Speech by Dr Pallo Jordan, Chris Hani Memorial Lecture, at the Launch of the 
Chris Hani Institute

Parktonian Hotel, Johannesburg, 15 April 2003

Thank You Comrade Chairpersons, Comrades from the People's Republic of China 
and other honoured guests, Comrades leaders of the SACP and Cosatu, Comrades 
and friends,

Allow me first to thank the leadership of the South African Communist Party and 
the central executive Committee of COSATU for inviting me to deliver this 
inaugural Chris Hani Memorial lecture. I consider it a great honour to have 
been chosen for this task because Comrade Chris was a close and very dear 
friend of mine.

The Chris Hani Memorial lecture marks the tenth anniversary of an act of 
murder. Comrade Martin Thembisile Hani, better known to all by his MK nom de 
guerre, "Chris", was murdered in broad daylight in an act of violence that is 
one link in a long chain of repression that commenced with the illegalisation 
of the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) in 1950. The banning of the ANC 
and the PAC in 1960, the passing of the so-called "Political Interference Act 
of 1968", the torture and murder of political prisoners in detention, the 
banning of 17 organisations in October 1977, the brutal murder of Steve Biko, 
formal repression through state-employed murder squads and "unofficial" death 
squads, were all components of diabolic strategy of repression whose aim was to 
crush the real alternative to racial oppression.

I feel particularly honoured because Comrade Chris Hani in many respects 
embodied the finest traditions of our revolutionary alliance, which brings 
together the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party and 
the Congress of South African Trade Unions.

Born into a family of ordinary working people in Cofimvaba, in the Eastern 
Cape, exactly 36 days after me in the year 1942, Comrade Chris Hani at a very 
early age showed great promise as a bright young person, with an extremely keen 
mind and a profound sense of perseverance. It was these qualities that enabled 
him to advance very quickly through high school and university, completing his 
junior degree at the age of twenty. His brilliance and dedication marked him 
out as an achiever very early in his life. He excelled in his studies both in 
high school and at the university. It might strike many of us as odd that a 
peasant boy from the eastern Cape should have acquired such a keen interest in 
the classics. Chris studied both Latin and Greek at university - subjects in 
which out-performed many born into families better endowed than his own. Till 
the end of his days he enjoyed nothing better than discussing the works of 
Aeschylus, Homer and Euripides among the Greeks, the writings of Livy, Ovid, 
Catullus and Pliny among the Romans. In another place, at another time, he 
could easily have become a great classical scholar!

But it was as a revolutionary that Comrade Chris distinguished himself. At the 
time of his death he was the General Secretary of the South African Communist 
Party, having risen through its ranks over some twenty nine years. He had 
served in the National Executive Committee of the ANC since 1967. Because of 
his outstanding service within its ranks, he rose from a rank and file recruit 
to the position of National Commissar then Chief of Staff of Umkhonto weSizwe. 
He was a commanding officer of rare quality, who always led from the front. 
Within our peoples' army his personal warmth, humanity and a magnetic charisma 
had earned him the respect and love of all who had come into contact with him. 
Despite the regard he had won among his comrades, Comrade Chris Hani never 
became conceited or arrogant. He was always readily accessible to the lowest 
ranking MK recruit. He never lost touch with his origins and his commitment to 
the poor, to the oppressed, to ordinary working people - to the vulnerable and 
the marginalised, was irreproachable. I remember once teasing him - because we 
regularly ribbed each other - "the line of work that really would have suited 
you is that of a village priest". To which he responded, in all seriousness - 
"Laddie, its in this job that I feel I am truly doing the Lord's work!" Some 
might say that was blasphemous, but if a God exists, I think he/she knows how 
to count them! If indeed Comrade Chris was performing God's work, it was 
because he had read and taken to heart Karl Marx's eleventh Theses on Feuerbach:

"Philosophers have only described the world in different ways, the point 
however is to change it!"

Chris was murdered before he could savour the freedom he had fought so hard for 
all his adult life. But even his death served to spur on the realisation of the 
goals he had dedicated his life to. Within one year of his death, all South 
Africans had won the right to determine who shall govern them. And the people 
elected an ANC government in an unprecedented landslide!

The issue I shall be addressing is "The Challenges Facing the Working Class in 
South Africa and Internationally in Our Struggle for Socialism".

The Vision of a Just Society.

Socialism, as conceived by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, would be a social 
order based on the collective ownership and democratic control of the means of 
production and exchange. Social production in such a society would be for use 
as against production for profit. Its objective would be the abolition of all 
classes, all class divisions, class privilege, class rule, arising from the 
production of such abundance that the struggle for material needs would be 
completely eliminated. The productive capacity of a socialist society, they 
hoped, would at last free humanity from economic exploitation, from oppression, 
and from any form of coercion by a state machine. It would enable people to 
devote themselves to their fullest intellectual and cultural development.

This was a vision of a just social order, but one that would only be attainable 
through the maximisation of the productive capacity that industrialization 
promised. Socialism, in other words, would be built on the shoulders of what 
industrial capitalism had achieved.

When the Communist League requested Marx and Engels to set out in a manifesto 
the core ideas of their movement, one of the features of the modern bourgeoisie 
that Marx and Engels stressed was its revolutionary character, explicitly 
stating in the Communist Manifesto that: " The bourgeoisie, historically, has 
played a most revolutionary part."

Yet the Manifesto of the Communist Party was written as an intervention by a 
relatively young proletarian movement to coincide with an anticipated 
revolutionary wave. In 1848, the year during which it was first published, 
revolutions broke out in a number of European countries. No one, not even the 
most optimistic among the early Communists, did not appreciate that these 
revolutions would be bourgeois democratic in character. It is important that we 
recall this historical context because there has been an unfortunate tendency 
among some in our movement to counter-pose the national democratic and the 
socialist revolution. From its inception, Marxism, as understood by its 
founders has regarded these two as parts of a continuum, at times anticipating 
that the democratic revolution would grow into the socialist revolution, at 
others that the political revolution would evolve into a social revolution.

While they held this view, Marx and Engels nonetheless argued that the 
Communists within the democratic movement should play a very special role. Thus 
in the Manifesto they describe the Communists as : "...on the one hand, 
practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working class 
parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the 
other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the 
advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions and the 
ultimate general result of the proletarian movement."

There are a number of extremely suggestive phrases in that passage. But I will 
try to unpack only one. What did Marx and Engels mean by "...understanding the 
line of march..."? What exactly does "...understanding the line of march..." 
entail? Does it mean the same thing in every national context? Will the "line 
of march" be the same in every political environment?

I would submit that it implies that the Communists should have a firmer grasp 
of the overall strategic tasks and challenges facing the broader movement for 
change; and that their theory should equip them with a clearer vision of the 
immediate, the inter-mediate as well as the long range objectives of the 
movement they are involved in, enabling them to dis-aggregate how these three 
phases are inter-related.

That suggests that there are no pre-set formulae; that there is no cluster of 
texts and infallible quotations strategists can appeal to for guidance 
irrespective of the concrete situation. It implies that in every situation the 
challenge facing Communist activists is to be concrete: To examine the 
realities of their society at that particular moment and to act in accordance 
with their comprehension of them. While such theoretical practice is no 
guarantor of success, treating revolutionary theory in the spirit of religious 
dogma, is a sure recipe for disastrous failure.

It is parenthetically important to remember that the upshot of the 1848 
revolutions was a number of disheartening defeats. The exile of Marx and Engels 
to Britain was the direct result of that outcome. Both never returned home, to 
Germany.

The Working Class and Class Consciousness.

Because of her profound appreciation of the inter-connectedness of the phases 
of any real revolutionary struggle, one of Marx's ablest disciples, Rosa 
Luxemburg, repeatedly returned to these themes derived from Marx and Engels in 
her theoretical writings. Unlike the other classes and strata in society, Rosa 
Luxemburg stressed, the working class is by nature extremely diverse. Such 
diversity derives from the origins of its many components, the experience and 
lived existence of its members as well as the highly differentiated social and 
economic environment its has to work and live in. The very dynamism of modern 
industrial society requires the working class constantly to adapt and re-adapt 
to the rhythms of the work place and the productive process. The lived 
experience of the working class thus makes for a highly segmented class, among 
whom such divisions may be overlain by regional, racial, religious and national 
identities and traditions. The dominant capitalist classes will, in the course 
of even the most rudimentary class struggles, seek to encourage competition, 
further fragmentation and disunity among the working class as a means of 
thwarting its capacity for collective action. On such a crowded playing field, 
Luxemburg understood, it was often well nigh impossible to keep one's eye on 
the ball. The theoretical clarity that enables working class militants to do 
that is what Marx would have regarded as a revolutionary class consciousness. 
Such consciousness requires a political practice, rooted in Marxism, that is at 
once politically engaged and intellectually rigorous.

According to the classics of Marxism therefore, revolutionary class 
consciousness is not a given nor is it constant. It is the outcome of ongoing 
practical and ideological struggles through which the working class will arm 
itself for its historic mission. But because the terrain on which the class 
struggle unfolds is unstable and continuously shifting, strategy, and 
especially tactics, have to be kept under constant review.

In the first joint work they published, "The Holy Family", Marx and Engels 
wrote a passage rich in content despite its brevity.

"It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole 
proletariat, at the moment regards as its aims. It is a question of what the 
proletariat is and what, in accordance with its being, it will historically be 
compelled to do."

We may derive three important propositions from that passage:

(i) Proletarian class consciousness cannot necessarily be inferred from what 
the workers employed in the factories,mines or the land think or from their 
actions at any given moment. (ii) There will be instances when the proletariat, 
or significant sections of it, may act in a manner that is actually inimical to 
its interests as a class. (iii) There will be moments, even stretching over 
many years and decades, during which the apparent interests of the proletariat 
do not coincide with or are even objectively contrary to its real or essential 
interests as a class.

Thus Rosa Luxemburg, in her famous pamphlet,"The Mass Strike,The Political 
Party and the Trade Unions", emphasised with reference to proletarian class 
consciousness:

"And what it is, that should it dare to appear."

Her formulation captured a classic construction of dialectical reasoning, that 
appearance can contradict essence. In his turn Lenin argued that if societal 
relations are class relations,they also determine the disparity between 
appearance and reality. Consequently the proletariat's potential (what it can 
be) will not necessarily find expression in its day to day activity or even in 
its consciousness. Lenin sought to resolve that conundrum with his contention 
that the revolutionary party will be the custodian of the working class's 
revolutionary vocation and will bring revolutionary theory to the proletarian 
struggle from outside that class though the agency of the socialist 
intellectual.

These words and the little known references attached to them may turn-off some 
comrades. Others might dismiss them as so much Hegelian intellectual 
gymnastics'. I will try to unpack what these words mean by drawing on the lived 
experience of the movement for socialism in South Africa.

I think we are all familiar with the 1922 Rand Revolt, when militant, highly 
unionised White miners here on the Rand preciptated a general strike. The cause 
of the strike was an attempt by the Chamber of Mines to increase the profit 
margins of the low grade mines by employing African workers in skilled jobs 
that had till then been the preserve of the White workers. In an incident that 
has achieved notoriety throughout the world, at one rally the strikers held 
aloft a banner that read "Workers of the World Unite for a White South Africa!"

The White workers' general strike escalated into pitched battles on the streets 
of this city and culminated with bombs being dropped on White working class 
neighbourhoods as the Smuts government ruthlessly crushed it. After the 
subsequent trials, three White miners, including at least one Communist, were 
sentenced to death.

On the surface the Rand revolt was something akin to the 1905 revolution in 
Russia. But its radical form or appearance, concealed a deeply reactionary 
content or essence. When one comes down to it, the attempts by the one-year- 
old Communist Party of South Africa to temper the racism of the White workers 
was a fool's errand. There was no way to inject a progressive content into it. 
In every respect it was a strike waged against the essential interests of the 
proletariat, Black and White, as a class. Though it was crushed, that strike 
entrenched the racial segmentation of the South African working class and 
helped to institutionalise racism as one of the key features of capitalism in 
this country. The posture adopted by the White miners union, "Solidarity", in 
our day is in the same tradition. As is the vocal opposition of some sections 
of the organised White workers to affirmative action.

What the experience of the 1922 general strike tells us is that a narrow 
definition of class interest as what will be or is of immediate benefit to one 
or other section of the working class is not only short-sighted, but has in 
several instances led to the betrayal of the interests of the working class and 
of society in general. The sort of strategic vision required of working class 
revolutionaries demands that they project beyond the immediate moment and 
anticipate even that which is not immediately visible. In other words, 
pursuance of short term immediate gains can prove to be a mirage.

The second example I want to quote to illustrate the obscure sounding Hegelian 
concepts I have employed earlier relates to the Second World War.

I am certain all of us in this room accept as one of the most elementary 
principles of trade unionism the principle of equal pay, for equal work. In 
fact that principle has been so deeply imbedded amongst us all that it has been 
inscribed into our progressive labour legislation. Before and after the 1922 
White general strike, the leaders of the White labour unions used this slogan 
as a means of keeping Black workers in general and all women workers out of 
certain well paid jobs.

After South Africa entered the war on the side of Britain in 1939, thousands of 
White male workers were called up to serve in the military, leaving many 
skilled jobs unattended. The demands of the war in the meantime had led to an 
exponential growth in the economy and Black workers, African, Coloured and 
Indian, eagerly filled these jobs, but at wages far below those of the Whites 
who had previously held them..

Rather than accept these new entrants into the skilled labour market and 
working with them as equals, racist White union leaders revived the call of 
equal pay, for equal work.

To all appearances this was an unexceptional demand which no self-respecting 
trade unionist could object to. And, it might well have been argued that, by 
demanding equal pay for Black workers the White racist trade unionists were 
promoting the interests of Black workers who were being paid well below the 
actual value of their work. But by 1940 African working class leaders had at 
least four decades experience of the nefarious manner in which this principle 
had been used to operate a very effective job colour bar to the detriment of 
Black workers, and consequently the working class as a whole. Rather than 
submit to the moral blackmail of the racist White unionists, Comrade Moses 
Kotane, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of South Africa, put 
forward the novel idea that instead of allowing themselves to be tempted into 
the snare so carefully prepared by the racist White unionists, Black workers 
should take on the new skilled jobs at lower wages so as to establish a firm 
foothold in these sectors of the labour market from which they had previously 
been excluded. But once so ensconced, Kotane advised, the Black workers should 
organise themselves into well run unions, and with that as a springboard then 
launch their own struggles for equal pay.

On the surface Comrade Moses Kotane compromised an important and very 
elementary principle of trade unionism. It was however sound policy which 
accorded fully with the intermediate interests of the Black workers, and the 
long term interests of the working class. In this instance, the non-radical 
sounding tactics - the form or appearance, concealed its radical content or 
essence.

Had the Black workers, as yet few in number, and scattered in isolated pockets 
among basically racist White workers, gone out on a limb to demand equal pay, 
they would have been picked off one by one. The employers would have reverted 
to White workers and the job colour would have been firmed up. By accepting the 
need for a tactical retreat, first entrenching themselves in their new jobs, 
and by steady but sure organisation-building, Black workers firstly tempted the 
employers into investing in their training and skill acquisition . But once so 
established, they were in a position to fight for higher wages. In the meantime 
they had also breached the walls of the industrial colour bar while securing 
new avenues of work for Black workers.

Moses Kotane's approach was vindicated in the post war years, when the captains 
of industry in Johannesburg finally responded to the shanty-town movement and 
agreed to make funds available to address the scandalous housing shortage in 
Johannesburg. In order to undertake the massive housing projects that led to 
the construction of the townships that evolved into Soweto, they were compelled 
to employ African builders, carpenters, electricians and other artisans.

My third example is more recent. Jobless growth is one of the numerous 
challenges facing democratic South Africa today. Much heat has been generated 
in arguments about the wisest way to address this problem. The capitalist 
classes, the political parties that speak on their behalf and the think tanks 
in their hire have since the mid 1990's joined in a chorus calling for "labour 
market flexibility", which is a polite way of telling workers to accept the 
concentration of the absolute power to hire and fire in the hands of management 
and increasing the vulnerability and insecurity of working people. Such 
flexibility will also erode their hard won rights to a decent wage and to 
collective bargaining.

Indeed when the government initiated a Jobs summit in 1998 it was the organised 
workers, acting through COSATU, who came forward with a meaningful 
intervention. - a job creation fund. Not only was this a novel idea, it posed a 
challenge to the employers to demonstrate an equal commitment to job creation 
by taxing themselves, as the organised workers were prepared to do, by matching 
the COSATU initiative with a job creation fund of their own. Big business still 
has to rise to that challenge.

The unresponsiveness of big business should however not discourage organised 
labour from coming forward with new and more exciting initiatives. Later this 
year, we are due to hold a Growth and Development Summit.Organised labour 
should be strategising about the contribution it will be making to that summit. 
The trade unions dispose of fairly substantial pension funds that could be 
creatively harnessed to generate growth and job creation. By being pro-active 
on this, as they were on the job creation fund, organised labour will be 
offering leadership and promoting the class interests of the proletariat as 
well as a vital national interest. Again, such an intervention might not appear 
to be radical, but its impact on working class lives and the South economy will 
be very radical.

How then does this relate to the challenges facing the South African working 
class in the struggle for socialism?

Virtually every section of South African society is seized with an ongoing 
debate about the need for and the character of the developmental state. The 
central issue in this debate is the most effective strategy for rolling back 
the frontiers of poverty in the immediate term, so that in the intermediate and 
long term we should be in a position to eradicate it. It is important that one 
underscores these central challenges because there has been a pronounced 
tendency to lose focus in the heat of political argument. It is within that 
framework, rolling back poverty, that we should assess and examine the roles 
that can and should be assigned to the various players in our economy.

The Legacy of Chris Hani.

Comrade Chris Hani was a Marxist and a card-carrying Communist virtually all 
his adult life. I am certain there are many shortsighted people who would find 
difficulty in understanding why he spent all those years in Mkhonto weSizwe and 
in the ranks of the African National Congress. The answer is rather simple. 
Comrade Chris never mistook revolutionary consciousness for a clever formula or 
a set of well crafted slogans. While he was always ready to interrogate the 
relationship between nationalism and Marxism, he understood that both were part 
of an existent historical reality. A meaningful Marxist political practice 
required the steady mobilization of the necessary class, social and national 
forces that could be yoked to build an alliance capable of striving for and 
achieving political transformation. Given the interface between national 
oppression and capitalist exploitation, an alliance between Marxism and African 
nationalism was essential for such a project. To Comrade Chris, Marxism was not 
an abstract theory. Its principles had to be applied to concrete revolutionary 
practice. And while these principles remained unchanged, their translation into 
practical programmes that galvanised the working people and the oppressed is 
what made them meaningful. The theoretical practice of those Marxists who have 
preferred to act outside of and in opposition to the national movement, while 
it might sound very learned, has in fact been politically irrelevant and 
divorced from practice. The historic decline of a number of far-left 
grupescules into political sterility testifies to this. (Cape Town, where both 
Chris and I began our early political activity, was awash with such groups!)

The strategic importance of the tri-partite alliance at this moment cannot be 
over-emphasised. The sentiments we all share about its longevity aside, the 
historic mission its components accepted make it an indispensable 
organisational tool for the pursuance of a progressive national agenda. South 
African Communists have long recognised that in this country the proletarian 
class struggle had to be pursued through the national democratic revolution, 
not in order to hi-jack the national democratic revolution, but rather to 
actualise Marx and Engels' conception of the democratic revolution organically 
growing into the socialist revolution.

In our discussion we have pointed to postures that are left in appearance, but 
whose essence is right. Within the international movement too one could point 
to other examples, such as the attitude of certain trade unionists, especially 
in the United States and Canada, whose role in the anti-globalisation movement 
is to promote protectionism among the developed economies of the north on the 
pretext that they are protecting the jobs of their members. Like the White 
racist trade unionists in our country, this trend very easily shades into 
xenophobia, racism and national chauvinism.

As we strive to create a national consensus for economic growth and to wage a 
concerted struggle against poverty, we should be vigilant in negotiating 
between the reefs of capitulation and those of sectarianism. Socialist forces 
could easily marginalise themselves and thus reduce themselves to political 
irrelevance and impotence by adopting unrealistic postures that sound radical 
but do not in fact advance the cause of the working class and the poor. Among 
the challenges that face South Africa's democratic forces is how to grow and 
expand the productive forces of our country. There are no predetermined answers 
and strategies to guide us in defining the role we should assign to state-owned 
enterprises, the state and the private sector in such an endeavour. We should 
be prepared to accept that there will be instances where it will be necessary 
to stimulate strategic partnerships between the state-owned and the private 
sector; where it might be tactically wiser to permit the private sector to 
invest in and expand infra-structure where the state is no longer able to 
assume responsibility.

While accepting the need for such ventures, we should not entertain the 
illusion that private capital has suddenly become altruistic. The business of 
business is business. And there is no free lunch! But sometimes, precisely in 
their pursuit of profits, the private sector can be spurred to create or expand 
badly required services. There are in fact instances where there will be no 
other alternative than to harness the resources in the hands of the capitalist 
classes for our own purposes, but in the full and conscious realisation that 
their motive is to maximise profits.

Comrade Chris Hani was among those South African Communists prepared to accept 
that the party had not always had an adequate appreciation of the dialectics of 
race, class and gender. He was consequently always open to discourse on these 
matters and did not arrogantly dismiss the views of non- party Marxists. His 
long stay in independent Africa had forced him to contend with the reality that 
independence had in many respects failed the ordinary people who had struggled 
for it. The emergence of rapacious indigenous elites - the wa-Benzis - with 
their life-style of conspicuous consumption disgusted him more than the 
colonial arrogance of the settler bourgeoisie. While he understood well the 
difficulties African states encountered in devising sustainable development 
programmes, he refused to offer alibis for the abuses and crimes ostensibly 
committed in defence of hard-won independence. Within the ANC alliance too he 
would not keep silent about the abuse of power and incipient corrupt practices. 
There were occasions on which he personally suffered for holding such views.

An instinctive democrat and committed Communist, Comrade Chris Hani was pained 
by the degeneration of the socialist countries and the corruption of the ideals 
of socialism he witnessed. He preferred to face up to that unpleasant truth 
rather than shield behind expedient lies.

The invasion of Iraq, carried out by the United States and its junior partner, 
Britain, may well turn out to be emblematic of the future course of 21st 
century history. The hectoring attitude the US is now adopting towards Syria 
and the other countries of western Asia suggests that the world may well be 
entering a second era of colonial expansion and imperialist aggression not 
dissimilar to that of the late 19th century.

This second era, which might well be dubbed the era of Coca colonialism, has 
for the present targeted the Arab countries of western Asia. But, as I recently 
remarked in parliament, no small nation can now assume it is safe from the 
aggressive attentions of the more powerful and technologically advanced powers 
of the north. The need for co-ordinated resistance by the developing countries 
should be self-evident. What should be equally self-evident is the need for 
solidarity among the prospective victims. Such solidarity should commence 
within each developing nation and expand outward to include as many countries 
as possible.

What made the US/British invasion so easy was the absence of co-ordinated 
resistance by the Iraqi people themselves. The reason for that is not too 
difficult to fathom. Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship had humiliated and 
demoralised the Iraqi people, such that even an appeal to patriotism was 
greeted with suspicion and profound scepticism. I am certain that very few, if 
any, Iraqis bought into the US/British propaganda that this was a war waged for 
their liberation. But, given the 30 years of Ba'athist misgovernment, they 
distrusted their government too.

This experience should serve as an object lesson to us all. The best guarantor 
of independence, national sovereignty and the capacity to resist the 
blandishments, including diplomatic and military pressure, of the super-power 
is internal democracy that ensures the widest possible participation in 
government by the ordinary working people. The limited, qualified democracy 
that places power in the hands of a self-selected political elite who presume 
to have a monopoly on wisdom and an understanding of the national interest, 
effectively kidnaps politics and is the source of fundamental weakness.

The peoples of Asia and Africa waged a century-long struggle - making great 
sacrifices - to put an end to colonial domination and to assert the right of 
all peoples to govern themselves. Democracy, civil liberties, human rights and 
social justice are not privileges to be dispensed or withheld at the discretion 
of power wielders. These are inalienable rights for which we all struggled, 
and, if anyone has earned them, it is the ordinary working people of town and 
country who did the struggling, the fighting and the dying so that we could 
attain them. It is arrant nonsense to characterise the struggle for democracy 
in post-colonial societies as an imperialist agenda. I will make so bold as to 
say, those who suppress the people and abrogate democratic governance, 
facilitate the anti- democratic and oppressive agenda of imperialism by so 
going. And the living proof of that assertion is what we have witnessed over 
the past three weeks in Iraq!

As South Africa approached the dawn of democracy, Comrade Chris was amongst 
those within the alliances leadership structures who fought for recognition of 
the pluralism of South African society. Such pluralism, he hoped, would be 
sustained by a continuing dialogue amongst all political parties and civil 
society.

Commenting on the turn of events in Russia in 1918 Rosa Luxemburg had reminded 
her Russian comrades that:

"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. 
Not because of any fanatical concept of justice' but because all that is 
instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this 
essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when freedom' becomes 
a special privilege."

Those are the values that Comrade Chris subscribed to and fought for.

The day after the death of his old comrade, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels ended a 
letter addressed to Adophe Sorge with the words:

"The struggle of the proletariat continues. That victory is certain. Well., we 
must see it through. What else are we here for? And we have not lost courage 
yet."

Courage was one quality Comrade Chris Hani possessed in great abundance. If we 
emulate him in that alone, I am certain, we cannot fail.

Z. Pallo Jordan. 15th April 2003.



Sent from my iPad

-- 
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] .

Reply via email to