Greeting comrades, I have been following the discussion on nationalisation and have my own reservations on the matter as probably the ANCYL would say, this is an input that I was requested to post by a fellow comrade of mine though incomplete he aged that I do post it for the first version may need to be engaged by some of the comrades in this blog, I have also taken time to go through this document and various other document presented to me by many comrades and ordinary South Africans in the debate entirely, posted bellow do not serve as my view but those of the author comrade Sithembewena Tsembeyi who is by the way blogged by comrade Dominic in participating in this blog. This a brief synopsis from comrade Sithembewena Tsembeyi's personal observation you can also comrade join him in his discussion a blog in the Google group that is very robust and critical in discussion these issues at http://groups.google.com/group/bolshevic-media .
find here attached his input, AMANDLA! *Nationalisation of Mines from another angel (round two)* By Sithembewena Tsembeyi Introduction: I have been following the debate triggered by the ANCYL on the economic policy of the ANC, based on their plan, was to fist introduce this debate towards the National general Council of the ANC in September, however my scepticism on this is that the YL will be holding its National Council before the ANC’s one that is in July, question is, will this be first engaged in the leagues council for endorsement before even thinking to forward it to the ANC’s council. With the fear of been labelled or called a detractor I will basically put much focus on the given debates by various comrade and ordinary South Africans, In my little knowledge or rather intellectuality, I have in this little time learnt a lot in the debate , based on ideological understanding of comrades and their interpretations on the subject at hand. Comrade Zaza the district secretary of the YCL in my district (Dr Yusuf Dadoo) has consistently been argued that “Nationalisation is not equal to Nationalization”, while in as much as I might not understand from his point of view, my say will be based on Trotsky’s ABC of Material Dialectics in his argument of the Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starting from the point that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ , he (Leon) argue that “*this postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions an elementary generalisations, but in reality A is not equal to A..”* This arguments made by Trotsky are nothing but the reality facing us in this discussion, either from the “detractors” or the ANCYL. However as much as I am trying not to label comrades Sophists, there might be un-deliberate composition of the discussion to vary from a progressive point to that of a sophist one, based on scientific thinking and general practice including techniques as our only part of understanding these contradictions. Nationalisation should at least not be signified as a point of departure of our knowledge, aside from the extremely dubious practical values of this discussion, it does not withstand our theoretical criticism either. At some point it may seem that these interventions by myself and many other comrades “detractors” are useless. In reality they are decisive significance. Observations are that South Africa is deemed as a developmental state, and these are some of the realities that one before taking into account economic policy issues should interact in trying to underpin: 1. What are the current economic policies in place? 2. Post Polokwane have we made any changes in the economic policy? 3. What was the economic policy of the ANC in government prior Polokwane? A little bit of memory lane: If I remember correctly comrade Zuma made it clear and many other leaders of the ANC that the economic policy of the ANC and government will not have any drastic changes if any at all have been made, reality is that we have not made any economic changes in the current administration, however it is vivid to me whether Polokwane had any economy policy change (resolution), which in this case are subject to outs the (current) policy for a better one. Understanding is that the comprise of the 96 class project was signified by the economic policy desirable to their character and that was nothing but the Growth, Employment and Redistribution policy (GEAR), reality is that singing about our uncertainty, disapproval and dissatisfaction of the GEAR policy could have not changed the policy as the standing economic policy of the ANC and latter Government. My take is that GEAR as there has never been any economic policy changes in the current administration, we are still in the format of the then (TM’s administration), if there has ever been any economic changes then it would be done on TM’s era. *1. **Nationalisation v/s Insults, Labelling and name calling* It has been unfortunate that in the premature stages of this debate comrade from both the ANCYL and the so called “Detractors” have relegated the debate to smash street tactics, this in so many cases have made reservations on critical contributions from both private and social stakeholders fearing from anticipated response that may come. Causing serious segregation from prominent inputs either for the ‘for’ and the ‘for not’. Following the insults in this case, however not trying to rub it in, I have and probably many ordinary South Africans viewed the tendency as a failure to tolerate each other, or an unqualified “Slash hammer” (in lack of a better word) to force an understanding of opinion from ones point of view. It may probably be a newest symptom in the current political dispensation to use these intimidating tactics. Some may argue that this is a significant sighting of lack of intellectual capacity, though I may defer, arguing that this has been nothing but a failed attempt to prevail correct, as intellectuality is interconnected with dubious intimidating tactics, rational creativity , public expression and emotional validity. In my understanding this has been continuous attempts of comrades for being sound-bite from a vulgar point (thoughts), “Vulgar thought operates with such concepts as capitalism, morals, freedom, workers’ state, etc. as a fixed abstraction presuming that things remain the same, where else valid dialectical thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous character while determining in the material conditions of those changes that critically limit beyond ‘common sense’, for reality ‘common sense’ is characterised by the fact that it systematically exceeds dialectical tolerance. Comrade Jeje the Deputy Secretary in my District of the SACP always argues that “*Common sense is the enemy of the revolution...”* it is true that in most if not all cases that the fundamental flaws of arguing from a vulgar thought lies in the fact that it (Vulgar thoughts) wishes content itself with motionless imprints of a reality which consist eternal motions, however dialectical thinking gives us concepts, by means of closer approximations, corrections, concretisations a richness of content and mostly flexibility. While Trotsky argued that “*Dialectical thinking is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that motion picture is related a still photography...”* in the simplest term your views or my views are not dogmatic in a natural society. *2. **Nationalisation v/s anti-communism and anti-union tendency* It would be wrong and unfair for us to assume that a descending view to our inputs in the debate as unions, its affiliates and worker federation and socialist movements i.e. SACP and SASCO are viewed as anti-communist and or union bashing, Yes probably in the manner directed to certain individuals within these formations (movements) might be offensive to the priorities of the alliance as a whole not only to such organisation suffered. Reality is that the Alliance is not a honeymoon kind of scenario, but should be based on critical and robust engagements, where in most cases might not necessarily result in kiss and make up situations. Yet is also incorrect for any one including the ANCYL to vilify existence of any organisation within the Alliance and outside, as it is tactically incorrect to do such, as it serves in compromising the integrity of each others right to exist and independency, by reducing such organisation as labour desk, or socialist desks of the other movement. It is also not strategic to observe any existence of the revolutionary alliance as a bitter strand of the other. -- 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] .
