Cde Thembinkosi Thank you my leader, and its good to learn that that University, UCT, has not swallowed you. Being a product of same, I can understand the difficulties therein.
Be that as it may, by saying the "... contradictions that seem to be expressing themselves are of a class character as opposed to particularly national..." are you suggesting my leader that the main content of today's South African struggle is a class struggle? If so, wouldnt that mean then that the leader of such struggle must then be the SACP? May I invite you to reread the ANC Strategy and Tactic document of the 2007 Limpopo Congress. It seems to suggest that South Africa is still very far from achieving the national objectives of the struggle. The position of the ANC seems to me to differ fundamentally with what you are suggesting. How do you see this? Sure my leader Cde Mlilo On 3/30/10, Thembinkosi Josopu <[email protected]> wrote: > ** High Priority ** > > Wow! > > Cde Mlilo I think here you have deliberately taken this inquisitive > stance not because you are unable to unpack, indeed the manner in which > you've concluded by asking whether it's possible for COSATU to be a > leader of the alliance. > > My careless thinking tells me that we can never be in one stage of a > revolution forever and indeed contradictions that seem to be expressing > themselves are of a class character as opposed to particularly national, > which there leaves me with a question which you deliberately seem to be > struggling as who should lead the alliance... > > You succinctly state that you don't influence an organization without > objectives that you want to achieve in the end, my senseless interest is > what happens when you have partly maximized your influence? > > Thembinkosi Josopu > Student Admissions & Advocacy Services > University of Cape Town > Level 3, Kramer Law building > Middle Campus > Rondebosch,7700 > Tel :021-650-2429 > Fax:021-650-4014 > > > > "A great leader's courage to fulfill his vision comes from passion, not > position" > > >>>> Nqobizitha Mlilo M <[email protected]> 2010/03/30 11:14 AM >>> > > The Tripartite Alliance-going back to basics; who should lead the > Alliance? > By Nqobizitha Mlilo > > The Tripartite Alliance! I must admit, am either confused or what I > thought I understood, I may not have. I am sure am not alone. > > Many of those committed to a democratic Zimbabwe I have interacted with > always ask about and express fascination about how the Tripartite > Alliance works. Even after attempting to explain what I thought I knew > and understood, one can see that they still would not get it. The > incomparable President OR Tambo was certainly on point that the > Tripartite Alliance is a very unique alliance, never seen anywhere, not > only on the African continent but in the world. Perhaps it will never be > seen anywhere else! > > I may be bold to state that there are many, who for years have been > part of and very active in the Mass Democratic Movement or the > Progressive Alliance who posture that they understand the Alliance, and > if they are not to be defensive and fanatic, must accept that they are > equally unsure, especially about some intricate complexities of an > Alliance of ideologically different organizations, organizations which > have differing strategic end goals. > > How does the Alliance work? What is the purpose of the Alliance? What > is the direction of the Alliance? Is there a destined end of the > Alliance? Who leads the alliance? Or perhaps who should lead the > alliance? When should they lead? Why? > > Prof Ben Turok writing in the African Communist, 1959-2009, 50 Writing > Years, issue Number 178, states; > > “… [t]he congress Alliance was established, led by the ANC and > consisting of the Indian Congress, the Coloured People’s Congress, the > Congress of Democrats and the SA Congress of Trade Unions. The Party, > now called the SACP, was not represented as it was illegal, but the > moderate elements in the ANC would not have agreed to its joining the > Alliance anyway” > > Concerning the adoption of the Freedom Charter, Prof Ben Turok further > writes; > > “… [t]he outcome (of the writing and adoption of the Freedom Charter) > was received with reservations, especially by some conservative leaders > in the African National Congress (ANC), who then had to be persuaded > that the document was not “socialist”. > > These reservations and as “… an article in the New Age, Does the > Freedom Charter mean Socialism? (November 17, 1957) stated…” these “… > misgivings…” were expressed by some of the most respected leaders of the > ANC. > > From the foregoing, it is fair to observe that both the moderates and > conservatives in the ANC had misgivings about an Alliance involving the > CPSA (SACP). The practical workings of the Alliance resultant thereof > equally had its tensions and contradictions. > > In simple terms, the constituting and working of the alliance has never > been a walk on red roses, pomp and > ceremony buttressed by a 21 gun > salute. It has always been fraught with contradictions and > contestations. Of course, it has also blossomed and has had its times, > days and moments of comfortingly inspiring sunshine. > > It is submitted that what seemed to thaw the tensions and indeed enable > the Alliance to ‘function’, however defined, during the height of the > struggle against apartheid, is the outcome of the “… seminal debate in > the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) > (as the South African Communist Party (SACP) then was) in 1948.” > Although, in the words of Joe Slovo, in his equally seminal paper, The > South African Working Class and the National Democratic Revolution, > notwithstanding the 1948 decision of the CPSA (SACP) “these discussions > and debates (kept) coming back, in one way or the other…,” the debate > was settled sufficiently decisively in favour of the view that said the > national character and not the class character, was primary to the then > struggle against apartheid. > > It is submitted that once the national character of the struggle was > taken as primary, there could hardly be dispute as to who should lead > the struggle and therefore the Alliance. The African National Congress > (ANC), as its name suggests, national, had the obvious traits and > capacity to lead a national struggle. > > The CPSA (SACP) by its character and definition leads a class struggle. > It places much work and emphasis on the class character of a struggle, > presumably when the conditions of such struggle have been made more > conducive by how far the social conditions of the national character of > the struggle have developed. > > Let there be no misconstruction, the immortal General Secretary of the > SACP, Joe Slovo wrote impressively that there will never be such a day > when there will be a neat demarcation saying today we are waging a class > struggle and those that wage such struggle must stand in this line, > while the next or proceeding day we will say those waging a national > struggle must stand in the other line. In the words of Joe Slovo, > “[t]here is no such thing as 'pure' class struggle and those who seek > it can only do so from the isolating comfort of a library arm-chair.” > The two will always interlink, but the emphasis is on the form the > struggle will take at each stage. > > It could hardly be doubted or contested that the decision of the CPSA > (SACP) in 1948, that the national struggle was primary, was correct and > visionary. Same for the position of the ANC at the all important > Morogoro Conference wherein the ANC, after intense and passionate > debates, for strategic reasons opted not to declare itself a socialist > organization. > > We should therefore be able to observe that contestations, tensions and > all that in between in the Alliance are not as a result of this or that > personality in the leadership of, and in the organizations in and of the > Alliance; they have been there since immediately before the conception > of the Alliance. They are in fact inherent. > > Therefore to argue, as we have seen in main stream media, and indeed > some mumblings within the rank and file and indeed leadership of the > Mass Democratic Movement that the Alliance is shaky because of the > leadership style of President Jacob Zuma is fallacious, if not out right > dishonest. > > What then is the real issue? Lets us go back to the basics. > > The ANC is a mass based organization. In some cases the ANC is referred > to as a broad church. This means that all in society can be members > regardless of their class orientation and or position. > > It is equally said the ANC, notwithstanding its broad membership, is > biased towards the poor, and therefore the ANC is a ‘disciplined force > of the left.’ > > What is perhaps not emphasized enough is that in characterizing the ANC > as biased towards the poor and therefore a disciplined force of the > left, this bias does not come natural. It is not the benevolence of the > ANC. It is a direct product of the class contestations within the ANC > itself > given that it is a broad church. This therefore means, the extent > to which the ANC is biased towards the poor is a reflection of class > balance of forces in the ANC. Put simply, the more the ANC is pro-poor, > the immediate impression is that there is greater influence of the SACP > and the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions (COSATU). > > If we are to follow the logic of the decision of the Executive > Committee of the CPSA (SACP) in 1948, it must of necessity mean the > influence of the SACP and COSATU on and in the ANC today is a reflection > of the extent to which the national character of the struggle has been > won, lost or being pursued. > > If the national struggle as waged during the days of apartheid has not > been won, it means it is the national character of the struggle which > should be waged, or be it, continue to be waged. This would therefore > mean the ANC should continue to lead the Alliance. Talk of reconfiguring > the Alliance or making the Alliance the political centre, as expressed > both by the SACP and COSATU would be premature. The leadership of the > ANC to the alliance would be unquestionable, and as Prof Ben Turok wrote > of the 1950s, “… the way (is) clear for the Party (SACP) to align itself > without reservations with the ANC…” and accept the leadership of the > ANC. > > The 1948 clarion call of the CPSA (SACP), that “… entryism (is) > unacceptable, namely there would be no capture of any organization or > committee. Participation of Communists (should always be) in good faith > and in conformance with the objectives of the (ANC)…” would remain > relevant. Those in the Alliance who are accusing the SACP of wanting to > “capture the ANC” therefore genuinely simply do not understand their > partners in the Alliance, or if they understand, are simply being > dishonest therefore are playing to the gallery. > > If however, there are such members of the SACP who want to capture the > ANC, they need to go back to the basics. > > On the other hand, if the national character of the struggle has been > won, in terms of the tactical perspective adopted by the CPSA (SACP) in > 1948, then the class character of the struggle must take center stage. > Talk of a reconfigured Alliance would be apt and relevant. The SACP must > take over and lead. Even in this context, talk of the Alliance as a > political centre would be out of place. It is the SACP that must lead. > > The submission is therefore that the debates about the Alliance, which > in some cases have turned very ugly, may very well be settled if the > very Alliance could answer the question as to what stage the struggle in > South Africa is today. Is it the national or the class question? > > Quick to say, as a word of caution, this debate should generally be > done soberly and informed only by the collective interest of all South > Africans (indeed all Africans on the across the world) and specifically > should not be informed any narrow interests of wanting to capture state > power as a means for and to private accumulation of wealth. > > In resolving this debate, and there is no guarantee that there will be > without acrimony and causalities, but surely a base for a more > functional Alliance at peace with itself and insulated against the > fanning of the media would have been established. > > Frankly and without more, talk of the Alliance as a political centre is > a high sounding catch phrase which is impractical and ideologically > confused. It is meaningless. > For the avoidance of doubt, surely it would be simplistic, dogmatic and > uncritical to suggest that a stage of a struggle can always be defined > as black or white, X or Y, that is, in absolute definitive terms. One is > quite conscious that there could be variations and in-between stages. > > However, it remains to be answered even within the parameters of > variations and in-between stages, whether, on a balance, it is the > national struggle or the class struggle. Therefore the stage at which > the South African struggle is can surely be answered with sufficient > precision to determine how the Alliance sho > uld work. > > > Lastly, the question I have always had is; if the SACP and COSATU have > swelled the ranks of the ANC as is been called for, what would be the > tactical and strategic objectives for doing so? If the idea is to > influence the decisions of the ANC to be biased towards the poor, is > there a possibility that the ANC will change character and be a > socialist, and further on, a communist organization? Is this a “capture > of the ANC” by other and creative means? > > If the answer is affirmative, then what will be role of COSATU and the > SACP and indeed the Alliance after such capture? If the answer is > negative, then is the suggestion that SACP and COSATU members should > swell the ranks of the ANC simply for statistical reasons? Is it > possible for COSATU to be the leader of the Alliance? This is where my > confusion starts, and perhaps this is where I should end. > > With communist love from Zimbabwe –always! > -- > 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] . > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > yclsa-eom-forum+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with > the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN > > This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer > published on our website at > http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from > +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom > it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify > the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may > not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail > is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the > sender's individual capacity. > > _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > -- > 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] . > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > yclsa-eom-forum+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the > words "REMOVE ME" as the subject. > -- 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] . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to yclsa-eom-forum+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
