1960s student question and Ethiopia's Current condition through

Marxist lens

(By bruk Mesfin

Analyzing Ethiopia's Current condition with a Marxist lens: the predicament and the Solution

At the core of Marxist philosophy and key to its analysis of society is dialectical materialism.
dialectical materialism can generally be defined as a philosophical method to a scientific
analyses of society, focusing on the economic stratum as the foundation and defining factor of
political and symbolic aspects of society. In this paper, I will try to analyze the current
predicament of Ethiopia and propose the way out using dialectical materialism as a tool. First, I
will illustrate how the crucial political events in Ethiopian history, which led to our current
predicament, are problematic when viewed through the lens of dialectical materialism. Using
same analytical tool, I will then try to demonstrate the actual Ethiopia's present situation and
conclude by offering the solution for the way out.

What is wrong with 1960s students’ question?

The question of the 1960s student movement, as best synopsized in Wallelignes' paper,
does not align with dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism offers one key
insights: society progresses through distinct stages, such as feudalism, capitalism, and
socialism, as a result of the dialectical contradiction between production relation and the
development of means of production. This can be seen in the emergence of capitalism in
England during the industrial revolution, where the contradiction between the advanced
means of production and the feudal production relations gave rise to a new social system,
capitalism. A transition from one social system to the next occurs only when the old
society has reached a level of development where it can no longer progress, but instead
serves as a foundation for the emerging society. This foundation is necessary for the birth
of new society. This is how society develops in stages, one building upon the other.
According to the scientific investigation of social development through dialectical
materialism, this is how society undergoes a natural progression over time.

Let us examine whether 1960's student question align with the principles of dialectical
materialism. Friedrich Angeles, in his writing on women's oppression, suggested that
genuine socialism, achieved through communal ownership, is the only way that culture
ceases to be the superstructure of the economic base. Any previous social system besides
socialism has been characterized by economic and cultural subjugation. As cultural
subjugation arises from economic subjugation, it is logical to conclude that putting an end
to economic subjugation by establishing a socialist system is the key to ending cultural
subjugation, as per dialectical materialism.

The crucial question that needs to be asked now is whether Ethiopia was ready to
establish a socialist system when students raised their questions in the 1960s. Did the
country have the necessary dialectical foundation to build such a system and thereby
eliminate economic and cultural subjugation? The answer is no. The key idea in
dialectical materialism is that every revolution in social order is the necessary
consequence of the emergence of a new production force that no longer fits into the old
social order. This can be exemplified by the transitions from feudalism to capitalism
through the emergence of industrial production forces that were incompatible with the
previous social order.

To establish socialism, a period of capitalism is necessary. Because the working class,

which constitutes the majority of society and shares a common exploited socio-economic
identity while producing the wealth of society, can be created only by capitalism. This
identity group, the working class, is the necessary material condition for the revolutionary
establishment of the socialism. Because workers have nothing to lose and are easily able
to unite and organize due to their similar socio-economic identities, they are more likely
to engage in revolutionary social transformation to put an end to their misery.

The working class, which forms the united majority of society, finds itself pitted against
the small minority of the bourgeoisie. This is the necessary material condition for the
revolution. Did this condition exist when the students of the 60s were raising their
questions? No! There for, the question that was posed by 60s students to establish a
socialist system and thereby end the alleged economic and cultural subjugation is
problematic when seen through the lens of dialectical materialism theory. It is wrong to
demand socialism where its necessary prerequisite is lacking.

EPRDF's ethnic-based federalism viewed through the lens of dialectical

materialism.

As discussed in a previous section, socialism is the only system that can eliminate
economic and cultural oppression. Capitalism is a necessary condition for socialism. The
first error of those who established the current system in Ethiopia emerges from the fact
that they tried to abolish oppression at a time when it was impossible to do so. Because
Ethiopia was not yet capitalist and ready for socialism when they attempted to abolish
oppression by establishing the current system.

Their second error arises from the fact that, even if Ethiopia was in a mature capitalist
condition at that time, the remedy they offered to abolish oppression was incorrect and
undialectical. Establishing a centralized socialist economy where people in the state could
democratically manage their lives would have been sufficient to abolish oppression.
Deviding the country into regions and granting each region autonomy, including the right
to secede, is among measures they believed was necessary to abolish oppression.

First, replacing capitalism by socialism was enough to eliminate the oppression. Second,
establishing a system that enables the existence of multiple autonomous regions, with its
own military, in one country is unnecessary and unsafe since it has potentiality to conflict
and fragmentation of the country.

Some may say that since those autonomies don't have their own distinct economy,
conflict won't arise. But they overlook this crucial fact: private ownership is the root
cause of conflict and oppression because it creates unequal distribution of power among
individuals in a society. The more powerful ones oppress those with less power. And
conflict results between those who have relatively equal power. The power that results
from economy is the reason for oppression and conflict. No one denies that those
autonomous regions have their own military power. Thus, the above argument doesn't
hold true. Communal ownership eliminates oppression by ensuring equality among all
individuals in a society. Conflicts may still arise between individuals, such as between a
wife and husband, but they can be resolved through other means. But how can conflicts
between autonomous political regions within a state be prevented or resolved? There is
no way.

As long as the country is under this system, it remains at the risk of fragmentation and of
conflicts for fragmentation. How can conflicts and risk of fragmentation help to eliminate
oppression? It cannot. It is through capitalism, which consolidates societies and creates
bigger ones, not through fragmentation, that we will reach to socialism and abolish
oppression. This is why the current Ethiopian system, even if Ethiopia was ready for
socialism when it was proposed as a remedy for oppression, is erroneous and counter to
the dialectical progress of society towards where there is no oppression.

Their third mistake is rooted in the fact that even if there is a condition, such as the one
lenin argued for, in which granting autonomy for multiple communities within a state is
justified and needed to abolish oppression, Ethiopia does not qualify for it. Lenin argued
that in a country with multiple nations, granting autonomy up to secession to each nation
is needed to eliminate oppression and is justified within the framework of dialectical
materialism. Let's see if Ethiopia at the time qualifies for the condition Lenin argued for.

Lenin defines a nation as historically evolved and stable community of people with four
common attributes: language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up shown
in national culture. If a country is required to have multiple nations in order to qualify for
a system of multiple autonomy, according to Lenin's condition, then Ethiopia does not
qualify. This is because Ethiopia did not have multiple nations, but rather multiple ethnic
groups.

Ethnic groups are not considered nations, although they may fulfill the four requirements
for a community to be called a nation: language, territory, economic life, and
psychological makeup. However, tribes can also fulfill these requirements. Stalin wrote
that "a nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people. This community
is not racial, nor is it tribal." Therefore, it is clear from the above text that a tribal
community cannot be called a nation even if it has the four requirements. This suggests
that something more is required for a community to be considered a nation.

When Lenin states that a community must fulfill these four conditions to be considered a
nation, he is exclusively referring to communities that have been created through
historical evolution and, finally, by capitalism.

Stalin used the French nation as an example of such a community. "The French nation
was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on." In the same paper he
argues that nations are created during and through the emergency of capitalism. "A nation
is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch,
the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of elimination of feudalism and development
of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations." Is it
the process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism that created
Oromo, sidamo, wolayta, tigray, Amhara or any other community? No! there is no
community in ethiopia that's created in a such way. Thus, there is no nation in Ethiopia.
As a result, Ethiopia does not qualify for a system in which multiple autonomy is justified
within a framework of dialectical materialism, even if Lenin's argument is right.