Comrades, I actually made an appeal to everyone that let's depersonalise the debate and engage in constructive discussion to encourage a culture of robust debates which feed into the main objective of this forum. Back to basics: should we still nationalise the mines against the background of "some ideological questions on the nationalisation of mines?" I do not think so. I also did not want to engage on the socialisation question as raised by cde Jeremy Cronin but there is sustainable dimension compared to populist analyses of what informed a debate on the nationalisation of mines. It's safe to say socialisation is a complex subject matter but if done in the right way with realistic expectations, not a haphazard affair, its tenets will yield positive results compared to nationalisation - and the state would be able to generate income to invest in the development of the country. Cde Rosa Luxemburg on the Socialisation of Society (December 1918), brings this dimension: The proletarian revolution that has now begun can have no other goal and no other result than the realisation of socialism. The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations. Currently all wealth – the largest and best estates as well as the mines, works and the factories – belongs to a few Junkers and private capitalists. The great mass of the workers only get from these Junkers and capitalists a meagre wage to live on for hard work. The enrichment of a small number of idlers is the aim of today’s economy. This state of affairs should be remedied. All social wealth, the land with all its natural resources hidden in its bowels and on the surface, and all factories and works must be taken out of the hands of the exploiters and taken into common property of the people. The first duty of a real workers’ government is to declare by means of a series of decrees the most important means of production to be national property and place them under the control of society. Only then, however, does the real and most difficult task begin: the reconstruction of the economy on a completely new basis. This observation highlights the fact that a call for nationalisation of mines is not only late but ambiguous and unable to see the unintended consequences of serving the interests of the bourgeoisie. The sad reality is that the nationalisation which is being bandied about places the obligation on the part of the state to carry the burden of near insolvency or actually insolvent mines, including all unproductive assets and BEE shareholding on the brink of liquidation. We understand the rationale behind nationalising mines, but the state is not in a financial position to use good money to keep bad business in business which ordinary people never benefitted from it. Again, we cannot selectively nationalise mines and leave agricultural land, banks, factories, as if they did something to realise a new dispensation. No superficial nationalisation programme can take place as long as it does not take into account the socio-economic challenges and political developments in the country. I would rather lobby for socialisation in a sense that there are tested models for sustainable and profitable means of production which many communist countries place them under the control of society, with guaranteed returns to meet the political mandates of their election manifesto. A compromise, under current economic conditions, would be for the state to establish a mining company to carry out its political mandates in a sustainable manner - whose business model will be designed to be resilient in all conditions - where the state will provide guarantees for it to raise funds in the markets. It means should the corporation become unable to repay the debt, government will give surety to repay it on behalf of the corporation. This is very sustainable without risks of placing expected losses in the hands of the state, like in the case of nationalisation. It's good to know that government understands this and is acting accordingly - because it's not convinced about the graphical details of the probity and viability of the nationalisation programme. There is no room for trial and error experiments without economic substance. It's not even somewhat alarmist but a fact of life in society that if you have a recession, firms are not making profit and the economy is depressed. Not even some foreign exchange to be generated from the 2010 World Cup will create a boom. There is no context of dialectical materialism will justify arbitrary use of tax-payers' money to "unintentionally bale-out private capital." Indeed, problems of liquidity of mining companies and indebtedness for BEE shareholding are very much real and statistics show that our depressed economy has shed about 770 000 jobs. Isn't that "acute." I submit therefore that we cannot nationalise the mines, under the circumstances, precisely because it will not only be a costly exercise but unsustainable and destructive for a developmental state. I remain comradely, Morgan Phaahla Ekurhuleni
"Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology." - Joe Slovo --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Nyiko Floyd Shivambu <[email protected]> wrote: From: Nyiko Floyd Shivambu <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [YCLSA Discussion] Some ideological questions on the Nationalisation of Mines To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:43 PM I understand and accept that every cannot be about me Cde Dominic. I was not really responding to what you specifically said..... I was generally speaking about some of the questions raised in the forum, wherein comrades expressed a concern about a possible shift. And the question about the Freedom Charter? Is that clarified? -- 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] . -- 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] .
