Dear cde Makatse Mzukisi Thank you chief for the response.
May I humbly submit that in the paper, I tried to demonstrate that I was aware of the what you are refering to as the "... fundamental intercontectedness of contradictions that the ANC see to address..." I may not have put it is explicit terms or words as you did, to say "...National, Gender and Class contradictions..." but quoted Joe Slovo's paper to indicate that I was alive to same. In the paper I wrote; "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." The question cde Makatse, still remains, within the context of the interrelatedness of those contradictions, surely we must admit that there will be a more dominant contradiction (what the ANC at Morogoro characterised as the "manifestation" of the struggle). It is the understanding of this dominant contradiction which must guide the relations within the alliance. Leadership of the Alliance is not a product of nature, but a product of the concrete daily struggle at a given ephoc alive to the fact that, in your words, [t]hese alliances are not static but evolve with the advance, detour or regress of the revolution as it relates to these political programmes that form the basis for their existence." If the alliance evolves as you correctly state, in this evolution, what determines the relations thereof in general, and in particular, the leadership of the alliance? My submission is that the relations and leadership are determined by what, using the characterisation of the ANC at Morogoro, is the manifestation of the struggle. Put simply therefore cde, as long as one is alive to the interrelatedness of the national and class struggle, it is still possible to ask and indeed illuminative to ask; at what stage of the struggle is South Africa is-national or class? sure my Com Cde Mlilo On 3/30/10, Makatse Mzukisi <[email protected]> wrote: > Comrades, > > > > The basic mistake in the discussion by the comrade is to avoid talking to > the fundamental interrelated contradictions that the ANC seek to adrress > viz. National, Gender and Class contradictions. The ANC understands the > inevitable inter-connections between these three interrelated contradictions > as a dynamic unity within the context of the South African revolution. In > each of the contradictions above there exists the content of the other. So > any attempt to separate will lead to workerism, narrow nationalism and > reactionary feminism. > > > > The second mistake is to pose wrongly the question about class and national > questions in the context of our revolution. The question is not whether we > are pursuing a national or a class struggle as a first stage of the > revolution, but rather what the relationship between the two projects is > within the context of the National Democratic Revolution. > > > > The third is for the comrade to be shy to investigate the reasons for > strategic and tactical alliances at a given juncture of the revolutionary > process. As we all should know, alliances are based on either a maximum > political, social or economic programmes; or a minimum political, social or > economic programmes. These alliances are not static but evolve with the > advance, detour or regress of the revolution as it relates to these > political programmes that form the basis for their existence. > > > > Last but not least, the comrade should also investigate the historical role > of trade unionism vis-à-vis the vanguard role of the communist party. In > this way he will be able to answer for us the question he posed as to > whether COSATU as a Union Federation can lead the alliance and by extension > the revolution. > > > > Amandla! > > > > Mzukisi Makatse > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nqobizitha Mlilo M > Sent: 30 March 2010 11:14 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] The Tripartite Alliance-going back to basics; > who must lead the Alliance? > > > > 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 should 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. > > -- > 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.
