{in the university of KwaZulu-Natal comrade had came out with
newsletters that had been turned in to instrument to attack one another.
the following is a response to one of the newsletters which was also of
the similar nature it was sent to comrade concerned}
An army without culture is a dull-witted army, and a dull- witted army
cannot defeat the enemy
This short article is aimed at provoking debate around the art of
revolutionary writing. Its title is borrowed from the teachings of the
great leader and the founder of the People’s Republic of China, comrade
Chairman Mao Zedong. While it does not claim political correctness but
it seek to raise provocative question/s, which if not asked and
properly answered we are doomed to become funny revolutionaries: that is
a revolutionary conscious (even if such consciousness is circumscribed)
person who destroys himself and the organisational image while
myopically believing that he or she is defending the revolution.
More often than not we hear young people identifying themselves as
revolutionaries; they converse about spearheading the revolution etc.
These young people write many (counter) revolutionary papers, Googling
information (which is partly not a bad thing) and misplacing citations
(quote dialectics but say the opposite e.g. nothing is changing instead
of: everything changes except change which does not change so as to
bring new change). Proceeding from a premise that “each one, teach
one”, our responsibility must then be to assist them to understand
the revolution and the task of revolutionarieswhich (even if it is not
limited to it) include the ideological warfare,which can be advanced
through political class, public meetings, student forums, red izimbizo,
debates and most importantly through the art of revolutionary writing,
but how do we undertake such a task?
Central to all revolutionary writings is the organizational language
and culture which depict the strategic perspective of the organization.
While attacking the enemy is admissible we should not lose site and
speak the language of the enemy. But hold on, wouldn’t it be hazardous
to simple throw terms without explaining them. Therefore the word in
bold for the purpose of this article shall mean the following:
The task of revolutionaries
This concept (revolutionary) derives from revolution. A revolution is
the sheer change that is a product of evolution, which is done by
people. When people challenge the social order and the manner in which
they relate to nature and each other (capitalism is based on profit
motive and private accumulation, thus natural resources are transformed
and basic needs are turned in to commodity for private gains {now when
people define this setting and install the system based on social need})
they are then said to have successfully completed the revolution.
Historically, this total change had always been violent e.g. the victory
of Feudalism over Slavery, the triumph of Capitalism over Feudalism (see
the French Revolution). Hence the revolution has always been defined as
being the violent reaction of one class to crush and replace another
(negation of the negation).The victorious class then install a total
new order.
Lenin in answering this question would have said “Revolutions are
festivals of the oppressed and the exploited. At no other time the mass
of our people in position to come forward actively as creators of a new
social order, as at the time of revolution”. The revolution takes our
people from backward socio-economic formation to a more progressive one.
Put simply, it is a radical qualitative change on the socio economic
structure of the society.
“the outcome of the revolution depends on whether the working class
will play the part of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie that is powerful
in the force of its onslaught against the autocracy but important
politically or whether it will play the part of the leader of the
people’s revolution”
so noted Leninagain.
Whereas most of the above is true, the contemporary revolution seeks to
exploit democratic and peaceful means to achieve the radical change made
by the people. Now that all of us have a particularunderstanding of the
revolution, it doestherefore follow that if the revolution is the total
change done by people than a revolutionary is someone who perpetrates
such a change. A fundamental task of the revolutionary (since the
success of our revolution depends on masses) is to change first and
foremost the manner in which people think. This is done by means of
being exemplary and be persuasive etc. This requires a revolutionary to
grasp the Congress movement (by congress movement in this short paper we
mean the enter MDM formation) culture and depict it on his day to day
actions and writings.
This is so to avoid what Mao cautions us against that is to be a force
that does not have a particular way of doing things for “An army without
culture is a dull-witted army, and a dull- witted army cannot defeat the
enemy” so noted the Chairman. Our enemy which is White Monopoly Capital
is very vigilant, it had established the superstructures of the state
for it promotion and justification.
For us to wipe out this monster we must be capacitated with the
necessary theory and familiarise ourselves with the culture of the
movement. Thus, it’s important that we do self introspection as a
movement collectively and as cadres on our individual capacity, to spot
if we are still on course. The importance of this can not be over
emphasized. It issimple that is:they can not be a revolutionary
organisation without revolutionary cadres. And revolutionary cadres are
not born as cadres rather, the conditions make them to be one (and this
could change in the sense that someone who is a cadre today might not
necessarily be the same thing tomorrow e.g. Terror Lekotas).
Lenin could have never been correct when he contends that “when people
had seen the way in which their mothers and fathers live, under the yoke
of land owners and capitalist boss. When they have themselves
experienced the sacrifice made to keep what had been won, they are
taught by conditions to become communist” borrowing wisdom from Lenin,
it thus follows that for people to partake in the revolution they must
be conscious of the material condition under which they live. This is
not mechanical hence requires us to undergo a process of political
education.
Those who are joining the organisation must be properly inducted and be
introduced to our culture. The education must also be translated into
action: i.e. a leader must behave in the manner that is exemplary and
the membership will follow (this includes what he writes on
newsletters). A revolutionary who does not uphold this organisational
discipline is a funny revolutionary; a leader who does not understand is
equated to a political criminal. But the lust for power makes some
leaders to deliberately ignore this. If we can open a discussion about
this matter and educate the membership, the room for opportunism will be
closed for ever.
The problem/s we find ourselves on- as the movement- are due to the
fact that most of our members do not understand organisational
discipline. But to assume that the leadership does (merely by being
declared a leader/s in an elective congress) will be misleading. It
might just follow that most of our challenges emanate from political
inadequacy and poor political administration (which is usually
self-invited). We had on many occasions became, the first to criticize
the organisation we suppose to lead and defend (e.g. this structure is
better than the previous one). Inner-party criticism is the weapon to
strengthen the organisation and increase itsfighting capacity. However
in this campuscriticism is not always of this character and sometimes
(deliberately) turn to personal attack. As a result, it damages
the organisation and individuals. This is the manifestation of
petty-bourgeois individualism.
(See Chairman Mao)
The most painful fact about this is that some comrades do not make
these criticisms on our meetings, but outside them e.g. on pamphlets
projected as newsletters. Perhaps they had not yet grasped the
importance of party organisation (meetings and so forth), and see no
difference between criticism made inside and outside the organisation.
The organisation must be very vigilant on the question of criticism, as
we need it to cultivate ourselves. However people can’t look for the
high knoll to raise their concerns. They must use constitutional
structures(such as branch general meetings, congresses, executive
meetings and other constitutional forums) to raise their concerns. To
fall short on this is tantamount to counter-revolutionary. When we
criticize we offer constructive criticism, with the intention of
building not destroying each other. By this I mean that you raise the
error, analyse the condition that had led to such error and give the
possible solution to it (i.e. raising criticism without analysing its
source and without providing a solution equals destruction). Utmost to
this must be the interest of the revolutionary movement not our
individual or factionalnarrow interest.
All our writings must inspire the membership and the student community
at large, to be confident with our organisations, to understand more
about our programmes. They must not be a site for political mudslinging.
If we do this, students will distance themselves from us and end up
supporting reactionary organisations with only mushroomduring election
times such as SADESMO and DASO to name but few. Students must (through
our newsletters)understand what the capitalist media is not telling
them: that the PYA is the vehicle of change. Andthat it is the alliance
of all Youth organisations that recognises the Freedom Charter as a
basic policy document which must be realised in our life time.
It is the PYA that had fought for the NSFAS as a short term measure,
while free education is our strategic objective. It is the PYA that had
challenged racism (wherever it glared its ugly head) on campuses and
made submission to the Ministerial report. It is us who have been
shaping the academic freedom debates. It is us who are still fighting
for the safety of student and the upgrading of learning material. All
this must characterise our newsletters in order to advance the struggle
for access and success. Newsletters must highlight our victories,
challenges and battles ahead, lest we forget that in the cause of
realising the above we will be guided by our culture and the traditions
of the Congress movement for to us “An army without culture is a
dull-witted army, and a dull- witted army cannot defeat the enemy”
Mafika Damane Mndebele
Is the YCLSA D. Secretary, SASCO D. chairperson (in the Province of
KZN) and an ANCYL member.
Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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] .
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
