The PAC itself must not be spared from criticism. An important building block for party building is criticism and self-criticism. We must internally allow a free rein of ideas from our own cadres and members, and encourage discussions to develop ways and means of making the party a strong vehicle of change for the masses. We also need to grasp the political theory that informs the PAC followers on the type of institution we are and the kind of society we envisage and work towards achieving. We must measure ourselves according to the yardstick we've developed, and keep focus on the goals we intend to reach. There is a tendency to measure the PAC on the same standard that the ANC has set for itself. This is completely wrong. This makes us live under the shadow of a different entity. I take my cue for saying this from the Programme of Action of 1949. The gist of this document is also the aims and objectives of the PAC, word for word. The PoA takes a strategic view that African people should drive their own programmes of upliftment and liberation, and it sets out the complete variables that are needed to attain those goals. This is whether there is a friendly government or a hostile one. The PAC and the African people must set the pace and unflinchingly drive the freedom train. If we copy and emulate the present day ANC's structures and programmes - including collaborating with government programmes - we will soon go into a straat loop dood. Ideas are throttled and shunted up and down in a scheme of deception that they call discussion documents. The Gear policy for example was written by World Bank technocrats, not ANC members. That is one of the reasons the Malema charade on nationalisation was not going to be entertained, no matter how misguided Malema is. We are not people-centred. We take pot shots from the sidelines at the way government is doing things wrong, but do not engineer our own programmes to take over state power to control our land. We fail to rouse the masses in uprisings where their interests are challenged. Some of our own comrades wallow in factionalism despite the fact that they know it is wrong to do so. We even praise anarchists whose intention is to destroy the work done in building the PAC over the years. What is it that informs the decree stated by Letlapa Mphahlele? If we begin to discuss weighty matters such as socio-economic policiies and the aim to establish an Africanist socialist society, we are aiming to increase our knowledge and the ability to debate openly with facts. When we go to national conferences and to congresses the nation will begin to want to hear our views. They now only know that Mphahlele is a tyrant who argues with a knuckle duster and think that his one man show is the best thing. He and his cohorts do not know the PAC and the Africdan people. Subject: Re: [PAYCO] To: [email protected] From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:41:49 +0000
For me it makes no sense other than political expediency for the YCL to cry foul play and present itself as a champion of the indigenous African people when the settler leader Pieter Mulder makes an insulting statement on the indigenous African people noting that the Communist Party of South Africa were the authors of the Freedom Charter that gave white settlers full ownership of our land. It is also worth noting that SACP leaders were architects of the CODESA & World Trade Centre processes that legitimized the stealing of our land and its entrenchment through "property clause" in the 1996 Constitution of the Republic. Neither the ANC nor the SACP have any right to pretend to be fighting the cause of the indigenous people on the question of land or any other issue relating to total emancipation of the African people, they lost that right in 1955 with the adoption of Freedom Charter in Kliptown. Ofcourse in the absence of a genuine leftist party in Azania wolves will assume the vacuum and exploit it to their advantage. If SACP is really communist, then its the worst representative of communism. When Mbeki implemented neo-liberal policies, key players in that program and his cabinet were the very so communist, Jeff Hadebe, Membathisi Mdladlane, Nqakula to name but a few. The so called South African Communists are loyal to capitalism and its neo-liberal policies than socialism. It is important also not to misrepresent PAC founding fathers as anti-communism. PAC basic document and speeches by Sobukwe are succinct on this issue and should be captured and quoted and such to avoid misinterpretation and giving unnecessary credit to SACP liberals. Kwame Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!From: Jaki Seroke <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:31:57 +0200To: <[email protected]>ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PAYCO] A quick response to your concerns: Anyone who has not read or came across the rubric (the framing of the discourse) on why the Pan Africans rejected the Muscovite communism will always assume - as the press has always done - that the PAC and its associates are against the ideals of a new society where exploitation is eliminated. In the book, Pan Africanism or Communism, the experience of being treated in the same downgrading racial terms as the colonialists by the communist international is criticised and rejected in toto. The Chinese also broke ranks with the "comintern" on more or less the same grounds. In Southern Africa, the interpretation of the national question by the Communist Party of SA was not genuine - they refused to name the problem and took to obfuscating terms such as "colonialism of a special type" and even asked white workers to unite against the miners recruited in Mozambique, Malawi and the hinterlands of occupied Azania who were indigenous to the land. That is why Oom Gqobs referred to the pseudo-communists as quacks, as in false doctors. A wrong diagnosis and a wrong prescription. This explanation helps to understand why in the PAC Basic Documents we refute the concept of totalitarianism and instead agree to democracy where the majority rules and basic freedom are accorded all citizens. The Soviet Union collapsed after seventy years because they chased the arms race, had a Kremlin-controlled state harassing and suppressing the views of its own people, applied bad practices and corruption in economic and foreign affairs policies, and exploited to the hilt its satellites in east Europe and in countries such as Angola and Mozambique in Southern Africa. They relied on propaganda to sustain themselves. In reality they suffered food shortages and a myriad of other challenges which led to stagnation of the economy and the final collapse. A close analysis will show that the Soviet Union practised state capitalism. The state traded on behalf of its citizens and suppressed initiatives by farmers collectives, business forums, worker-led innovations, and other free thinking patriots. The rich were party aristocrats and the masses suffered. That is not socialism. The principles of socialism are to generate wealth and redistribute it to benefit the majority who worked for it. Socialism is not poverty or it is not intended to glorify the poor in their parlous state. In fact, it promotes hard work and honest trading and the need for each to apply themselves according to their ability in the creation of a national economy. It also encourages creativity and innovation to modernise and reform for collective progress. What failed in the Soviet Union is the dictatorship of the state. Contrast this with the Peoples Republic of China where the Communist Party has developed socialism with Chinese characteristics. Ever since Mao met with US president Nixon in 1972, the Communist party leadership went on and enhanced their understanding of socialism, and worked on the building blocks such as education and training of their engineers and scientists, their practice of self-reliance and setting up the framework to build a foundation for economic growth. They created a vision for the well being of their people and their country, and made strategic plans. In 1978 China was backwards in many respects in its economic programmes. Today they are a leading nation in the world - and they are still communists and their planned economy is still socialism. The ANC and their youth wing and their partners in the so-called communist party always follow the four winds and go every which way the wind blows. They allied themselves to Bill Clinton after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and took his neo-liberal policies. Their colonial minded labour leaders modelled development on the scripts of the World Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Look at SA now after sixteen years. We should prepare ourselves for a round of popular uprisings - the masses catch hell and they have had enough. It is a ruse and a side show to argue with Peter Mulder whom they have appointed deputy minister of agriculture over who owns who and who came first. It is a clear example that we are in a neo-colonial state with the settlers still calling the shots. Jaki From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [PAYCO] Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:18:46 +0000 Cde’s Seroke, Ndebele With the waterloo of a somewhat reactionary ANCYL leadership that has hitherto presented itself as a vanguard of the liberation of the African people. On the past few days the YCL has emerged as an alternative to the poor, that is, the economically downtrodden African masses. Reacting to the ahistorical assertion of Pieter Mulder that Africans did not own 40% of the land before the advent of settler minority, it has called Zuma to sack him. In your own assessment, what is the significance of the communist formations in the 21st century after the fall of the Soviet hegemony in the late eighties. Mfanasekhaya Gqobose, addressing APLA cadres in the early 90s, once referred to the communist as quacks. kind regards Mduduzi Sibeko Admin/finance T +27-11-724-9281 C +27-71-101-2595 F +27-11-900-1929 F 086-754-2176 E [email protected] www.randwater.co.za This email and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential and proprietary information. This information is private and protected by law and, accordingly, if you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete this entire communication immediately and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of or taking any action based on this information is prohibited. Emails cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. The sender does not accept any liability or responsibility for any interception, corruption, destruction, loss, late arrival or incompleteness of or tampering or interference with any of the information contained in this email or for its incorrect delivery or non-delivery for whatsoever reason or for its effect on any electronic device of the recipient. Views and opinions expressed or implied in this email are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of Rand Water. If verification of this email or any attachment is required, please request a hard-copy version. -- Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com -- Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com -- Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com -- Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com
<<attachment: image001.jpg>>
