Comrades, What is communist with the rural development document? I for one do not see it as a means to a socialist end. Frankly speaking, it lacks the dialectics component, though it might be fair in outlining the materilialist part. We should remember that socialist transformation of a capitalist society is a pre-determined phenomenon and as such, we cannot be fooled. We've yet to see a true transitional rural development strategy, not chalatancy.
Regards, Xoli On 12/6/09, Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The SACP Rural Development Discussion Document (click here for a PDF > download from the SACP web site), released in advance of the SACP Special > National Congress of December 2009, succeeds quite well, in the first four > of its five parts, to make a sympathetic and factual narrative that depicts > the plight of the South African rural areas. > > As such, it can be contrasted and compared with the remainder of the > Communist University Generic Course on “Development, Rural and Urban”, of > which it now becomes, for the time being, the final part. > > It is in the fifth and final three pages (1198 words), called “Our response > to rural development”, that this discussion document falls apart in > spectacular fashion. > > What a communist document should do above all is to concretise, meaning that > it should bring all of the empirical, abstract facts and circumstances into > the ordered, organic form of a unity-and-struggle-of-opposites, that shows > clearly the internal dynamic of the system under examination. > > Only then can communists, as such, speak of communist intervention in a > system. > > Instead, this document ponders whether there may be “gaps” that need to be > filled, and then it proceeds to offer a long, eclectic, bullet-pointed > shopping list of things that might be done. > > Communists should not be trying to work this way (i.e. filling gaps). > > The concluding paragraph of the document includes a disclaimer: “Due to the > enormity of the task not all areas regarding all the issues raised in this > paper could be exhaustively dealt with.” > > This is an admission by the author that his or her conception of Rural > Development is disorderly and not synthetic or concrete. This is not good > enough as preparation for a policy-forming debate. > > The following paragraph, full of conceptual errors, is a good indication of > where the comrade is going wrong: > > “As a starting point and a short-term strategy towards linking industrial > strategy, the economic policy and agrarian and land reform programme > referred to above, there are some things that can be done to improve land > and agrarian reform approaches and strategies.” > > A strategy is not a starting point; a strategy works towards a goal, or > end-point. > > Strategy is not short-term, but long-term; tactics are short-term means to > the strategic, longer-term end. > > “Strategies”, in any particular case, are not plural, but singular; there > might be many possible tactical roads to take, but the strategic goal should > be one. > > These are unfortunately quite common errors within our South African > discourse. > > As for Rural Development in particular, South Africa seems to lack scholars > who are prepared to study experience elsewhere. The logo above represents > one of thousands of Rural Development agencies and institutions around the > world that are apparent on the Internet. It is from the Government of > Karnataka, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department. Karnataka is a > state in India. > > As overseas, so also within the country, there is a large amount of > experience, which is not apparent in the discussion document. > > The document, without supporting argument, is finally concluded with an > admirable slogan: Build People’s Land Committees, Build People’s Power! > > Yet, after nearly 16 years since the democratic breakthrough of 1994, and > after 20 years of restored communist legality in South Africa, our sole > discussion document on Rural Development has no mention of any actual > People’s Land Committees, or of any organic intellectuals leading such > committees. > > Although a moment’s thought recalls that the Food and Agriculture Workers’ > Union (FAWU), which contains many Party members, is involved at the rural > grass roots, and that the SACP itself with its 96,000 members includes many > in rural areas, yet there is no account of our practical political > experience in this document. > > Click on this link: > > SACP Rural Development Discussion Document, 2009(4915 words) > > > -- > 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] .
