Hi Comrades, Comrade Mdu, thank you for the important analysis that you are making however I need to correct that COSATU rejected the paper, the final resolutions takes a posture to engage the Alliance on the paper.
Comradely, Cedric Gina. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mduduzi H Vilakazi <[email protected]>wrote: > Cde Morgan, > > In politics, not everything is seen and touched. There are lot of behind > the scene that happens without us seeing. > > In my understanding, the green paper is fine with the limitations that all > papers have. However, Cde Trevor openly spoke about the cowardice of private > business to deal with labour and definitely that did not sit well with > Cosatu and its affiliates. > > Secondly, in the office of planning is Trevor and Joel (Peter Mayibuye) who > openly supported Cde Mbeki's third term which still are in the minds of some > of our leaders. The green paper was developed by the two comrades and > suspicion will always be with those who supported the current leadership on > trust of those who supported the other list in Polokwane. > > Lastly, without raising a racial debate, Trevor is a man of colour who was > reinstated by investors after he resigned in solidarity with then President > Mbeki's recalling. This behavior is still fresh in the minds of some of our > comrades. > > So Cosatu has taken advantage to also frustrate Cde Trevor who instructed > private businesses to "frustrate" the workers. The lambasting of the green > paper, in my view, has nothing to do with the contents or rather the purpose > of the paper but a political way of making Cde Trevor feel the hit of > labour. > > I must clearly state that it is correct for Cosatu to engage any policy > paper that seek to shape the operations of government. However, to dismiss > the paper, as it did, Cosatu missed a point of engaging the paper broadly. > With Trevor or anyone else at the helm, government needs to restructure its > planning. Cosatu should come up with better ways of planning (integrated) > that is not similar to that proposed by the green paper. > > All those who soberly read the paper realized that it is not about an > individual but about integrated service delivery planning. Cde Trevor will > one day vacate that office, but integrated planning will still be the nerve > centre of the Presidency. > > The role of Cosatu, its affiliates and other progressive organisations is > to develop the paper to resembles what Polokwane mandated leaders to do. > Dismissing the paper will not produce better results for society. > > I fully support the extention of the closing date for submissions to the > paper. Maybe the SACP will provide clear challenges that the paper may have > and seek to correct such. The SACP as a vanguard movement will correctly > apply its tools of analysis in order to close the gaps in planning while > protecting the plight of the working class in benefiting from the NDR. > > lets engage!! > > >>> morgan phaahla <[email protected]> 09/10/2009 15:44 >>> > Comrades, without agreeing with anyone of you, I read the Green Paper > several times trying find the bone of contention for cde Trevor Manuel to be > singled out in such a manner that was uncomradely for a person elected to > serve in the ANC-led government. > > Let's rather point out the issues than relying on the perceptions created > by the tone of the speech and/or interpretations of the responsibility and > powers accorded to the minister of national planning. The questions that > need to be answered before other cadres get involved in what both of you are > now, is: > > 1. What is the problem with the Green Paper? > 2. Would the same problem exists had the minister of national planning be > cde Ebrahim Patel? > > I'm raising these questions to make sure that we do not debate > personalities but a process by which the planning will be done to achieve > high level service delivery to better the lives of ordinary people. > > Let's engage maqabane! > > I remain > Morgan Phaahla > > "Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology." - > Joe Slovo > > --- On *Fri, 10/9/09, sabelo gina <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: sabelo gina <[email protected]> > Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: National Plan [CU758] > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 8:38 AM > > Comrade Dominic, > > I am ok with your analysis of the Green Paper, however I am deeply > disturbed by your anger against the General Secretary of Cosatu and that of > Nehawu. Please stop being angry! > > If you care to know, you must read the resolution that was sponsored by > Numsa which in the main raised similar things that you are raising. > > Please do not pretend that individuals do not leave imprints, the Numsa > submission is clearly and justifiable worried about the frame of reference > that the Minister draws, please get his speech that he delivered on the > launch. > > Cedric Gina. > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Dominic Tweedie < > [email protected]<http://us.mc502.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> >> >> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D4UK2kWf5ik/Ss3DBrpazZI/AAAAAAAABcE/tkCSGo9ubF4/s1600-h/GDR3.png> >> >> [CU for Friday, 9 October 2009] >> >> What’s wrong with the Green Paper (linked below) on National Strategic >> Planning? >> > It is a discussion document. The SACP has called for more time to > discuss it. COSATU’s General Secretary has lambasted it. NEHAWU has > lambasted it. But they have not made clear what is wrong with central > planning. NEHAWU wrote (on Tuesday) that: > > *“It is a known fact that the need for a high level planning and the > planning commission and other modalities towards the establishment of the > developmental state were agreed upon at the Alliance summit in October > 2008.* > > ** > > *“NEHAWU therefore believes that it is only proper that the Green Paper > should be considered in the impending Alliance summit and that this should > take place prior to further processes in parliament and government.”* > > Our concern in this series is with the > pre-SACP-Special-National-Congress debates. The Green Paper has to be taken > in this series. It is directly relevant to the SACP discussions. It is taken > as the eighth out of ten, where the remaining two places are reserved for > the SACP’s announced discussion documents on: “Industrial Strategy and Rural > Development”, and on “The State and the Future of Local and Provincial > Government”, (which should be sufficient to conclude the series, when they > come out). > > We must discuss this Green Paper, and we must discuss it on its merits. > Its greatest merit is that it makes a strong case for regular planning on > three “time horizons”: 1-year Programmes of Action, 5-year Medium Term > “Frameworks” corresponding to a maximum term of office between elections; > and Long-Term, plus/minus 15-year, “Visions”. It makes this case in > common-sense or bourgeois-bureaucratic terms, but given that limitation, yet > it does not compromise with neo-liberalism. The necessity for planning has > become orthodoxy. > > For those of us who have been banging the planning drum for many years > past, this is a moment of deep joy. > > The Green Paper is not itself a plan, but it commits the Minister to > produce the first plan within a year from now. It lays down the process by > which the planning will be done – centrally, of course, but transparently, > and not secretly or pre-emptively. > > The major de-merit of the Green Paper from a communist point of view is > shown by its frequent mention of something resembling an imaginary table of > weaknesses and problems. In this list you find women, children, the disabled > and the old, and those with low “social status”- meaning the working class. > Race, gender and lack of education are mentioned, but never “class”, or the > “working class”. Instead, where race is mentioned you get more (balancing?) > remarks about low “social status”, as if being working class is a disability > or a disease that needs to be palliated, treated or cured. > > The class struggle may be the engine of history, the Green Paper seems > to imply, but it can’t be considered in plans. The plans imagined in the > Green Paper will be curative courses of treatment for ills. If this remains > unchanged, the strategic plans produced by the process described are bound > to fall far short of what is necessary. > > The historical measure of change and of progress is the rate of class > formation. The basis of Chinese revolutionary planning success in the last > sixty years, for example, has been their constant attention to class > formation. (Even their few, now-long-past failures were a consequence of the > same, correct, focus). > > None of the goods, whether public or private that the planning process > is designed to maximise will be secure unless there is a steady and > eventually overwhelming growth of the working class. By treating the working > class as a “social status” problem, the Green Paper has the whole matter > upside down, and will fail, if it does not get corrected. > > Without any positive class orientation, the planning process as outlined > in the Green Paper will default back to conservative bourgeois > utilitarianism. The determination towards planning that the Green Paper > represents is a great leap forward, but it will come to nothing if the > planning process is not infused with revolutionary class-consciousness. This > is a job for the communists, and we must get to work on it. > > The objections of NEHAWU and of COSATU have not up to now revealed any > matters of substance that could be a cause for conflict, but only matters of > protocol. There is a great deal inside the Green Paper, too, about protocol > and government etiquette. Whether these things are really crucial will > become apparent, provided transparency is observed, and will be capable of > correction. > > We as the Communist University have always dwelt in the public realm, > where “a cat may look at a King”. So long as planning is a public process, > and the communists are not lazy, then we should be able to get a result, > with or without any elaborate prior protocols and laid-down pecking orders. > > While this series has been going on it has been debated, and there has > been feedback, including one full-dress Economic Policy planning document > for South Africa by Xoli Dlabantu (linked). Contributions that are > conceived and executed at this bold scale make one extremely proud to be > involved with this rolling-mass-university we call the CU. > > Many, many thanks Cde Xoli. > > [Graphic: Symbol of the former German Democratic Republic, a good friend > to South Africa, founded 60 years ago this week] > > *Click on these links:* > > *SA Government Green Paper on National Strategic > Planning<http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/Green+Paper+on+National+Strategic+Planning,+2009> > * (14354 words) > > *National Integrated Development Strategy, Xoli > Dlabantu<http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/National+Integrated+Development+Strategy,+Xoli+Dlabantu> > * (3799 words) > > > > -- > Blog at: http://domza.blogspot.com/ > Communist University web site at: http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/ > Subscribe for free e-mail updates at: > http://groups.google.com/group/Communist-University/ > Library of documents (CU "CD") at: http://cu.domza.net/ > [email protected]<http://us.mc502.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > > > This message and any attachments relating to official business of the > Mpumalanga > Provincial Government (MPG) is proprietary to the MPG and intended for the > original addressee only. The message may contain information that is > confidential and subject to legal privilege. Any views expressed in this > message are those of the individual sender. If you receive this message in > error, please notify the original sender immediately and destroy the > original message. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you > are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy, use, distribute, or > take any action in connection therewith. The MPG cannot insure that the > integrity of this communication has been maintained, nor that it is free of > errors, viruses, interception and / or interference. The MPG is not liable > whatsoever for loss or damage resulting from the opening of this message and > / or attachments and / or the use of the information contained in this > message and / or attachments. > > [image: Always stretching our arm, to accelerate service delivery] > <http://www.mpumalanga.gov.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] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
