Comrades,
As far as I know the definition of socialism is that the working class has state power. This is not the same thing as nationalisation. Most of nationalisation in history (including, for example, the nationalisation of coal-mines and railways in Great Britain in 1945) was done by bourgeois governments at state expense for bourgeois reasons, in the service of the bourgeois class. Most of this nationalisation has by now been reversed, also at state expense and for the benefit of the bourgeois class; but new bourgeois nationalisation keeps coming along, as we have recently seen. In Britain, last week, the privatised rail service between London and Edinburgh, which is the flagship railway service of the nation, was re-nationalised after the operator went bust. Business people will be able to continue using it, at state expense. Workers will mostly continue to use the (private) long-distance bus services for intercity trips, which are a lot cheaper. So there are plenty of bourgeois states which nationalise, but which remain bourgeois class dictatorships. In China, the proletariat is in power and there are plenty of huge capitalist companies. In the Soviet Union, there was the New Economic Policy (NEP). So, there are also proletarian states which do not always nationalise, and which tolerate capitalist ownership of the means of production during the transitional stage between socialism and communism, which our SACP Constitution talks about in clause 4.2. The Chinese are able to direct their economy and new investments in their economy, and they can regulate as much as they wish. China is a developmental state, and as a matter of fact, a very successful one . One of the historic problems of socialist countries was management at enterprise level. The Chinese have "finessed" this problem, by leaving it with the bourgeoisie, while securing development and a vast expansion of the employed proletariat, and while retaining state power and control of the entire economy. The immediate question for South Africa is not primarily whether we should tolerate bourgeois companies, or not. The first question is: Which class is in charge at state level? In my opinion, it would be quite o.k. for South Africa to be in the Chinese position of having state power in the hands of the working class, while continuing to allow, under our direction, the activities of Anglo-American and all the rest of the mining companies. I do not yet see how nationalising the mines will directly affect the bourgeois nature of the state in South Africa. I know of no example where a socialist revolution was procured piecemeal in this way. On the contrary, I wonder if the road to socialism via nationalisation is not really the same thing as "economism"? Can anyone show me how nationalisation, when treated as the main road to socialism, is not "economism"? In struggle, Domza. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mxolisi Mlatha Sent: 09 July 2009 11:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: the NP govt was more socialist than the ANC govt. Comrades Whilst the experiences of nationalism under apartheid may be good references to state as footnotes for a discussion on nationalization in modern day SA. We should also not blur the lines between (socialist) nationalization and state capitalism (as was the apartheid state and NAZI Germany). Very often the difference may be to narrow to easily sight whilst positive lessons may be drawn from the actual exercise and experience of nationalization. I am stating this to caution against a desparate political tendency that tends to often show its head in a blanket glorification of the apartheid economy. As if to say apartheid was bad but its economy was good. That said I believe that the debate on nationalization has for the first time in post apartheid SA occupied so much credible public discourse. Its no more a debate regarded as that of an antiquated left remnant. For that we have to thank the Party that stood firm in agitating for the course of building a strong developmental state. More recently we have to thank the ANCYL which has firmly put the issue of nationalization at the pinnacle of national discourse. It is important that we ensure that we enrich the perspectives around the issue, correctly locating them within the Freedom Charter. The current economic reality actually provides the most opportune moment for us to pursue the issue of nationalization especially given the global jittery of the capitalist system. We have more modern examples such as Venezuela to explore on the issue. I would follow the discussion and trust that as cadres we would empower each and another to be able to put a credible case for nationalization, within the context of a socialist orienated discourse. Mxolisi Mlatha --- Sent from UnionMail Service [http://mail.union.org.za] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
