you`re getting matured day by day young man, this is good paper
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Mafika Mndebele <[email protected]>wrote:
> *{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 revolutionaries* which (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 Lenin* *again.
>
>
>
> 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 particular* *understanding of the
> revolution, it does* *therefore 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 is* *simple that is:* *
> the*y *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
> it*s*fighting capacity. However in this campus
> * *criticism 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 comrade*s *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 factional* *narrow 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 mushroom* *during 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. And* *that 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] .
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
