Hi Margaret Its very easy to unsubscribe than it is to subscribe so please do us a favour and take yourself off the list rather than rant and rave for nothing.
Some of us are acquiring great political education from this. -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Butcher <[email protected]> Sent: 20 August 2009 11:47 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO Good day, Please do not e-mail these stuff to me again. This has nothing to do with me or my family. Have a nice day Good bye -------Original Message------- From: Kanego, Clarence Thete Date: 8/20/2009 10:14:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO Cde Luzuko, uyi bethile Bovana! I cannot agree with you more! On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Luzuko Buku <[email protected]> wrote: Reconciling the David and the Dominic Documents Comrade Dominic is just being over difficult here. There might be differences in the emails, but I don’t see any fundamental difference between what comrade David and him are saying on their documents. As a person that has been following the debates, which I think got out of hand and strayed away from the conceptions of both documents, I believe it is proper for me to reconcile both arguments. In his document comrade Dominic argues that, “The number of seats held by the communists is not critical. The presence of communists in parliament is tactical. In some circumstances there might even be a boycott of elections or of parliament. But as a rule the communists have good reasons for wanting to be in parliament.” This point has no difference with the arguments of comrade David as he does not argue for a mere increase in the number of communist in parliament, but stress the need for them to be accountable to the SACP, as the title of the document explains. Comrade Dominic goes on to correctly argue that parliament, “is a relatively minor site of struggle and views on parliamentary tactics should therefore never be allowed to divide or split the revolutionary forces.” In relation to the first argument of Comrade Dominic comrade David is scared of the fact that in the current arrangement Communist are not represented in Parliament, as those that are there do not report to the party of Communists. Bear in mind that comrade David is not saying we should have communist in parliament accounting to the SACP and it ends there, he treats communist participation in parliament tactically. Comrade David’s document also says nothing about a break of the SACP with the ANC, unless comrade David said this in an informal discussion with Dominic, until this come to the fore, those remarks (if there are any) remain unknown. The main point that clearly connects the document is when comrade Dominic argues that, “Parliament is part of the enemy camp and party members go there as agitators to carry out party decisions under the command and control of the party leadership outside parliament..” Comrade David wants party cadres in parliament to be accountable to the “party leadership outside parliament”, and the title of his document says a lot about this (Independence of the SACP in the post-2009). David’s document can be summed up by his quote when he says, “SACP cadres are in the legislatures as ANC members and under the whip of the ANC, and the modes of accountability as well as the tasks of communists in the legislatures in relation to the independent role of the Party in the legislatures are not very clear.” I am more than convinced that there is no point of fundamental difference in both documents, but these things are expressed differently in both documents Both cadres should be commended for drafting these documents and the documents should not be viewed as in opposition to each other. Lastly I admire comrade David for not reducing himself, to the fruitful but rather unhealthy email debate in the forum, where this was reduced into this person knows this Marxist document and can quote it very well and that one has made a spelling mistake and that one has mistakenly said the Congress of the People organised the Defiance Campaign rather than the Congress Alliance In as much as comrade Dominic follows the Critical Pedagogy, he does not live it, because he tends to scare most of us with classical Marxists documents and big references, every time when he is engaged. This is not to say referencing is wrong, but we should remember that this is a Young Communist League Discussion Forum, hence young communists, like me, decide to abstain in discussions where Dominic is involved. Aluta Continua Luzuko Buku YCL Chairperson, Rhodes University ANC Rodgers Faltein 0786172286 www.lbuku.blogspot.com "The state is the product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms..."State and Revolution, Lenin (1917) From: morgan phaahla <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:06:54 PM Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO Cde VC, I did not quote or draw any argument intentionally not to complicate the debate further. Cde Mduduzi pointed out clearly to you that he would rather narrow the debate from its inception. This was exactly my plea to you initially when the discussion documents from cde David and yourself were posted to the forum in relation to the debate. As agreed to confine the discussion to a narrow focus, I challenged your suggestion that "The communists are the ones who most consciously design and build the institutions - the democratic institutions - of society. We do not do it so that we can "win" those institutions as a party, and possess them. We are not a bourgeois party, or anything like a bourgeois party." Having failed to unpack this statement it remained empty, if not the illusion of a pre-Marxist socialist. In dismissing your suggestion, I quoted in the Communist Manifesto to show that a "mode of entry" into the bourgeois state is the quintessence of Marx and Engels, as indicated that of 'all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disapper in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.' To this end, I appreciate our difference of opinion and thus end by calling upon other cadres to give their own perspective so that we can develop a position and move forward. You're welcome to challenge my point of reference. I remain, Morgan Phaahla Ekurhuleni "Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology." - Joe Slovo --- On Tue, 8/18/09, Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> wrote: From: Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 12:23 PM Dear Cde Morgan, You have not quoted or drawn out any argument from the second part of the Communist Manifesto (Proletarians and Communists). You have only asked us to read the whole thing. Let me demonstrate what I mean about quoting and drawing out an argument, using the first page of the first part of Chapter 2 of Lenin's 1917 "The State and Revolution" (see below). You will see that Lenin starts with "the first work of mature Marxism" (written immediately before the Manifesto), and then quickly moves to the Manifesto itself, in order to make the point, using the Manifesto in particular, that the State that we want is "the proletariat organized as the ruling class". The state that we have now is the bourgeoisie organised as the ruling class. What you and David are proposing is a "mode of entry" into the bourgeois state. It sounds like a Kama Sutra position, but whatever it is, it is not revolution. Read what Lenin has to say about it, please, comrade, and then don't forget what the very same Manifesto says almost at its last end: "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Here's Lenin: 1. The Eve of Revolution The first works of mature Marxism — The Poverty of Philosophy and the Communist Manifesto — appeared just on the eve of the revolution of 1848. For this reason, in addition to presenting the general principles of Marxism they reflect to a certain degree the concrete revolutionary situation of the time. It will, therefore, be more expedient, perhaps, to examine what the authors of these works said about the state immediately before they drew conclusions from the experience of the years 1848-51. In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx wrote: "The working class, in the course of development, will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will preclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power groups, since the political power is precisely the official expression of class antagonism in bourgeois society." (p.182, German edition, 1885)[1] It is instructive to compare this general exposition of the idea of the state disappearing after the abolition of classes with the exposition contained in the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels a few months later--in November 1847, to be exact: "... In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.... "... We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class to win the battle of democracy. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." (pp.31 and 37, seventh German edition, 1906)[2] Here we have a formulation of one of the most remarkable and most important ideas of Marxism on the subject of the state, namely, the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (as Marx and Engels began to call it after the Paris Commune); and, also, a highly interesting definition of the state, which is also one of the "forgotten words" of Marxism: "the state, i..e., the proletariat organized as the ruling class." This definition of the state has never been explained in the prevailing propaganda and agitation literature of the official Social-Democratic parties. More than that, it has been deliberately ignored, for it is absolutely irreconcilable with reformism, and is a slap in the face for the common opportunist prejudices and philistine illusions about the "peaceful development of democracy". The proletariat needs the state — this is repeated by all the opportunists, social-chauvinists and Kautskyites, who assure us that this is what Marx taught. But they "forget" to add that, in the first place, according to Marx the proletariat needs only a state which is withering away, i.e., a state so constituted that it begins to wither away immediately, and cannot but wither away. And, secondly, the working people need a "state, i.e., the proletariat organized as the ruling class". The state is a special organization of force: it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, only the exploiting class, i.e., the bourgeoisie. The working people need the state only to suppress the resistance of the exploiters, and only the proletariat can direct this suppression, can carry it out. For the proletariat is the only class that is consistently revolutionary, the only class that can unite all the working and exploited people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie, in completely removing it. VC morgan phaahla wrote: Comrades, In relation to the discussion, let's read chapter 2 of Communist Manifesto on Proletarians and Communists, and develop a position on this issue.. Here is the link, http://www.marxists org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm So far there is no dissenting view, except VC's only point of difference. Otherwise he must give in, by the force of circumstances, to be part of the whole. Kindest regards Morgan Phaahla "Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology." - Joe Slovo --- On Tue, 8/18/09, Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> wrote: From: Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 4:42 AM Comrade Mduduzi, What is difficult is that you are trying to hold a bourgeois concept of the State and a revolutionary understanding of it in your head at one and the same time. Unfortunately, if you cannot see the difference, you will tend to fall to the bourgeois side. I'm sorry to be so blunt about this but when you write Much as the state is according to Lenin "an organ of oppression", it can be progressive if policies taken in parliament are pro poor," you must know that you are doing something terrible. Because if people do not know better, they can think from what you have written that Lenin thought that Parliament "can be progressive if policies taken in parliament are pro poor," whereas nothing could be further from the truth. I think the best remedy for you and for others is to read Lenin's "The State and Revolution". It is very direct and quite easy to read and it is relevant In Chapter 3, section 3, "Abolition of Parliamentarism" Lenin quotes Marx as calling bourgeois parliamentarism a "pigsty". In struggle, VC Mduduzi H Vilakazi wrote: Cadres, The debate is too difficult for some of us. It needs the highest level of analysis and some basic background of the alliance. I would be happy to start at the beginning of the debate. Cde David raised some sharp discussions on the independence of the party within the reconfigured alliance. Put differently, he questioned the big brother approach where the ANC remains the only vehicle to state power. This approach questions the hegemony of one party over the others within the alliance. Set aside these structures, you have all of these structures operating their own constitutions that guide their everyday organizational activities. They hold their different conferences which translates into different resolutions It therefore becomes imperative that activities of the structures of the various organisations in the alliance will be measured by their separate resolutions. The fact that one alliance partner is interested in discussions and decisions of the other alliance partners does not mean these structures becomes one. they still remain separate. For this reason, I concur with comrade Masondo that the resolutions of the Party shall independently find expression in activities of the state. This can only happen when the reconfiguration will clearly mean that the Party will in its own right recall its members who functions contrary to the resolutions, traditions and ideology of the Party. This will save the Party from having members who deliberately side with the bourgeoisie (other than tactical) on policies of the state and hide with democratic centralism. Much as the state is according to Lenin "an organ of oppression", it can be progressive if policies taken in parliament are pro poor. This will not come as a silver platter, it needs some strategic "mode of entry" different from the one where the ANC holds the power of members of the Party with regards to caucus, recalling and deployment. I agree with the views of Phaahla and Masondo on moving forward. Marxism cannot remain dogma. The current situation needs current analysis that will provide current solutions to current problems. I pause. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
