Comrade Cunningham. After reading your 'polemic' and the comments made afterwards by you and others i cannot help but comment herein.
1. its rather suprising that you concluded that commentators to your 'polemic' dont know you, and that its proof of one's credentials in the PAC to know you. 2. Instead of allowing the spirit of discussion and provide solutions as suggested by Mashao you went on and on about what you have done for the PAC as if all of us a numb members who have not done anything. 3. You mention that you are currently engaged on rescuing the PAC, something which i believe the majority of the members of this group are doing, hence the Mayihlome Lecture and the IOTA document, which are efforts by members of this group and other PAC veterans. I am tempted to assume that you are ignorant of other efforts to rescue the PAC except your own, hence your personality inflated comment above. 4. What flabbergasts me most is that you fail to see that it is our common goal, you and most of the members of this group to rescue PAC from its current situation. 5. The fact that you call fellow comrades engaging you in a discussion "political mosquitoes" makes me wonder if you really are up to constructive discussion or you just want your 'polemic' to be accepted without question? And that also reminds me of the way letlapa has called and treated most members of this group including its leadership as they try to engage him politically. 6. Your call to be removed from this group (Which i think for an affluent person you seem to be you can do by yourself) is strange, considering that nothing was done to you except to comment to your 'polemic' and suggest certain documents to your attention. One ends up wondering whether you really are interested in discussions? This group has served for many as a platform where they discuss issues, disagree and agree with 'polemics' like the one you brought forward. Instead of suggesting a better way to engage your 'polemic' you choose to quit the group, i wonder what that says about you as a 'comrade'. In conclusion, i wont tell you how i have served the party, and how i continue doing so; i wont tell you how 24/7 i am fighting for the soul of the PAC, and i wont tell you of the compromises i make for the sake of keeping this movement alive; Neither will i tell you of the dangers i face from the current leadership of the PAC do to my work that threat their grip on the PAC; Neither is it important that you know who i am or not. But what i can tell you comrade is that there is a whole lot of collective effort from this forum and other Africanists to rescue the PAC that neither one of us should now start taking credit. This is not a aimed at being a 'polemic' per se, therefore i hope it does not qualify as a "simple polemics of cowards who are fence sitters", and neither am i a coward. this was just word to a comrade to a comrade. izwe Lethu! Craig. "No more remote control!" Robert G. Mugabe. On Jun 10, 9:31 am, "Cunningham Ngcukana" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Comrade > > I want to point out to you that one has never distanced himself from the > PAC. I also want to point out that my history in the PAC is not that of > the > 1990 or post 1990 products. The fact that I did not attend the past PAC > Congresses does not mean one is inactive in fact I raised the funds for > the > 2004 registration and funds for the current election and have been > active in > the campaign. The fact that Phila Dolo, Luyanda Gqomfa and a number of > comrades are out of prison and have amnesty have been my efforts. I am > not > going to give you further education on my role as a party cadre who has > spent several times in prison for the party. The fact that you do not > know me shows that you do not know the PAC. > To respond to you, anarchists need no definition to those who understand > English and I am neither a teacher of English. I wish to point out > however, > That anarchists are those who refuse to accept established rules and > procedures and have no respect for order or seek to bend rules and > procedures to satisfy themselves. In this context, the leadership of PAC > Have turned into anarchists to satisfy their personal needs above the > interests of the party. This includes the mutilation of the PAC > Constitution > And disbanding of structures arbitrarily. It includes a deliberate > process of setting party cadres against each other and even the > suspension of the > Constitution as a basic legal document of the party, illegal removal of > NEC > Members elected at Congress. This is anarchy in my book. > If you struggled to understand the message one seeks convey then you > need more political education. What in essence one says, the outcome of > the past > elections have opened the eyes of even the blind followers of the > anarchists > that if they are allowed to continue the PAC faces its demise. > I am not echoing warnings as I am not standing on a cliff. I am part of > a decisive process that will remove the anarchists and bring > constitutionality > to the PAC. A process that focuses on the organisation and the quality > of its structures in terms of those who serve in them and their > functionality. > I hope your engagement in passage political talk will be accompanied by > action. As a former freedom fighter I do not mince my words. Whilst you > are > Engaged in fancy debates I am engaged in a possible life and death > mission to rescue the PAC from Letlapa and his hooligans. > Do not correspond with me if you are not working to rebuild the PAC but > engaged in simple polemics of cowards who are fence sitters. > > Kind Regards > > Cunningham Ngcukana > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of [email protected] > Sent: 09 June 2009 08:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [PAYCO] Matome Reaction to Cunnigham > > My Comrade Cunningham, > > You raise pertinent issues in the document titled threats and > opportunities, issues that have indeed been raised now and before. I > must > state upfront that I share in the wish to protect the PAC from > anarchists, > and people that have no appreciation of how the PAC could be steered > forward. > > Reading your document, I could not however discern what differentiates > your wish and perhaps fear from those that other people have held > before. > I do not mean to be critical of your views, but I am inclined to state > as > well that what you call current developments, have always been current > and > therefore historical. There is nothing novel about this observation. > > I say this well aware that you have spent this much time and energy > putting the document together because of your love for the party, hence > I > engage you with caution and respect in this regard. > > I have also not picked any substantive point you make in the document, > save warning us against anarchists, a warning we ourselves have echoed > now > and before. A more elaborate identification of the specific > opportunities > and threats would have been helpful. Indeed I struggled, too, to > understand what the conclusive call of the article is. So, my comments > are > made in the context of your document, which I respectfully consider thin > on substance. And I am cognizant that given an opportunity you could > explain yourself in more detail, it is only that given the subject of > your > document I had to comment. > > Consequently I am left not knowing what exactly you intend achieving > with > the letter and spirit of the document. I must share my views based on my > reading and interpretation of the document. > > Advising us to stand guard against anarchists is all good and well, but > characterizing who these anarchists are would be more helpful. Your > characterization of reactionaries is quite elusive. Who decides that one > is an anarchist ? Who exactly is an anarchist, does this include people > that may have supported the anarchist pre-anarchy, yourself ? Some > people > may very well be thinking that you are anarchic yourself by making a > call > against anarchy without going into substance, I don't think you are as I > have stayed away from characterizing people that way. Simply put, your > definition of anarchy may be the direct opposite of what another comrade > think. We should draw a bold clear line between our opinions and facts. > > What I am more interested in from you and all of us, what is the > solution > to move the party forward, and what we ourselves exactly stand for. I > will > start with the latter. By advising us against the anarchists, you > invariably suggest that you are not one yourself. Ok, granted, but what > exactly do you stand for. It does not help either that we have to probe > you on this one. My short life in the PAC, not bearing the great > privilege > that some of you have, of having spent decades in the party, is that we > have committed a colossal mistake in the past of allowing people to warn > us against standing leaders, punting for themselves only on the basis > that > they are better than the incumbent. We must now transcend this, and ask > what you stand for. This is at a political and ideological level. It is > a > challenge that all must engage with. > I am not going to ask you, when did you realize this anarchy, after the > elections. It may be quite opportunistic to replace intellectual > assessment with electoral assessment i.e. relying solely on the outcome > of > the elections to realize there is something wrong with the party. So > that > you do not misread me at all. I have raised my concerns with the > President > of the party on his leadership style, political work, neglect of unity, > ideological positioning long before the elections. I believe in a new > generation of leadership, a point known by most of my comrades. So, I > endorse leadership change, what I am not sure of is the timing. > We have to demonstrate maturity and experience, especially because we > have > been this route before, when some of the enlightened members like > yourself > were keeping a safe distance from the party. There is work that still > need > to be done amongst party members. We have developed a draft program of > action for the PAC called IOTA. I suggest that you familiarize yourself > with the document and input thereto. This document has been circulated > to > all party structures and comments received would be used to table it at > the next conference of the party. This is what the party requires, a > program and prospective leaders whose ideological position is declared. > To avoid the very problem of divisions and instability, we need a > transitional team of leadership that would drive the party for a period > of > two years or so. The detail of this is for all of us to define. > Having said all of the above, I must say that I found your read quite > interesting indeed. I also look forward to further engagement and > learning > from you. > > Kind Regards > > Matome Mashao > > > Hi Comrades > > > This is a polemic on the current state of the PAC. > > The outcome of the elections are not lying. > > > Kind Regards > > > Cunniongham Ngcukana > > > NOTICE - This message contains privileged and confidential information > > intended only for the use of the addressee named above. > > Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, disclosure or > other > > use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by > > person or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > by > > return email and delete this message. This message should not be > copied or > > used for any purpose other than intended, nor should it be disclosed > to > > any other person. Any views expressed in this message are those of the > > individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to > be > > the view of Investec Group, its subsidiaries or associates. > > The Investec Group is not liable for the security of information sent > by > > e-mail at your request, nor for the proper and complete transmission > of > > the information contained in the communication nor for any delay in > its > > receipt. Please note that the recipient must scan this e-mail and any > > attached files for viruses and the like. > > The Investec Group accepts no liability of whatever nature for any > loss, > > liability, damage or expense resulting directly or indirectly from the > > access of any files which are attached to this message. > > > Investec Asset Management Limited > > Registered office: 2 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7QP > > Company No. 2036094 > > Incorporated in England and Wales > > ------------------------------------------- > South Africas premier free email service -www.webmail.co.za > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > For super low premiums, click herehttp://home.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm > > NOTICE - This message contains privileged and confidential information > intended only for the use of the addressee named above. > Any review,- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Groups "Pan Africanist Youth Congress of Azania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.geocities.com/paycoonline //panafricanist.blogspot.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
