The Wretched of the Earth follows the struggles of the colonized nation and its move to independence in a process known as decolonization, which, plainly put, is the undoing of colonialism and the oppression that goes along with it. The primary way in which a new nation is built is through the development of national consciousness, a shared national identity that identifies people as collective parts of an independent nation. However, the problem with national consciousness, according to Fanon, is that building a collective identity that encompasses all members of a nation is nearly impossible. The national consciousness of a newly emerging nation revolves around the national bourgeoisie, or the ruling class, but this same national identity does not fit everyone and it leaves much the nation unaccounted for. Furthermore, Fanon argues that a nation built solely on the needs of the ruling class will quickly lead to neocolonialism, and colonial methods of oppression will remain largely intact, even in the official absence of the colonial power. Through The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon ultimately argues that the only way to avoid neocolonialism in the developing nation is to incorporate rural populations into government and to involve the lumpenproletariat—the very lowest social class, but also the most important—into the process of decolonization.
Political parties of the emerging nation are run by and for the national bourgeoisie, which is made up of the urban proletariat and includes tradesmen and civil servants. They are a small part of society and account for less than one percent of the nation’s total population. The national bourgeoisie, Fanon says, are the taxi drivers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers, and they “are indispensable for running the colonial machine.” They stand to lose the most through decolonization, and their politics closely resemble that of colonists. The national bourgeoisie and those who run the nationalist unions “represent the most well-to-do fraction of the people” in a colonized country, and, according to Fanon, they are the most “pampered by the regime” of colonialism. It is better for the bourgeoisie if colonial channels of oppression are maintained, despite the negative impact on the rest of the nation. The national bourgeoisie conflicts with the feudal rulers of a nation, such as witch doctors and other cultural roles, like djemaas, the legal and tribal leaders of outlying tribes. The bourgeoisie, which includes medical doctors and lawyers, for example, must eliminate such feudal barriers to grow in an independent nation, even if it is to the detriment of the rural masses and feudal rulers.
Decolonization and the formation of a new nation, Fanon argues, therefore cannot be obtained without the peasant masses, particularly the lumpenproletariat, who are crucial to revolution. According to Fanon, the peasant masses “are generally the least politically conscious, the least organized as well as the most anarchistic elements,” and in the act of rebelling against a foreign power during revolution, they are invaluable. National politics tend to ignore the peasant masses and consider them unimportant, but Fanon warns that is a mistake. The lumpenproletariat “constitutes one of the most spontaneously and radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people,” Fanon says,” and overcoming the colonial power is not possible without them. The bourgeoisie, who live in the cities and are steeped in colonial culture, are often hesitant to rebel against the same economic system that benefits them. Fanon claims that any national liberation movement should give “maximum attention” to the lumpenproletariat. The lumpenproletariat will always answer a call to revolt, Fanon says, but if they are ignored, they will pick up the side of the oppressor and “join the colonialist troops as mercenaries” instead and actively work against decolonization. The lumpenproletariat must be recruited before they jump to the other side, and decolonization cannot hope to be accomplished without them.
Fanon ultimately argues that the act of decolonizing “concerns the entire nation.” The classes must come together in fighting colonial power, or they are destined to fall right back into colonialist practice. The national struggle, Fanon further argues, must involve the peasant masses, especially the lumpenproletariat, who are always “prepared to make sacrifices, willing to give all they have, impatient, with an indestructible pride.” When the classes come together, Fanon says, it “can produce an explosive mixture of unexpected power,” which is just what is needed to decolonize a country and build a new nation.
Related Themes from Other Texts
Decolonization, Neocolonialism, and Social Class ThemeTracker
Decolonization, Neocolonialism, and Social Class Quotes in The Wretched of the Earth
Decolonization, therefore, implies the urgent need to thoroughly challenge the colonial situation. Its definition can, if we want to describe it accurately, be summed up in the well-known words: “The last shall be first.” Decolonization is verification of this. At a descriptive level, therefore, any decolonization is a success.
In its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives. For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between the two protagonists. This determination to have the last move up to the front, to have them clamber up (too quickly, say some) the famous echelons of an organized society, can only succeed by resorting to every means, including, of course, violence.
The great mistake, the inherent flaw of most of the political parties in the underdeveloped regions has been traditionally to address first and foremost the most politically conscious elements: the urban proletariat, the small tradesmen and the civil servants, i.e., a tiny section of the population which represents barely more than one percent.
It is among these masses, in the people of the shanty towns and in the lumpenproletariat that the insurrection will find its urban spearhead. The lumpenproletariat, this cohort of starving men, divorced from tribe and clan, constitutes one of the most spontaneously and radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people.
The struggle for national liberation is not a question of bridging the gap in one giant stride. The epic is played out on a difficult, day-to-day basis and the suffering endured far exceeds that of the colonial period.
The people who in the early days of the struggle had adopted the primitive Manichaeanism of the colonizer—Black versus White, Arab versus Infidel—realize en route that some blacks can be whiter than the whites, and that the prospect of a national flag or independence does not automatically result in certain segments of the population giving up their privileges and their interests.
Since the bourgeoisie has neither the material means nor adequate intellectual resources such as engineers and technicians, it limits its claims to the takeover of businesses and firms previously held by the colonists. The national bourgeoisie replaces the former European settlers as doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, agents, dealers, and shipping agents. For the dignity of the country and to safeguard its own interests, it considers it its duty to occupy all these positions. Henceforth it demands that every major foreign company must operate through them, if it wants to remain in the country or establish trade.
The struggle against the bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped countries is far from being simply theoretical. It is not a question of deciphering the way history has judged and condemned it. The national bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped countries should not be combated because it threatens to curb the overall, harmonious development of the nation. It must be resolutely opposed because literally it serves no purpose. Mediocre in its winnings, in its achievements and its thinking, this bourgeoisie attempts to mask its mediocrity by ostentatious projects for individual prestige, chromium-plated American cars, vacations on the French Riviera and weekends in neon-lit nightclubs.
A country which really wants to answer to history, which wants to develop its towns and the minds of its inhabitants, must possess a genuine party. The party is not an instrument in the hands of the government. Very much to the contrary, the party is an instrument in the hands of the people. It is the party which decides on the policy enacted by the government. The party is not and never should be merely a political bureau where all the members of government and dignitaries of the regime feel free to congregate. Alas all too often it is the party which makes up the entire political bureau and its members reside permanently in the capital. In an underdeveloped country the leading party members should flee the capital like the plague. With the exception of a few, they should reside in the rural areas. Centralizing everything in the capital should he avoided. No administrative pretext can justify the bustle of the capital already overpopulated and overdeveloped compared with nine tenths of the territory. The party must be decentralized to the limit.
