> > > > > *Umsebenzi Online, Volume 18, No. 20, 2 November 2017* > > *In this Issue:* > > · *The Great October Socialist Revolution: A view from South > Africa* > > *An SACP perspective presented by Cde Blade Nzimande, Party General > Secretary at a Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) seminar held at > the University of Cyprus, Nicosia.* > > > > > > > > *Red Alert* > > > > > > *The Great October Socialist Revolution: A view from South Africa. * > > > “*The current cul-de-sac into which our national democratic revolution > has run, and the current turmoil within the ANC and between the ANC and its > alliance partners, are not sustainable*.” > > > > *An SACP perspective presented by Cde Blade Nzimande, Party General > Secretary at a Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) seminar held at > the University of Cyprus, Nicosia.* > > > > The dramatic events unfolding in Russia in late 1917 were eagerly > followed, as best as they could, by a small group of radical socialists in > the far south of the African continent. On November 16 1917, less than two > weeks after the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, their weekly > newspaper, *The International*, published an editorial titled, “The Great > Events in Russia”. “*The cable news regarding the revolution in Russia is > so confusing and every day so contradictory that it is hopeless attempting > to build on them”, *the editorial noted. Nonetheless, sensing something > important was happening, it observed accurately that the *“Maximalist > [Bolshevik] wing of the Social Democratic Party has been gaining strength > since the political revolution*.” The editorial ended on a cautionary > note, “*should the Social Democrats fail, we can expect the most bloody > massacre of the working men of Petrograd that history has ever recorded. > Long live the Social Revolution, the light of the East.*” > > > > A few months later, in March 1918, with the imperialist directed > counter-revolution unleashed in Russia, *The International *called on the > South African working class to show solidarity with their Russian comrades: > “*Workers of South Africa! Arouse from your submissiveness and lethargy, > and show that you see through this foul conspiracy of International Capital > against the Russian workmen. The cause of the Russian workmen is your > cause. Workers of the world UNITE. You have a world to win.*” The > references to South African working class “submissiveness” and “lethargy” > suggest that *The International *collective felt somewhat isolated in > South Africa in their enthusiasm and concern for the events unfolding in > Russia. > > > > *The International *was the organ of the International Socialist League > (ISL) which, like other splits in the socialist movement at the time, had > broken away in 1915 from the South African Labour Party. The break was in > principled opposition to the South African Labour Party’s support for the > newly formed Union of South Africa government’s participation in the > inter-imperialist First World War. The ISL was the nucleus of what, in > 1921, was to become, the Communist Party of South Africa, affiliated to the > Communist International. > > > > Radical socialist traditions were brought into South Africa by white > workers and professionals drawn largely to the country by the mining > industry which experienced a massive boom in the late 19th century and > then, again, following the end of the Anglo-Boer War at the turn of the > century, and the establishment of the Union of South Africa as a British > Dominion in 1910. Another early radical socialist influence was from Jewish > immigrants fleeing pogroms in Tsarist Russia and Eastern Europe. This > latter group had ties with protagonists involved in the revolutionary > events unfolding in faraway Eastern Europe. > > > > By late 1918 the ISL collective began to feel greater optimism about the > Russian revolution. The collective published a pamphlet titled “The > Bolsheviks are Coming”, in English as well as in isiZulu and SeSotho, and > addressing itself: “*TO THE WORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA – BLACK AS WELL AS > WHITE”. *“*The hope of the workers is coming from Bolshevism. The free > commonwealth of labour is an actual fact in Russia today”, *the pamphlet > proclaimed. *“Bolshevism means the victory of the wage-earners. It will > soon spread to Britain, France, America and throughout the world. Get Ready > for the World-wide Republic of Labour.*” > > > > Clearly, the ISL collective at the time shared the same belief as the > Bolsheviks that the October Revolution was a catalyst in a semi-peripheral > society that would soon ignite socialist revolutions in the more developed > capitalist societies of the West. The strategic calculation was that the > westward spread of the revolution (and, presumably, only the westward > spread), would create the conditions both for the defence and consolidation > of socialism in Russia, and for a future world revolution. > > > > Yet, as we know, a different trajectory was to emerge out of the October > Revolution. It was a trajectory with significant implications for the > socialist struggle in South Africa and, indeed, through much of the world. > > > > *The October Revolution and the critical strategic role of Lenin* > > > > Compared to all other preceding social revolutions, both the timing and > character of the October 1917 Russian Revolution was informed by a > strategic programmatic theory. As Prabhat Patnaik has recently written, the > Bolshevik Revolution was not a coup, but nor was it an unplanned and purely > spontaneous event. Unlike the Paris Commune, or the February 1917 Russian > uprising, the October Revolution was guided and led by a programmatic > strategy, based on a Marxist analysis of the concrete reality. Lenin’s > strategic and organisational role in this regard was absolutely central. > > > > At the heart of Lenin’s contribution was his appreciation of the > thoroughly dialectical nature of capitalism’s combined and uneven > development. Lenin developed several inter-related core organising concepts > that were critical for the October Revolution. In the first place, in his > polemical engagement with the *New Iskra *tradition, Lenin argued that in > societies coming late to capitalism, the national bourgeoisie was not > capable of abolishing the yoke of feudalism and of completing the bourgeois > revolution. This leadership task fell to the working class in alliance with > the peasantry, and, accordingly, the strategic agenda became a > proletarian-led, uninterrupted advance beyond capitalism towards socialism. > > > > This strategic perspective grounded the necessity for a worker-peasant > alliance against feudalism in the first phase of the struggle. It, in > effect, broke with a mechanical and stageist, evolutionism. As Patnaik puts > its neatly: “*this shift in attitude…made Marxism, till then confined to > Europe, a revolutionary doctrine of relevance to the entire world, no > matter how limited the degree of its capitalist development had been*.” > > > > The second and related insight was Lenin’s analysis of imperialism. In > this he differed both with the reformist evolutionism of a Kautsky, who had > argued that the imperialist stage of monopoly capital constituted a short > and relatively painless stepping stone to socialism, and the more radical > argument advanced by Rosa Luxemburg that the crises of imperialism, > exemplified by the inter-imperialist First World War, signalled the > imminent global collapse of capitalism requiring more or less spontaneous > mass strikes to bring it down. For Lenin, imperialism for all of its > chronic instability, was not necessarily on the verge of systemic collapse. > Rather, its crises and its uneven development created weak links within its > global chain. In 1917, Tsarist Russia, staggering under a multiplicity of > contradictions, was the “weakest link” and an active revolutionary advance > there would set off a chain reaction across the system – with expectations > particularly vested in countries like Germany, with a large working class > and a mass socialist party. > > > > *The October Revolution turns eastward* > > The expectation shared by the Bolsheviks and their distant supporters in > South Africa that the Russian Revolution would quickly herald successful > socialist revolutions in the more developed West was not to be fulfilled. > As Lenin and the Bolsheviks were to increasingly appreciate in the > aftermath of the October 1917 revolution, there was at least one more > national democratic task (historically associated with the emerging > bourgeoisie in Europe) that, in the age of imperialism, would now require > working class, socialist leadership if it were to be carried through with > any degree of effectiveness– the resolution of the “national question” in > colonial and semi-colonial societies. > > > > While the Bolsheviks, and Lenin in particular, had, in advance of October > 1917, correctly appreciated the imperative of working class leadership in > alliance with the peasantry in the first phase of advancing a socialist > revolution in the conditions of Russian society, there was initially less > clarity about the revolutionary potential of national liberation struggles. > > > > It was at the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920, that > the issue received closer consideration. Lenin and the Indian communist, MN > Roy, played leading roles in the “Commission on the National and the > Colonial Question”. In his report back to the Congress on the commission’s > work, Lenin wrote: *“We have discussed whether it would be right or > wrong, in principle and in theory, to state that the Communist > International and the Communist parties must support the > bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of our > discussion, we have arrived at the unanimous decision to speak of the > national-revolutionary movement rather than of the ‘bourgeois-democratic’ > movement.”* > > > > We can see here the origins of the communist strategy of supporting > revolutionary national democratic struggles in colonial and semi-colonial > conditions. As Lenin goes on to explain, the idea of a > “national-revolutionary movement” was advanced to distinguish between two > diverging tendencies within national liberation struggles – the one > national-revolutionary, the other a “bourgeois-democratic” reformist > tendency: “*if we speak of the bourgeois-democratic movement, we shall be > obliterating all distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary > movements. Yet that distinction has been very clearly revealed of late in > the backward and colonial countries…”* > > > > The Comintern urged Communist Parties in countries like India, Persia and > China to work closely with, and to help radicalise, the “national > revolutionary” tendency in the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist national > struggles. This line of march had the additional strategic value in that it > struck at the colonial under-belly of the major colonial powers then > actively engaged in counter-revolutionary occupation and destabilisation of > the Soviet Union. > > > > *The National Question in South Africa* > > > > The possibilities in this important strategic re-alignment were not > immediately apparent to the radical socialist movement in South Africa. A > December 1917 statement published in *The International *is fairly > typical of both the progressive outlook and limitations of the ISL and of > its successor, the CPSA, in the immediate years after the latter’s launch > in 1921. > > > > In calling for the abolition of various discriminatory measures directed > against black workers (including pass laws, the mine compound system and > the denial of basic civil and political rights) the ISL statement declared > that: *“Society is divided into two classes: the working class, doing all > the labour; and the idle class, living on the fruits of labour. Strictly > speaking therefore there is no ‘Native Problem’. There is only a working > class problem.”* > > > > For the ISL and the early CPSA the strategic line of march was one of > class against class. In the South African reality, this strategic posture > was accompanied by largely futile attempts to persuade the bulk of white > workers that their racial prejudice against black workers was > self-defeating. > > > > Matters came to a head in the 1922 Rand Revolt which was inspired in part > by the Bolshevik Revolution. White workers on the Rand launched an armed > insurrectionary struggle against monopoly capital, and particularly against > the Chamber of Mines. The immediate catalyst for the uprising was the > imperialist-aligned mining bosses’ attempt to employ black workers, at > lower wages of course, in semi-skilled and artisanal mining jobs previously > the exclusive preserve of white workers. Many of the white workers were > newly proletarianised Afrikaners, forced from the land by the scorched > earth policies of British imperialism in the course of the Anglo-Boer War > (1899-1901). These workers brought to the Rand Revolt traditions of > militant struggle, forming themselves into armed commandoes. > > > > The 1922 Rand Revolt was simultaneously a militant working class struggle > against profit-maximising, imperialist-controlled monopoly capital and a > racist struggle to preserve white privilege. It was a contradiction > captured in one of the prominent banners displayed by the strikers: *“Workers > of the World Unite, For a White South Africa!”* The CPSA has sometimes > been unfairly criticised as the author of the slogan. It was not. In fact, > the Party tried valiantly to halt the white worker violence meted out > against black workers who were seen as strike-breaking scabs. This white > worker insurrectionary struggle was eventually crushed by the Smuts > government but not without bloody clashes including the use of the > air-force to bomb workers entrenched in positions around Johannesburg. > While the insurrection was defeated and white workers lost the battle, they > did not lose the war. In a whites-only electoral system, the Smuts > government was ousted from office in general elections in 1924 and replaced > by a Pact government, an alliance of the Afrikaner National Party and the > Labour Party. Among its key platforms was the further entrenchment of white > Job Reservation and other related measures. > > > > For the newly formed CPSA the Rand Revolt provided many salutary lessons. > The Party now set about focusing more effectively on the recruitment of > African workers and already by 1924 the overwhelming majority of its > membership was black. This went hand-in-hand with communist-run night > schools involving literacy and political training. The CPSA was beginning > to learn in practice its own Leninist lessons. > > > > The majority of white workers were more obviously fully proletarianised, > while the majority of black workers were often semi-proletarians, temporary > migrant workers still retaining strong connections to their rural villages. > However, this did not make the former necessarily more revolutionary than > the latter. Lenin had argued against Bernstein that history does not > necessarily progress from its apparently more advanced side. In our own > conditions, South African communists were learning a similar lesson. > However, the CPSA had still not developed a clear strategic programme > relevant to the actual situation in South Africa. > > > > The 1921 Lenin-Roy Second Comintern resolution on the potential of > “national-revolutionary” movements in the colonies and semi-colonies does > not at first seem to have had any resonance locally. Possibly its relevance > was seen as applying to largely peasant-dominated societies with powerful > remnants of feudalism like China, India and Persia at the time. South > Africa, by contrast, had undergone a dramatic, imperialist led, forced > march into monopoly capitalism based on industrial mining from the last > quarter of the 19th century. > > > > By the 1920s large swathes not just of South Africa, but much of the > region had been transformed into impoverished labour reserves exporting > male migrant labour into the mines. The struggle in South Africa appeared > still to be one of class-against-class, notwithstanding the reactionary > role of many white workers and their political parties. It was the 6th > Congress of the Communist International in 1928 that mandated the CPSA to > pursue a national democratic struggle as a “stage” towards a “workers’ and > peasant republic”. This mandate called for the recognition that > mobilisation around the grievances and aspirations of the nationally > oppressed majority of South Africans was the critical motive force in the > struggle for socialism against a double colonial reality – the continued > hegemony of British imperialist capital and emergent national monopoly > capital buttressed by an “internal colonialism” (white minority rule). > > > > While acknowledging that the 1910 Union of South Africa had accorded a > degree of political independence to South Africa under white minority rule, > the CI correctly argued that South Africa remained an essentially COLONIAL > reality. This is how the Executive Committee of the CI in its Resolution on > South Africa put it: > > > > *“South Africa is a British Dominion of the colonial type. The development > of relations of capitalist production has led to British imperialism > carrying out the economic exploitation of the country with the > participation of the white bourgeoisie of South Africa (British and Boer). > Of course, this does not alter the general colonial character of the > economy of South Africa, since British capital continues to occupy the > principal economic positions in the country (banks, mining and industry), > and since the South African bourgeoisie is equally interested in the > merciless exploitation of the negro population.”* > > > > The same CI resolution instructed South African communists to pay > particular attention to the still small emergent black, nationalist > formations, with the ANC specifically mentioned. This new strategic line > was adopted by the CPSA in 1929. As an affiliate of the Communist > International, the CPSA was obliged to accept the Comintern Resolution. > This it did, but not without varying degrees of enthusiasm and reluctance. > For many, support for what were seen as small elite black formations like > the ANC was felt to be a betrayal of the working class struggle, and a > threat to inter-racial working class solidarity. > > > > The CPSA had, however, already been working with the ANC. The Party was > instrumental in arranging for the President-General of the ANC, Josiah > Gumede, to attend the conference of the League against Imperialism in > Brussels in 1927. From there Gumede travelled on to the Soviet Union and > visited its Asiatic regions, witnessing for himself that dark-skinned > non-Europeans enjoyed full citizenship rights. > > > > On his return to South Africa, Gumede proclaimed that he had seen “the new > Jerusalem”. However, his growing closeness to the Communists in South > Africa did not endear him to many in the leadership of the ANC, > particularly traditional leaders in the ANC’s “upper house”, who argued > that the Bolsheviks had killed the Tsar in Russia and that was the fate > that awaited them here in South Africa if the Communists were to come to > power. Gumede was ousted from the leadership of the ANC in 1930. > > > > Notwithstanding these and other contradictory dynamics, over the following > decades and down to the present the Communist Party in South Africa has had > an alliance with the ANC, a relatively unique alliance with overlapping > memberships and important symbiotic influences. While Gumede was ousted > from the ANC leadership for his close ties with the Communist Party, in > subsequent decades many of the outstanding leaders of the ANC were also > Communist Party members, among them Moses Kotane, JB Marks, Walter Sisulu, > Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo and Chris Hani. > > This revolutionary symbiotic relationship owes much to the Great October > Revolution and its direct product – the Soviet Union. In South Africa, the > prestige of the Soviet Union amongst democratic and progressive forces grew > immensely during the World War 2, especially after the entry of the Soviet > Union into the war in 1941. The central role of the Red Army in the defeat > of fascism received popular acclaim and helped enhance the local profile of > the Communist Party. > > > > In the post-1945 years with the onset of the Cold War, the newly elected > hard-line racist National Party, with ideological links to fascism, sought > to disguise its racist ideology by positioning itself as part of a supposed > Western crusade against the “global Communist threat”. The CPSA, hated and > feared locally more for its consistent non-racialism and ability to > mobilise the growing black working class than for its socialism, was banned > in 1950. Its underground successor, the SACP, was consistently portrayed by > the white minority regime as local agents of Moscow, as the “*rooi gevaar*” > (the “red peril”). > > > > After the banning of the ANC in 1960 and the strategic defeat suffered by > the movement in the mid-1960s, most of the surviving leadership was forced > into a distant exile. It was in this exceedingly difficult period that the > Soviet Union’s selfless solidarity support to the ANC, and indeed to other > liberation movements in southern Africa, played an absolutely decisive role > in the ultimate defeat of colonialism and white minority rule throughout > our region. In popular black culture, the Soviet Union became a legendary > reference point in this period. Many 40- and 50-year olds in South Africa > today have names like Soviet, Sputnik, Lenin, Russia and even Kalashnikov. > > > > The abiding significance of the Soviet Union in the South Africa reality > had its paradoxical flip-side in the late 1980s. With the collapse of the > Soviet bloc of countries from 1989, the apartheid regime no longer served a > useful purpose for Western imperialism as the pre-eminent regional gendarme > in the Cold War-era regional hot wars of southern Africa costing over a > million lives. In fact, thanks to a highly successful global anti-apartheid > movement, the apartheid regime had become an awkward embarrassment to > ruling imperialist elites. Imperialist pressure on the apartheid regime in > the post-Soviet conjuncture was one important factor in propelling the > negotiated settlement in South Africa. Of course, the most important factor > in the transition to a non-racial democratic settlement was the rolling > semi-insurrectionary mass struggles that had been sustained from the > mid-1970s, and which were largely led by the ANC-SACP alliance. > > > > Needless to say, it is an alliance that has had many ups and downs. And > now, at the centenary mark of the Russian Revolution, it is an Alliance > that is once more going through one of its more difficult moments. > > > > Why? > > > > *Southern Africa in the 1960s – 80s: a weak link in the imperialist chain* > > > > In seeking answers, as the SACP we have found it useful to (amongst other > things) travel back one hundred years to the strategic, and particularly > Leninist, advances in Marxism forged in the crucible years in and around > the October Revolution. > > > > The national liberation struggles against Portuguese colonialism and white > minority internal colonial regimes in Zimbabwe, Namibia and pre-eminently > South Africa established the entire southern Africa region as a turbulent, > unstable, semi-peripheral “weak link” in the post-1945 imperialist chain. > Both the imperialist centres and progressive radical liberation forces > within our region appreciated the stakes very clearly. The obvious > complicity of imperialism and local South African monopoly capital in the > vicious national oppression of the African majority meant that the > interconnection between the national democratic struggle and the > anti-monopoly capital struggle had a direct and obvious mass appeal. > > > > Could a non-racial, one-person one-vote constitutional dispensation be > de-linked from an ongoing anti-capitalist struggle? Could a South African > “February revolution” be contained, preventing an uninterrupted advance to > a more radical “October”? This was the risk that South African monopoly > capital and its imperialist backers took in engaging with the ANC-led > alliance in the negotiations of 1990-1993. They were encouraged by the > collapse of the Soviet bloc as well as by the general retreat of > post-independence national democratic advances in the rest of southern > Africa – largely as a result of brutal apartheid de-stabilisation and the > fomenting of proxy civil wars in Angola and Mozambique. > > > > From within the SACP there was no illusion in the early 1990s that the > impending democratic breakthrough in South Africa would quickly lay the > basis for a rapid and perhaps insurrectionary advance to a socialist > “October”. The post-1945 global reality, and especially the post-1989 > global conjuncture, were qualitatively different from the global situation > so acutely analysed by Lenin in 1915 and onward. Inter-imperialist rivalry > and wars were no longer the dominant feature. There was (and is) now a > single imperialist hegemon and the dominance of globalised finance capital, > rather than rival national monopoly capitals. > > > > But, in the SACP’s analysis, this reality did not disprove Lenin’s > insistence that, in semi-peripheral societies within the imperialist chain, > the national bourgeoisie is incapable of consummating a national democratic > revolution. On the contrary, we have continued to argue that the advance, > deepening and defence of our national democratic revolution requires > working class and semi-proletarian popular hegemony. > > > > The SACP has accordingly advanced the strategic perspective of an > uninterrupted anti-monopoly capital struggle for deep-seated structural > transformation from the bridgehead of the 1994 democratic breakthrough (our > “February”). We saw this more as a protracted struggle, a “war of position” > rather than an insurrectionary “war of manoeuvre” (to evoke Gramsci’s > terms). In our post-1994 situation it was not a question of abolishing our > democratically-elected Constituent Assembly, as the Bolsheviks had once > done. Rather, it was a question of using its hard-won constitutional > outcomes, the space opened by these gains to advance, deepen and defend a > national democratic revolution which would necessarily have to have an > anti-imperialist and anti-monopoly capital character. > > > > Favouring such an advance were two important factors. First, South African > monopoly capital, long nurtured behind the protective barriers of white > minority rule, was relatively off-balance following the land-slide ANC-led > Alliance electoral victory in 1994. Second, the anti-apartheid national > liberation forces had sustained semi-insurrectionary mass struggles over > the better part of a decade-and-a-half. The trade union movement was > relatively large and ideologically radical and there was a strong mass > struggle tactical and organisational repertoire that linked community-based > with work-based struggles. In the mid-1990s these mass forces remained > mobilized. > > > > What was to be way forward? > > > > *The two tendencies in third world national movements* > > > > As Lenin and MN Roy had correctly recognised in 1920, national movements > in the semi-periphery of the imperialist world are likely to exhibit two > divergent tendencies, a bourgeois-democratic and a national-revolutionary > tendency. From the mid-1950s through to the early 1990s, it was the > national-revolutionary tendency that was clearly the dominant but never the > exclusive current within the ANC. Since at least 1994, a sharp internal > debate has been at play within the ANC-led alliance around these two > tendencies. For a variety of reasons, it is the bourgeois-democratic > tendency that has prevailed over the past two decades. And in its > prevailing we can recognise all of the problematic illusions that Lenin so > acutely critiqued in his polemics with Bernstein, Kautsky and the *New > Iskra *tendency – notably the assumption that progress is essentially > evolutionary, stage-ist, undialectical – that progress is made from its > most “developed” side and never from the weak-link, never as result of the > thoroughly uneven, under-development inherent in capitalist accumulation. > > > > In South Africa this evolutionist tendency has conceptualised our > democratic breakthrough as a “return” of a formerly ostracised South Africa > into the bosom and “normality” of a happy family of nations (as if the > relative and always only partial isolation of apartheid South Africa was > not exactly one of the key strategies of the ANC itself). Archbishop Tutu, > in his foreword to the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, > proclaimed that the demise of apartheid marked the end of the three great > “anomalous crimes” against humanity of the 20th century – which he > characterised as fascism, supposedly abolished in 1945, Communism > supposedly abolished with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and now apartheid in > 1994. > > > > Radically absent from Tutu’s world-view was any sense of the persisting > reality of imperialism and its centuries’ long existence in a variety of > colonial, semi-colonial, and indeed internal colonial forms as in white > minority rule in South Africa. Apartheid was, of course, never a > stand-alone reality but an integral part of a persisting and wider > imperialist system which, if anything, had grown stronger and more arrogant > with the collapse of the Soviet bloc. > > > > Although Tutu has never been an ANC member, this kind of perspective was > generally shared by successive ANC leadership figures after 1994, including > many who had formerly been SACP members. The “completion” of the National > Democratic Revolution was now conceptualised as “normalising” South African > capitalism by “de-racialising” (but not socialising) private ownership and > control of monopoly capital. A supposedly “patriotic”, emergent black > capitalist stratum promoted through a variety of state interventions has > been invoked as the leading class force in the National Democratic > Revolution. Any serious antimonopoly capital, anti-imperialist, > socialist-oriented advance is deferred to a distant and largely symbolic > future “stage”. Lenin’s call for an uninterrupted advance has been > forgotten in these quarters. > > > > Sadly, but inevitably, these strategic and programmatic illusions have now > resulted in the significant stagnation of democratic advances and of the > ANC itself. The supposed black “patriotic” bourgeoisie has inevitably > proven to be essentially a parasitic and compradorist force, dependent for > its primary accumulation on pillaging public resources through increasingly > criminal means that have factionalised the ANC and polluted our hard won > democracy. > > > > National sovereignty, a key task of the national democratic revolution, is > betrayed through illicit capital transfers to Dubai and other tax havens. > The deep structural distortions of our capitalist political economy remain > untransformed – among them, extraordinarily high levels of monopoly > concentration; a racialised spatial economy now perpetuated by the property > market as effectively as any apartheid era social engineering; and our > continued semi-peripheral primary commodity exporter status within the > global capitalist chain. These structural features, in turn, are > reproducing crisis-levels of largely racialised unemployment (currently at > 27.7% in the narrow definition), inequality and poverty. > > > > The current cul-de-sac into which our national democratic revolution has > run, and the current turmoil within the ANC and between the ANC and its > alliance partners, are not sustainable. Turmoil born of social crisis is, > we know, not least from the Great October Revolution, the terrain on which > further set-backs or major advances might be achieved. As the SACP we are > well aware that our 2017 reality both locally, regionally and > internationally is, in many respects, quite different from the reality of > 1917. Yet there is still much to celebrate and, above all, to learn from > that defining moment of the 20th century when, for the first time in > human history, working men and women abolished capitalism and held > imperialism at bay, against the odds and at huge human sacrifice for some > seven decades. > > > > Long live the living example of the Great October > > > > Revolution! > > > > · *Cde Blade Nzimande, SACP General Secretary presented this SACP > perspective on the Great October Socialist Revolution on 22 September 2017 > at a Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) seminar held at the > University of Cyprus, Nicosia.* > > > > > > >
-- UMSEBENZI ONLINE IS THE VOICE OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN WORKING CLASS ISSUED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN COMMUNIST PARTY | THE SACP ___________________________________________________________ Alex Mohubetswane Mashilo National Spokesperson & Head of Communications Mobile: +27 76 316 9816 Skype: MashiloAM _____________________________________ CIRCULATION, MEDIA LIAISON SERVICES Communications Officer: Media Liaison Services, Digital and Social Media Co-ordinator Hlengiwe Nkonyane Mobile: +27 79 384 6550 ___________________________________________________________ OFFICE, WEBSITE, TWITTER, FACEBOOK, USTREAM TV CHANNEL Office: +2711 339 3621/2 Twitter: SACP1921 Website: www.sacp.org.za Facebook Page: South African Communist Party SACP Ustream TV Channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/sacp-tv --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umsebenzi Online" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
