates were abysmal.)
Honestly I think the outcomes of the Angolan anti-colonialist revolution were a big part of the formation of China's non-interference policy. If the anti-imperialist struggle hadn't been flooded with money and weapons by USSR and China the struggle for freedom may have been more difficult but it would have possibly made time for the formation of an ideologically sound vanguard party of the working classes which would have avoided the bloodshed during the civil war and the Neo-colonialst recapture.

Socialism became very en vogue in africa, so you had a lot of people claiming to be one to gain "clout". Somalia & Tanzania are good examples, even Zimbabwean socialists purged the ML's.
- Interesting. Do you have any resources for this? I'd like to read more about it.
  
  I'm not familiar with this particular case, my knowledge of African history is based on North American public schooling, in otherwords almost non-existent. However, this is a pretty common thing to use, or stop using, the "s-word", depending on how fashionable it is. Just look at the Nazis (national socialist party). That nonsense has led to today still people honestly thinking that nazism was socialism. India has also gone back and forth on whether or not it wants to be called socalist over the years.

After ingesting a ton of theory, my new and improved instincts say that the "communist" party the west backed was a deviationist movement specifically designed to counter the actual communists and probably the other one was the real one.
- That is a fair assumption to make but I don't think it's a helpful means of analysis.
  Are they deviationist because they're actually engaging in deviationism or are we simply calling them deviationist because it's a convenient way of brushing aside something embarrassing or controversial and because we're already biased toward the alternative? Is it "deviationism" to accept support from our ideological enemies - to use their money, their resources, their manpower, etc. to further our own goals that are in opposition to our enemies' interests in the long run?
  I don't really like the argument of "X is bad because they're working for Y" as it's one of the most common arguments liberals use to shut down discussion around groups they want to oppose, like the Palestinian Resistance. It also erodes the agency of the people in question by reducing them to mere 'puppets' that apparently can't act on their own. This especially becomes problematic when the groups in question aren't white and the person accusing them of being puppets is.
  Capitalists and communists fought the Second World War together against other capitalists. Politics - including warfare - can be complex and can lead to unusual alliances and strange rivalries. I think it's best to look at what the people in question are actually doing, what they actually believe, and whether or not their actions mesh with their alleged beliefs.
  I don't remember which one but if I recall correctly there was a conflict (in Africa, I think) during the Cold War where the USA and the USSR were supporting the same side.
  
  I see your point but i dont think we always need to use the hardest path, especially when the tendency is made a hundredfold clear.
  Additionally, just because I give my opinion does not mean you have to take it and run with it. Feel free to research it yourself if you are so inclined.
  Concerning the ussr, that is not correct. The ussr and the west were never on the same side. Read imperialism by lenin or black shirts and reds by parenti to make that abundandly clear. Fascism was a capitalist idea and still is. The west fought it because it got out of control and because they didnt want everyone to see that the red army can kill the nazi beast by itself.
  The ussr was the enemy before, during and after. The west used the situation to paint itself in a righteous color.
  An actually revolutionary communist or socialist cause has never and will never be - knowingly - supported by the west.
  Feel free to correct me if you have different facts of course.

with one even being backed by the West of all people.
They wren't communists then. Did you honestly think the west would support communists during the cold war?
- Do I honestly think the West would exploit communist infighting to weaken the communist movement?
  Is that a trick question?

15 comments