 The debates the SACP Special National Congress Discussion Document on: “Building working class hegemony on the terrain of a national democratic struggle”
This is intended to be the first of a series of discussions, organised by the To assist our initial discussion, we provide here two extracts from the recent CU series on the National Democratic Revolution (below). One is from Lenin’s report to the 2CCI in 1920. The other is sections 2.4 and 3 from the discussion document. The full texts of both of these documents are attached, in MS-word format. Further SACP discussion documents are to follow on the following topics:
Extract 1 From the Report on the National & Colonial Question, 2CCI, Lenin, 4 pages 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. It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consist of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relationships… However, the objections have been raised that, 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… Extract 2 From SACP 2nd Special National Congress, CC Discussion Document 2.4 The politics of working class hegemony...versus the politics of a multi-class balancing act The essence of reformist centrism in our present conjuncture is the attempt to disqualify the struggle for working class hegemony in the state and society by seeking, variously, to present such a struggle as:
The first argument tends to be put forward by liberal forces outside of the ranks of our movement (Alistair Sparks, Moeletsi Mbeki, Ivan Fallon, etc.). They do this by deliberately conflating the important difference between the left and a narrow (right-wing) demagogic Africanist tendency within the movement. They seek to paint all of us with the same brush – “hot-headed radicals”, “populist leftists”, etc. Alternatively, the working class hegemonic struggle is portrayed as a “discredited”, “state-centred” politics that disappeared from the agenda with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. By contrast with our supposed divisive factionalism, reformist centrism (both within and beyond our movement) advances a vision of “class peace”, of a “multi-class accord”, to be achieved by way of a “balancing” act of the political and economic interests of different classes. This is why, when our general secretary, quite truthfully says that the implementation of the National Health Insurance will require a class “war” – there is such an outcry of horror from some quarters (see Max du Preez, for instance). These kinds of truths are not meant to be spoken out aloud in polite society. A more sophisticated version of essentially disqualifying a working class hegemonic struggle in key sites of power can be found in the Dinokeng Scenarios (prepared in the run-up to the elections, but eventually published in May 2009 in their immediate aftermath). The following is a brief summary (by one of the key coordinators of the project) of the three possible scenarios of what SA might look like in 2020: “The first scenario, Walk Apart, depicts a story of a weakening state and social coherence that unravels into unrest and leads to disintegration and decline. “The second scenario, Walk Behind, depicts a story of a strong state that intervenes in the economy and society…The ruling party argues that strong state intervention in the economy is in accordance with global trends, and the electorate, concerned about the impact of the global economic crisis, gives the ruling party a powerful mandate. Strong state intervention crowds out private initiative by business and civil society…but breeds dependency and complacency among the citizenry, leading to disengagement and declining investment and a debt crisis. “The third scenario, Walk Together, narrates the story of an actively engaged citizenry that holds government accountable and a responsive state that leads to cooperative governance and social compacts…It entails a common national vision that cuts across economic self-interest in the short-term.” Three things to note:
This last observation brings us to the KEY point of this discussion document: 3. Towards a politics of mass-driven, state-led radical TRANSFORMATION on the terrain of a National Democratic Revolution The sectarian left in our country is basically in denial that capitalism’s hegemony continues to be secured in South Africa fundamentally through the reproduction of RACIALISED inequality (i.e. through persisting, essentially market-driven, national oppression). For this reason they alternatively label the strategy of an NDR as “bourgeois” or “Stalinist” (in fact, it was Lenin who was the key theorist in elaborating the critical connection between the internationalist working class struggle and the democratic struggle of oppressed nationalities). The obvious fact of a continued radical African nationalism amongst the majority of (Note how the re-nascent populist/Africanist tendency in our movement is also largely focused on the subjective aspect of matters – in this case they are already (!) trying to open up campaigns and a public debate around who should succeed whom in ANC and governmental leadership – years ahead of time. As if the real political challenges of our time - the implementing of our manifesto commitments or dealing with a global crisis were mere side-shows.) For their part, the more pro-capitalist centrist reformists (like the above populist tendency) in our broad movement ranks (and beyond) are unable to explain why 15 years after the defeat of apartheid our society continues to reproduce obscene levels of racialised inequality. They are unable to explain why, after more than a decade of economic growth, including some five years of an unprecedented global commodity boom benefiting our key exports, we only succeeded in bringing down unemployment to the crisis levels at which they had been when we started out in 1994 (above 20%). These are levels which are now, of course, soaring upwards once more – with nearly half a million jobs officially lost in the first half of this year. The most common explanation for continuing social crises, from the centrist-reformers, focuses on “service delivery” failure, and “capacity” problems in the state. There are, certainly, serious capacity problems in the state – but note how the explanations are once more subjective in character – i.e. they avoid considering the systemic (i.e. capitalist) features underpinning the crisis in townships, for instance. As a result, the solutions offered tend to be entirely focused on the important (but only partial) questions of personal morality in the public sector and on top-down monitoring and performance management (in this respect, picking up central managerialist themes espoused by the “1996 class project”). In the first place, the “failures of service delivery” argument ignores the truly massive “delivery” that has actually happened on many fronts since 1994 – 13 million social grants, 3,1million subsidised houses (2,7 million of them free), access for 88% of the population to running water (up from 62% in 1996); 80% of the population now with access to electricity (up from 58% in 1996). By international standards, these are extremely impressive achievements. However, at best, this massive “delivery” has ameliorated but not transformed the key structural realities that continue to reproduce crisis-levels of underdevelopment in SA. What presents itself as a “service delivery” or “capacity” problem in a township, for instance, typically has much more profound systemic capitalist accumulation path underpinnings. Most “service delivery” and “capacity” problems manifest themselves in vast dormitory townships and informal settlements miles away from major public amenities, work, and leisure opportunities. These localities are typically bursting at the seams, with tens of thousands of rural newcomers, and thousands more economic refugees from throughout sub-Saharan Meanwhile, in many cases, while these are the pressure-cooker realities confronting townships, the strategic agendas of many of our metro councils have, for instance, been dominated by a neo-liberal focus on being “world class cities” (i.e. on behalf of the “world class” of multi-national globetrotters) – each with its own international convention centre, wealthy enclaves, and exclusive shopping malls “twinned” to their global counterparts, while cut loose from and in denial about their own working class satellite townships and rural hinterlands. FW De Klerk and the apartheid-era architects of the defeated Black Local Authority scheme must be smiling. Their dream of allowing urban Africans to play at democracy within their dormitory townships, while getting under-resourced “elected” BLA councillors to bear the brunt of popular pressure, is being re-enacted, despite our best intentions. While some township-based ward councillors might be more effective than others, it is little wonder that nearly all of them are now the objects of popular condemnation. But it is doubtful whether the combined “capacity” of Vladimir Lenin and Mother Theresa would be able to make much “delivery” headway in ghetto situations like these…WITHOUT RE-LOCATING THE KEY CHALLENGES INTO A BROADER STRUGGLE TO TRANSFORM THE CLASS POWER THAT CONTINUES TO REPRODUCE RACIALISED, PRESSURE-COOKER ENCLAVES IN CRISIS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND WEALTHY (AND PARTIALLY DE-RACIALISED) ENCLAVES OF POWER AND PRIVILEGE, ON THE OTHER. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
