Constructive critique indeed, which provides contributions to shaping and restructuring the NDP as is in line with the resolution by the ANC, that the adoption of the NDP seeks to unite all South Africans behind common action, in transforming the current socioeconomic situation, through fabrication of common ground that seeks to guide a projected vision, which in essence can possibly be 'vision 2030.'
In concurrence substantiation, I quote a stipulation reiterated by this very statement that, " The ANC will continue to engage with the plan, conscious of the need to unite South Africans in action around a common vision and programme of change [our emphasis]" (p. 22). Lastly, I find comfort in the approach proposed that, we ought to engage the NDP from a perspective fully informed by the adopted policy positions we already bare. As pivoting around the deliberation of the 'tax subsidy to employers' which harbours a view that can be made to parallel that of the 'youth wage subsidy,' but in essence is founded upon a similar action. I coincide with refraining to succumb to distortions fueled through twisting terminology in seeking presumptive misintepretation, hence concurrence. A good eye-opening critique and contribution indeed. Mlungisi P Xulu Principal Intelligence Pty (LTD) Executive Board Member Blog : http://mluxulu.wordpress.com Twitter : #mluxulu12 Facebook: Mlungisi Donda Xulu e-mail : [email protected] Cell no. 1: 071 518 6353 - Whatsapp Cell no. 2: 072 442 7856 Cell no. 3: 071 545 5393 "All glory comes from daring to begin" - Alexander Graham Bell -----Original Message----- From: Khaya Xaba <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:19:12 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Special Bottomline: A contribution to the critique of the National Development Plan Issue 10, Vol 10: 30 April 2013 In this issue: Special Bottomline: YCLSA 3rd National Committee 7th Plenary Session Special Bottomline: YCLSA 3rd National Committee 7th Plenary Session 19-20 April 2013 A contribution to the critique of the National Development Plan Introduction The African National Congress in its 53rd National Conference held in Mangaung adopted the National Development Plan (NDP). The economic resolution adopting the NDP states as follows. "The ANC must take the lead in mobilising and uniting all South Africans around a common vision of economic transformation that puts South Africa first. The National Development Plan is a living and dynamic [our emphasis] document and articulates a vision which is broadly in line with our objective to create a national democratic society, and should be used as a common basis for this mobilisation. The ANC will continue to engage with the plan, conscious of the need to unite South Africans in action around a common vision and programme of change [our emphasis]" (p. 22). This resolution clearly captures the tasks of the ANC arising out of Mangaung with regards to the NDP. It captures the spirit with and within which the ANC in its Mangaung declaration embraces the NDP. In other words, the ANC Mangaung declaration embracing the NDP will be misunderstood, engendering misconceptions and mistaken reactions, if it were to be viewed in isolation from the "main resolution" adopting the NDP. We endorse here reference to the "main resolution" on the NDP. This is not only because of the need to locate the declaration properly but also because there is another resolution which similarly needs to be located properly. That is the (ANC Mangaung) resolution 2.1.3.1 (p.12) which is dealing with "social cohesion and nation building" (pp. 11-12). In so doing the resolution makes reference to the NDP. It states that the ANC needs to "work towards the implementation of the recommendations of the 2030 National Development Plan as a long term vision which should serve as a basis for partnerships across society..." (p. 12). How this work must and will be undertaken is, clearly captured by "the main resolution" adopting, as quoted above, the NDP, as a "living and dynamic" document, which the ANC itself, let alone other organisations and social forces, "will continue to engage with". Therefore the NDP was adopted in Mangaung, not absolutely for implementation as one extreme seeks to suggest, but for engagement as a basis for "mobilising and uniting all South Africans around a common vision of economic transformation that puts South Africa first", being "conscious of the need to unite South Africans in action around a common vision and programme of change". In fact followed by a series of other resolutions on promoting industrialisation and thus manufacturing and employment creation, "the main resolution" on the NDP goes further, as thus: "Within the NDP vision, critical instruments and policy initiatives will continue to drive government's medium-term policy agenda. These include: The national infrastructure plan, which is an opportunity to change the structure of the economy, apartheid spatial distortions, support beneficiation and industrialisation and contribute to facilitating intra-African trade. As a flagship programme of the state, all departments and spheres of government must join in taking forward this programme. The New Growth Path is the economic strategy designed to shift the trajectory of economic development, including through identified drivers of job creation. The industrial policy action plan, which guides the re-industrialisation of the South African economy." The above shows that the ANC's work to engage with the NDP has started, and, as we will show, some policy initiatives that are either contradicted or forgotten in the NDP are clearly reaffirmed as the policies that "will continue to drive government's medium-term policy agenda". This gives rise to two tasks. Firstly, where the NDP contradicts these policies it must be realigned to eliminate the contradictory relationship. Secondly, where these policies are forgotten (i.e. not mentioned) in the NDP they are thus accordingly incorporated in it. This for us does not necessarily mean that some of these policies are no longer sites of struggle to the extent we believe that particular aspects in their content must change. The struggle must indeed continue. Flowing from the above, there are at least two important principles for us concerning the NDP. First is the need to reaffirm and assert the principle of central planning, coupled with the principle of long-term planning, but which must be buttressed by participatory democracy. This brings into question the composition and modus operandi of the National Planning Commission (NPC) which must be re-looked at anew, re-engineered and re-designed to reflect the class majority of our people and their conditions of life. This must ensure that both the planning processes and the planning outcomes are rooted and grounded where an overwhelming majority of our people are, in the townships, in the urban semi-peripheries and peripheries, in squatter settlements, in rural areas and villages, deep down in the body of the earth in the mines, in shops, factories and on the roads without necessarily excluding others elsewhere. The virtual consultation that the NPC engaged in for example, notwithstanding that it was extensive, excluded an overwhelming majority of our people. Planning processes must be preceded by and include thoroughgoing capacity building so that the people are included meaningfully instead of being included in a terrain where they are excluded because of capacity constraints. Second is therefore the principle that was defined by the SACP in its assessment of the first decade of democracy in our country, that no significant centre of power in our society must be able to exercise that power without the presence, influence and impact of the working class and its input including in the state as a terrain of struggle, contrary to the misconception of the infantile disorder. In view of the conclusion that the Party reached in its assessment, i.e. our first decade of democracy benefited the capitalist class the most in economic terms despite the many advances that the working class achieved and therefore that this, going forward, must as stated above challenged, we must as part of the working class contribute in planning processes, influence and impact on the plans developed as well as in the subsequent changes that are required of those plans. It is exactly these two principles that we must advance. In fact, the NDP itself states that is neither complete nor perfect but that it represents the basis for engagement for the advance of our country in the next years towards 2030. This contains some sense. The plan however contradicts itself. It suggests that the achievement of the vision that it sets out is dependent on the implementation of all the "actions" that it proposes. This does not make sense of a plan that recognises itself as incomplete and imperfect, a plan that calls for public engagement in order that it can be become complete and perfect. As you read the NDP you will realise that the "actions" proposed are preceded by bold vision statements some of which are fairly progressive and well informed. But get deeper in the proposed "actions" then you will appreciate where some of the major problems with the NDP partly lie. The NDP adopts the capability approach to development. The Indian philosopher and economist Amartya Sen was instrumental in developing this approach which came to be incorporated in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and inform its Human Development Index. But embedded in liberalism or neoliberalism or both and not coupled with without a thoroughgoing process of the transformation of the social relations of production this approach becomes not only reformist in both nature and character and its potential weakened and curtailed but will as such not be an answer to the South African question of development. In the NDP the capability approach is subordinated or located in the growth school of thought, which is where one of the structural faults lies. This neoliberal growth school of thought argues that employment, resources with which to expand access to education and health care, to reduce inequality and poverty, and to achieve other development goals, trickledown from growth. Therefore it follows that chasing a set growth target (e.g. 5.2% annual growth rate in average over a set period of time, say by 2030) is the overriding economic policy objective to which all else are subordinated or will result. As such, the action plan that is required is to identify constraints to growth and address them. About this ideology, which found its way in the 2013 state of the nation address and as usual in the budget speech, the SACP had the following to say. "Chasing growth rates as a panacea to our problems has and will never be an appropriate response to our challenges. Similarly the myth that there are legislative and other bottlenecks to be unlocked in favour of business must be carefully examined. It seems to us that all business wants are concessions without any commitments on its part to realise our goals of tackling unemployment, poverty and inequality. The SACP will strongly resist all attempts by business to try and blackmail us into succumbing to their narrow concerns about profits without telling us about their own contributions." (15 February 2013) The NDP recognises the New Growth Path (NGP) as one of the policy frameworks that will continue to inform government's economic policy approach. However, the NDP reconstructs and co-opts the NGP in the neoliberal growth school of thought, which is actually an antithesis of the basic philosophy of and the experiences that led to the development of the concept of NGP. The NGP was developed following the experiences of what is now commonly known as a jobless growth. Although it has some contradictions, by and large the NGP seeks to alter the quality and character of growth. Basically for the NGP either growth should result from employment creation and decent work or employment creation and decent work should be the drivers of growth. It is important to recognise that given her history as a victim of colonialism and apartheid, South Africa and her economy require transformation and development, not just growth. Neither will she succeed in achieving prosperity on the basis of transformation and development that are subordinated to growth. In other words, growth as measured in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the South African context will not result in the strategic goals that the national democratic revolution seeks to achieve. It is also important to recall from South Africa's experience of a jobless growth that the produce of the GDP are not necessarily shared and distributed equitably. This same experience has also shown that growth can occur while the share of the working class in the national income falls and profits rise for the capitalist class to heap up and to accumulate capital. For example, in other words when it is said that South Africa became one of the world's leading middle income countries in inequalities it is partly because the share of the working class in the national income declined while that of the capitalist class increased. In essence growth in the context was and remained a capitalist growth. The reason why the growth school of thought has the support of the capitalists is because it is essentially capitalist growth in character that is talked about. Indeed we must similarly pay attention to the rest of the NDP, among others Chapter 3, which deals with the economy and employment. There are actions advocated in this chapter that have serious implications for the youth. These include "a tax subsidy to employers" to "reduce" the "cost" of hiring new labour market entrants who are young; a subsidy to the "placement sector" to identify, prepare and place matric graduates in jobs; simplifying procedures to dismiss workers. These actions could prove to be diametrically opposed to our adopted policy positions. It is important therefore when engaging with the NDP, as with any other policy, to do so from the standpoint of our own policy positions. The tax subsidy to employers could mean a youth wage subsidy. This has been discarded as a policy approach and has no expression in the latest policy approach on youth unemployment which we recently signed, i.e. the youth employment accord. The "placement sector" could mean labour brokers. Presently the so-called placement sector is nothing other than labour brokers, in the main. However, the youth employment accord again takes a step away from the placement sector being defined by labour brokers. By the placement sector the accord asserts the labour department's centres. That is how we must proceed. >From the above examples of innovative engagement with the NDP as a living and >dynamic document can be seen, although still requiring the struggle to be >intensified against problematic policies such as the youth wage subsidy and >the practice of labour brokers. After all, we are opposed to the youth wage >subsidy. We do not want labour brokers. We want it to be easy to find work, >not to lose it. Simplifying procedures to dismiss workers could mean making it >easy to dismiss workers, which presupposes that the NDP could have bought into >the neoliberal argument that our labour laws are rigid and responsible for >unemployment or lack of employment creation. Underlining, however, that there are areas where the NDP is problematic and backing this up with some examples does not mean, as we have highlighted, that there are, relatively speaking, no progressive areas in the NDP. On the contrary, there are progressive lines in the NDP, for example such as in health and education although in some instances not completely reflecting what we would like as our own vision. These need to be defended, advanced and developed further towards the achievement of the final goals that the national democratic revolution and by way of struggle, as part of our work to prepare for a socialist revolution. The main strategic question is, therefore how must we handle the reality of a plan which on the one hand has progressive visions and actions which we support but on other hand comprises also of a mixture of counter-progressive, neoliberal content that stands in contrast to our principles and adopted policy positions. Our detractors who are suffering from an infantile disorder and who because of this some at times confuse the ANC for the state, will stand in the rooftop, grandstand and boo us for not throwing the baby with the bath water. Some of them are stuck in the past as if the conditions in the alliance have not changed from those of the 1996 class project which marginalised the alliance and offered no room for engagement. Similarly, we must not be distracted by utopian socialist approaches. We must remain scientifically rooted. Equally we must not give into those who would like the NDP to be embraced as if it is complete and perfect. Those who do so represent another extreme of the all or nothing tendency but in the polar opposite with the totalitarian rejectionists constituting the other polarity. In maintaining a scientific outlook on development, we must recognise that there are other class forces in our society that are strongly opposed to the actions that we believe are progressive and are in favour of the actions that go against our principles and adopted policy positions. Ultimately, the real character of the battle will reveal itself in its true nature as the struggle of class against class, i.e. class struggle. It would be upon achieving advances against and victories over hostile class forces that the balance of forces will tilt in favour of what we want not only in the NDP and other public policies, but also in the overall direction of our society. At the same time, we must be on the outlook of some who are posturing themselves as if they are part of our ranks in the left whereas in fact they are not. For example, the NDP states that small and medium enterprises have an important to play role in employment creation. This is the correct perspective. What constitutes a weakness with the NDP, which the ANC Mangaung resolutions as we have quoted seek to correct, is its lack of focus and emphasis on industrialisation. The NDP's correct perspective on small and medium enterprises has been attacked. In whose class interests is the attack? Definitely, the attack is in the interests of "big business", conglomerates and imperialist capital in the form of multinational corporations. The attack does not even seek to assert public property rights. If the attack against the correct perspective on developing small and medium enterprises succeeds, then we might equally have to forget about co-operatives development and the participation of the workers and the poor in ownership and control. The criticism against small and medium enterprises is ill-informed and needs to be engaged, at least from the standpoint of Karl Marx's Capital, and at least Volume I chapter 15 and 25 on an introductory basis. In reality, the large-scale conglomerates that are promoted by the attack against small and medium enterprises reach a point where, and this is presently the case in South Africa, they are saturated and contribute to the production of what Karl Marx called the industrial reserve army of labour through restructuring, increased employment of production technology and variations in the technical and organic compositions of capital. Sent from my iPhone -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "YCLSA Discussion Forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "YCLSA Discussion Forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
