Zambezia (1988), XV (ii).BOOK REVIEWSSince Independence, Zimbabweans have been urged to work towards theestablishment of a socialist State. However, no particular brand of socialism is tobe imposed; rather, a brand of socialism which takes into account thecharacteristics of Zimbabwe is expected to evolve. As part of this process ofevolution, there will be considerable differences of opinion as to the relationshipsbetween socialist theory and Zimbabwean culture, no less so among academics.In the interest of furthering the debate on this issue, Prof. C. S. Banana was invitedto respond to the critical review of his book, Towards a Socialist Ethos, byDr L. Brewster. It is hoped, therefore, that these two views will provoke furtherdebate, and the Editor will welcome any academic contributions on this question.R. S. R.Towards a Socialist Ethos By C. S. Banana. Harare, College Press, 1987, xi60 pp., ISBN 0-86925-824-9, Z$5,95.'This small book is a humble attempt to stimulate a genuine debate on thechallenges and imperatives of socialism...' (p. iii). The author, in thus stating hisobjective, initially leaves it unclear whether he wishes this 'genuine debate' to takeplace among socialists or between socialists and non-socialists. He then precludeseither possibility by setting forth nothing less than a Manichaean vision of therelation between socialism and capitalism: 'The struggle becomes the realisationand crowning of good in the lives and history of the enslaved and dispossessedversus evil incarnating itself as capitalism whose might rests on absoluteimmorality and plunder' (p. 1). With whom, then, are we to debate? Not thecapitalist, for he is absolutely immoral and deserves no hearing. Not the socialist,for in opposing this absolute immorality, he is absolutely virtuous, and how cananyone argue with that?After this rather self-destructive launch, the balance of the book may, I think,be summarized as follows:(1) Africans, through their communal tradition, naturally tend towardsocialism, and this tendency is reinforced by Christianity if it is given itsproper interpretation.(2) The West, inspired by capitalism, 'the father of imperialism', and, as werecall, the incarnation of evil, has led Africans away from their inherentsocialist virtue into selfishness and unconcern.(3) This must be countered by 'a complete regeneration of both theindividuals and the system.'In support of (1), we read such extraordinary statements as, This is the heart ofAfrican culture. We believe the individual must die in order to find his true selfwithin the context of the collective' (p. 13). Whenever anyone takes it into hishead to speak of African, European, or Oriental cultures as if they werehomogeneous lumps lending themselves to simple tags, we can be sure that someconvenient caricature will quickly follow. The author has not disappointed us.199200 BOOK REVIEWSJust how misleading it is to label all African history and culture as collectivistwas seen from Prof. D. N. Beach's discussion of Shona society in the Zimbabweanplateau around AD. 1400: 'The basic underlying fact in the political economy wasthat society was not based upon equal sharing of resources or wealth, in spite ofideology that often insisted that it was'. He goes on to point out that the control ofthe land 'was vested in the ruler', who had in theory 'the right to grant land... towithdraw it from some of his subjects in order to grant it to others or to cede it toan outside group'.1 This does not seem much like a tradition in which theindividual voluntarily smothers himself in the collective. Further evidence can befound in traditional proverbs:'What is shared by everybody is hair, riches are not shared equally.'2'It is up to the owner of the blanket to put it on or spread it.' 3The author shows great virtuosity in ignoring anything that might complicatehis dramatic picture of pristine socialist virtue against unspeakable capitalist evil.Capitalism is indeed 'the father of imperialism'. We thus learn by implication thatthe Romans either were not imperialists or that they were capitalists, and that allthe unpleasantness in Afghanistan is mere illusion. The author appears similarlyunconscious of the authoritarian implications of such statements as, "The clergymust not pontificate from pulpits about the human situation but must facilitate forthe people to preside over the process of the historical and revolutionarytransformation now taking place in Zimbabwe' (p. 22). A translation of this isthat the church has no other function than to support the current government. Tocriticize state policy is to oppose the people and thus 'to pontificate'.We also read: 'Whereas a capitalist system of education saw nothing wrong inperpetuating the exploitation of man by man education in socialist Zimbabweshould be a vehicle of liberating the individual from exploitation and thus free ourpeople from the crippling and suffocating passions of greed, domination and selfaggrandisement' (p. 30). There is no question here of Zimbabweans receiving aneducation suited to enabling them to make up their own minds on these questions.This, presumably, would be a subtle kind of 'self-aggrandisement'. Education ishere regarded as merely another instrument of manipulation in which, forexample, only capitalist imperialism is regarded as worthy of mention, and inwhich African history is to be purged of all inconveniences.It is not so much that the author is wrong about all this, though I believe he is.The real problem is that he presents such feeble justification. What he asserts isoften so transparently wrong, and what he omits so glaring, that he does damageto his own cause. For example, if socialism in Africa could only be supported bythe obviously careless generalizations in which the author indulges, or ifChristianity could only be an outlet for state propaganda, then neither would havesuch importance as they have. What is lacking in this book more than anythingelse is an honest attempt to think through the problems raised. Exhortation,exaggeration and forgetfulness are no substitute.I must report that the book is very badly written. This is evident from some of1 D. N. Beach, Zimbabwe before 1900 (Gweru, Mambo Press, 1984), 21.2 Tsumo-Shumo (Gweru, Mambo Press, 2nd edn., 1987), 151, No. 637.3 Ibid, 300, No. 1277.BOOK REVIEWS 201the quotations already cited, but there is one passage so bad as to deserve specialmention:The past confronts us as a violent odd, as defeat, deformation and shame. It confronts us asunsightly grotesqueness threatening to engulf our fragile and tender present. We look in ourpresent for confidence, just a semblance of order and direction to provide us with a startingpoint, to keep us going. But, lo! incertitude, the chagrin of unrealised prospects and impiousinterference rock our entrails and threaten to sap our determination. The future says nothingmore than that it is an amalgam of a distorted past and an inchoate present (p. 4).The author takes off well enough, but never seems to land on anything. Perhapsthat is better than further 'rocking our entrails'.I do not know to whom to recommend this book. Those who agree with theauthor will be unsustained; those who disagree will be unpersuaded; and thosewho need an introduction to the issues will remain uninformed.University of Zimbabwe L. BREWSTERA reply to Dr BrewsterMy first reaction to Dr Brewster's review of my book was to ask: can he spell myname correctly? Then I wondered if he had in fact read my book. Realizing that infact he had, but wearing his own ideological glasses which made him constantlymis-state and distort my views, I felt tempted to respond like an adolescent woulddo to a censorious adult: 'You don't and can't understand'. I resisted thetemptation because I realized that my book and Brewster's review of it representopposed views or perspectives of the world. Since I see myself as a class warriorfor the working and dispossessed classes, my disagreement with Brewster appearsto me to be part of the ideological struggle. Our contradictions represent thecontradictions between the working classes and the capitalists. I am on the side ofthe working classes which are held in bondage by capitalism. I do not knowwhich side Brewster is on.All intellectuals consciously or unconsciously choose on which side they are.On the side of a minority of exploiters Š a handful of capitalists Š or on the sideof the dispossessed millions. I make no pretence at professorial neutrality Š I amclearly objectively partisan and articulate the demands and the agenda of theworking people. Although Brewster does not admit it, he appears to be on theother side.I will not bore my readers by restating the points I make in my book. I willconfine myself to responding to the main threads of Brewster's critique of thebook.As I have already indicated, on several occasions Brewster mistakes anddistorts my position. He reads the book through his own ideological glasses, notmine. In the preface of my book I stated, 'This small book is a humble attempt tostimulate genuine debate on the challenges and imperatives of socialism(emphasis added). Later on I elaborate on this point and state:I trust that this book will serve primarily as a challenge that will provoke debate and self202 BOOK REVIEWSexamination for, without an accurate and realistic assessment of where we came from andthe challenges that face us, we will not be adequate to the momentous tasks that lie ahead.Our task is that of transforming Zimbabwe into an egalitarian society, a nation in whichsocial justice will replace the deluminizing deprivation of yester-years. It is, therefore, asacred vocation of every Zimbabwean to strive towards the realisation of our chosen pathof socialism (p. 3).These statements read within the context of the whole book clearly show thatthe debate is not to be between socialists and capitalists. That would be a steriledebate serving no purpose for the capitalists cannot commit class suicide anddebate 'the challenges and imperatives of socialism'. Yes, Brewster is correct; thedebate cannot be with the capitalist for he is the exploiter who must be dislodged.How can the enemy participate in a debate whose aim is to refine strategies forhis/her total defeat? Thus it is clear that the debate can only be between socialistsand their allies. The debate is for purposes of correctly identifying the enemy andfor refining strategies against him/her. This is what the book is all about. Brewsterappears not to understand this, hence his view that the debate cannot be betweensocialists because in their opposition to 'immorality' they are 'absolutely virtuous'.Yes they are, but they still have to discuss and debate the 'challenges andimperatives of socialism'.Brewster then pounces on this statement. 'This is the heart of African culture.We believe that the individual must die in order to find his true self within thecontext of the collective' and chooses to read it totally out of context. This contextis clear from the paragraph and sentence preceding this statement which reads:For us the ethics of collectivism and the African system of the extended family remain theonly positive and redemptive force in a world where there is so much paralysing coldnessand insensitivity to the plight of the marginalized and the dispossessed. African traditionand culture maintain that we are our brother's keeper. No human soul can be regarded as astranger and an intruder... We do not talk of colleagues or workmates; we talk of brothersand sisters, mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, sons and daughters. [Then follows thestatement Brewster pounces on.] This is the heart of African culture.Brewster reads all this as constituting an inflexible argument that African feudalsociety was naturally democratic and collectivist. No, that is not the point. Thepolitical institutions of the feudal state were exploitative. They were notdemocratic, nor were they collectivist. They could not be otherwise because thestate presided over a system based on private property Š on the privateownership of the means of production. Accordingly, the political system was notcollectivist but naturally exploitative.But then the culture of the dispossessed was not precluded from beingcollectivist because the feudal production system does not and did not alienate the'peasantry' from their labour and from their selves as human beings. Underfeudalism, while the dispossessed are alienated from the means of production theyare not alienated from their labour, from themselves and from each other. Thus, intheir dispossessed state they can and did develop a collectivist culture in theproduction and consumption of food and other resources for their livelihoodŠhence the collectivist character of the African extended family which is a far cryfrom the bourgeois individualistic nuclear family under capitalism. The workingBOOK REVIEWS 203people are alienated not only from the means of production but from their labourand from themselves as human beings and as individuals.They are lonely in the midst of millions of their fellow workers. To this extentthe collectivist feudal culture was certainly closer to socialism than the capitalist'culture' of total alienation. However, somehow Brewster chooses not tounderstand this and seems to be blind to the degradation, misery anddehumanization of millions of people under capitalism.Then from the sky Brewster pulls the Romans and their plundering empireinto the argument. Because capitalism is 'the father of imperialism' it must(according to Brewster's logic) follow that since the Romans enslaved othernations they were therefore capitalist. There is a basic misconception here.Slavery as a system was based on the enslavement of nations Š of human beingswho became the property of their captors and lost their character as humanbeings. That was not and is not imperialism. Imperialism is capitalism at aparticular stage of its development when capitalist countries colonize less-developed nations.Again from the sky Brewster pulls out the Afghanistan question. All one cansay is that the dispute in Afghanistan (pleasant or unpleasant) has no relevance tomy book. How Brewster links it defies all logic.Brewster distorts and misreads my call on the clergy to be partisan and be onthe side of the people in their struggle against exploitation. To him this means thatthe church should have 'no other function than to support the currentgovernment'. There is nothing in the statement he quotes which remotely suggeststhat 'to criticize state policy is to oppose the people'.I conclude by accepting that my book is not perfect and, as any author, I mustbear the responsibility for any misunderstandings due to my failure (if any) to useclear language. However, my disagreements with Brewster do not lie on thatfront, in my view; they are purely ideological, because our positions representopposed perspectives of the world.University of Zimbabwe C. S. BANANAOld and New in South Shona Independent Churches: Volume HI:Leadership and Fission Dynamics By M. L Daneel. Gweru, Mambo Press,1988, xix, 568 pp., ISBN 0-86922-4433, Z$45,00, p/b.This is a detailed description of leadership issues in a number of independentchurches, based on the author's close involvement with the churches concerned.We are presented with accounts of the different types of organization to be found,the techniques by which leaders maintained their positions, and details of theproblems of succession when church leaders die. It is an invaluable addition to theauthor's already substantial contribution to our knowledge of independentchurches.The book has more than academic interest. One of the aims was to writedown the histories of the churches; and the author includes more detail than might