The debate on alliances between the working and middle classes did not follow the same lines in colonised countries before the first world war as it had done in 19th-century Europe. The working class was practically non-existent, socialism was in its infancy, and resistance to foreign occupation was usually directed by religious or traditional structures, which were often denounced in Europe — even by socialists — as “feudal” or “reactionary”, hostile to progress and “civilisation”.

The first world war and the Russian revolution of 1917 changed everything. The first Congress of the Peoples of the East at Baku in 1920 attracted nearly 2,000 delegates — Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Indians, Persians and Chinese. Grigory Zinoviev, head of the Communist International, told the congress: “We have not always had time to realise the scale of the historic events we are taking part in. ... Peoples who, until now, have been considered by the capitalist world as mere beasts of burden, so-called ‘inferior’ peoples, about whom the bourgeoisie felt no uneasiness, being certain that they would never waken from their torpor — these peoples are rising up.” The rallying cry of the Communist International became: “Workers and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!”

But putting this slogan into practice was not easy, especially as the number of workers in the colonised world was still low. Should Turkish communists seek an alliance with Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), the Turkish leader who challenged the Treaty of Versailles? Should China’s Communist Party attempt to reach an agreement with the nationalist Kuomintang? Should the people unite with the bourgeoisie against imperialism, or denounce them for tolerating it? Increasingly aligned with Russia’s national strategy, the Comintern dithered and sometimes made astonishing strategic U-turns.

In most of what would come to be called the third world, it was the anti-colonial struggle after the second world war rather than social issues that shaped the debate on political alliances and united populations. In Vietnam, French Indochina and China, the communists assumed leadership of the anti-colonial movement, giving independence a social content, based on agrarian reform, education and healthcare. In India and Indonesia, the bourgeoisie led national liberation movements, while the communists remained a secondary force and were sometimes repressed. In Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere, nationalist forces backed by the military and claiming to be revolutionary, though anti-communist, took power and launched reforms, reclaiming control of national assets and expanding education and healthcare.

Half a century after the independence of many colonies, and despite the economic growth of countries such as Brazil and South Africa, the social structures of the countries of the old South have little in common with the classic structures of 19th-century Britain as described by Marx. The working class is still a minority, informal employment dominates, the middle classes are more numerous but often impoverished and, despite urbanisation, half the population is still rural. These former colonies, now firmly integrated into the global capitalist market, are less self-sufficient than they were in the 1970s. What alliances would allow them to escape the stranglehold of the markets and adopt a more egalitarian social policy?