SACP: Did the Beaver Save His Life?
By Alex Mashilo and Hlengiwe Nkonyane
Umsebenzi Online
In his Selections from Prison Notebooks,Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned by the Italian fascist regime in 1926, philosophically poses the question:
"(The beaver, pursued by trappers who want his testicles from which medicinal drugs can be extracted, to save his life tears off his own testicles.) Why was there no defence?"
Dangerous prison conditions forced Gramsci to resort to complex text. As the editors of his book observed, he wrote"with an extra caution", "fragmentary and elliptical" in "character", combined with "frequent recourse to tricks to deceive the prison censor".
Gramsci's question was actually concerned with an analysis of the suicidal passivity of Italian "maximalism" and "reformism" before fascism.
Conversely, in our developing situation, the African National Congress (ANC) led Alliance which is the leading force of the revolutionary national liberation movement that dislodged the apartheid regime to the lay the foundation for the development of democracy in South Africa and the transformation of the South African society towards a united, non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous society, is faced with the forces that, albeit divergent and contradictory in their way forward, converge and coalesce on opposition to the movement and consistent attacks against it. These forces constitute, as one whole, opposition to the ANC led Alliance inclusive of the South African Communist Party (SACP), Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the South African National Civics Organisation (Sanco).
The forces of composite opposition are found across the political spectrum consisting of parties that seek to preserve white privilege, various populist and opportunist tendencies from the ultra-left to the extreme right. The two extremes are separated by a thin line between them. They are very close to one another.
The full opposition spectrum now consists of a version of South African maximalists and proto-fascists who, unlike in Italy where maximalism was fatalistically passive towards fascism before its rise, have a cordial understanding with each other.
The latest state of opposition towards the ANC led Alliance has been forged in the context where the ANC has ascended to power in the superstructure - which comprises, but is not limited to parliament and government, while, on the other hand, the base structure - which is the economy, remains overwhelmingly in the hands of the capitalist class forces that supported colonialism, apartheid and, with regards transnational corporations which have an enormous stake in the economy of our country, also the class forces that continue to support imperialism.
There's therefore, although not often written about or discussed in public discourse, the state of both mistrust and hostility between the superstructure and the base. But the two, with the balance of (economic) power hugely tilted in favour of the base, which is one of the root-causes why the problems of inequality, unemployment and poverty persist, seem as though they are united. What's going on between the superstructure and the base, which is the same phenomenon that's going on between workers and their employers (exploiters), trade unions and workers' exploiters, is actually a dialectic of unity and conflict of opposites.
Meanwhile, increasingly since 1994 there's a few from within the ranks of the historically oppressed and previously disadvantaged who are interested in private capital accumulation. To that end what they seek is accommodation in the private ownership and control structures of the exploitative (this is what we mean by ‘fundamentally untransformed') base. For them, the meaning and definition of transformation must be limited to "diversifying" (i.e. de-racialising) the complexion of those who privately own and control the means and proceeds of production in the ‘fundamentally untransformed' base through the inclusion of black faces and, as a "by-the-way" (although not presented as such), including women.
These forces of reform are also found within the ANC led Alliance and broader movement. Some of them, or rather some of the beneficiaries that have emerged as such, have established links (through private equity stakes or shares, although in many cases they are subordinates) with the capitalist class forces of the pre-1994 South Africa (i.e. the colonial and apartheid era or regime bourgeoisies) and dominant transnational corporations. As a result, they have become intermediaries standing between the masses (including those within Cosatu, Sanco and even the ANC), the vanguard (SACP) and other revolutionaries (including within the ANC) who want a revolution or fundamental transformation on the one hand and, on the other hand, the old-South African and dominant transnational class forces of exploitation.
Therefore, within the ANC led Alliance itself there's a relationship of unity and conflict of opposites with the forces of reform (who attract the support of some of the old-South African and dominant transnational class forces of exploitation) on the one side and revolutionary forces on the other. How the conflict will be resolved both in the Alliance and society ultimately depends on the configuration and composition of the balance of forces - make no mistake not only between the national but also of the international forces that are at play. (The South African economy is not just a national economy. It's an economy with transnational players and foreign states with vested interests involved).
The whole phenomenon constitutes a complex situation which to approach simplistically and recklessly will not only prove to be infantile but also disastrous. This is what some sections of maximalism are engaged in by among others taking a short-cut, ignoring history and the fundamental nature of the forces behind the effects our people are faced with. What they say is that the sufferings (low wages, inequality, unemployment and poverty) have been imposed by the ANC and its Alliance partners the SACP and Cosatu (This is, of course, NOT true). This fits in very well with the campaign by the liberals, conservatives and their sympathisers (to mention but only three ideological leanings) who argue that we must no longer blame colonialism and apartheid. In this sense, a historical approach to understanding phenomena, its origins and development - a root-cause-effect analysis is not abandoned but attacked.
What maximalism says is different from what the SACP says: post-1994 there are policies, for example Growth, Employment and Redistribution (Gear), which ushered in high-road liberalisation and deregulation, and never paid attention to fundamental economic transformation, and thus failed to help us resolve deep-rooted problems which continued to persist. By pushing for a second phase of our transition characterised by radical economic and social transformation the ANC too recognises either the absence or lack of such a transformation in the first two decades of our democracy.
On the contrary, maximalism swaps between the point of departure and the destination and campaigns for immediate arrival without travelling. It's trying by all means to feed from the ANC-led Alliance and revolutionary movement. Now maximalism, which is expected, has the backing of entryists of all sorts. In their marketing campaign, maximalists project themselves as "more revolutionary than thou". They attack the Alliance and its partners consistently and then say it's the Alliance and its partners that are attacking them as such. They are trying to manufacture sympathy by projecting themselves as the "the victims" of the Alliance. They want to instil in everybody, especially the workers and poor, a feeling that "they, too", have been "victimised" by the Alliance and the ANC-led government (On 7 May 2014 in the 5th general election the people rejected this fallacy).
Instead of focusing on waging and intensifying the struggle against economic exploitation and imperialism (the main problems facing the working class) and directly confronting the class enemy, the maximalists project the Alliance and its partners as the enemy number one of the people. Consequently, they are engaged in creating new organisations not only in open opposition but also in open confrontation to the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement. They are just not prepared to be convinced otherwise through persuasion. As a result, they react negatively towards constructive engagements including constructive criticism. They rather prefer to engage the Alliance via the private monopoly media.
One proto-fascist right-wing maximalist faction, which is being paraded "robust" by the same media, has already theatrically turned parliament into a circus in which they practice their hooliganisation in their red-clown outfits - used to cover expensive designer labels.
To take our cue from Gramsci, we ask whether the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement will act like the beaver in the face of consistent attacks from the South African version of maximalism and proto-fascism, which are but two new chapters of a counter-revolution?
Will the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement embark on voluntary ideological and political self-disarmament, become fatalistic and passive towards the attacks the movement is facing, and then commit suicide?
What are the likely consequences not only for the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement but also for South Africa should the movement behave like the beaver?
Alex Mashilo is SACP Spokesperson and Hlengiwe Nkonyane is BA graduate from Wits University and she's presently studying towards an Honours at UNISA, both writing in their personal capacity.
- See more at: http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=4546#redpen
 |
| Alex Mashilo spokesperson of the South African Communist Party. |
Umsebenzi Online
In his Selections from Prison Notebooks,Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned by the Italian fascist regime in 1926, philosophically poses the question:
"(The beaver, pursued by trappers who want his testicles from which medicinal drugs can be extracted, to save his life tears off his own testicles.) Why was there no defence?"
Dangerous prison conditions forced Gramsci to resort to complex text. As the editors of his book observed, he wrote"with an extra caution", "fragmentary and elliptical" in "character", combined with "frequent recourse to tricks to deceive the prison censor".
Gramsci's question was actually concerned with an analysis of the suicidal passivity of Italian "maximalism" and "reformism" before fascism.
Conversely, in our developing situation, the African National Congress (ANC) led Alliance which is the leading force of the revolutionary national liberation movement that dislodged the apartheid regime to the lay the foundation for the development of democracy in South Africa and the transformation of the South African society towards a united, non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous society, is faced with the forces that, albeit divergent and contradictory in their way forward, converge and coalesce on opposition to the movement and consistent attacks against it. These forces constitute, as one whole, opposition to the ANC led Alliance inclusive of the South African Communist Party (SACP), Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the South African National Civics Organisation (Sanco).
The forces of composite opposition are found across the political spectrum consisting of parties that seek to preserve white privilege, various populist and opportunist tendencies from the ultra-left to the extreme right. The two extremes are separated by a thin line between them. They are very close to one another.
The full opposition spectrum now consists of a version of South African maximalists and proto-fascists who, unlike in Italy where maximalism was fatalistically passive towards fascism before its rise, have a cordial understanding with each other.
The latest state of opposition towards the ANC led Alliance has been forged in the context where the ANC has ascended to power in the superstructure - which comprises, but is not limited to parliament and government, while, on the other hand, the base structure - which is the economy, remains overwhelmingly in the hands of the capitalist class forces that supported colonialism, apartheid and, with regards transnational corporations which have an enormous stake in the economy of our country, also the class forces that continue to support imperialism.
There's therefore, although not often written about or discussed in public discourse, the state of both mistrust and hostility between the superstructure and the base. But the two, with the balance of (economic) power hugely tilted in favour of the base, which is one of the root-causes why the problems of inequality, unemployment and poverty persist, seem as though they are united. What's going on between the superstructure and the base, which is the same phenomenon that's going on between workers and their employers (exploiters), trade unions and workers' exploiters, is actually a dialectic of unity and conflict of opposites.
Meanwhile, increasingly since 1994 there's a few from within the ranks of the historically oppressed and previously disadvantaged who are interested in private capital accumulation. To that end what they seek is accommodation in the private ownership and control structures of the exploitative (this is what we mean by ‘fundamentally untransformed') base. For them, the meaning and definition of transformation must be limited to "diversifying" (i.e. de-racialising) the complexion of those who privately own and control the means and proceeds of production in the ‘fundamentally untransformed' base through the inclusion of black faces and, as a "by-the-way" (although not presented as such), including women.
These forces of reform are also found within the ANC led Alliance and broader movement. Some of them, or rather some of the beneficiaries that have emerged as such, have established links (through private equity stakes or shares, although in many cases they are subordinates) with the capitalist class forces of the pre-1994 South Africa (i.e. the colonial and apartheid era or regime bourgeoisies) and dominant transnational corporations. As a result, they have become intermediaries standing between the masses (including those within Cosatu, Sanco and even the ANC), the vanguard (SACP) and other revolutionaries (including within the ANC) who want a revolution or fundamental transformation on the one hand and, on the other hand, the old-South African and dominant transnational class forces of exploitation.
Therefore, within the ANC led Alliance itself there's a relationship of unity and conflict of opposites with the forces of reform (who attract the support of some of the old-South African and dominant transnational class forces of exploitation) on the one side and revolutionary forces on the other. How the conflict will be resolved both in the Alliance and society ultimately depends on the configuration and composition of the balance of forces - make no mistake not only between the national but also of the international forces that are at play. (The South African economy is not just a national economy. It's an economy with transnational players and foreign states with vested interests involved).
The whole phenomenon constitutes a complex situation which to approach simplistically and recklessly will not only prove to be infantile but also disastrous. This is what some sections of maximalism are engaged in by among others taking a short-cut, ignoring history and the fundamental nature of the forces behind the effects our people are faced with. What they say is that the sufferings (low wages, inequality, unemployment and poverty) have been imposed by the ANC and its Alliance partners the SACP and Cosatu (This is, of course, NOT true). This fits in very well with the campaign by the liberals, conservatives and their sympathisers (to mention but only three ideological leanings) who argue that we must no longer blame colonialism and apartheid. In this sense, a historical approach to understanding phenomena, its origins and development - a root-cause-effect analysis is not abandoned but attacked.
What maximalism says is different from what the SACP says: post-1994 there are policies, for example Growth, Employment and Redistribution (Gear), which ushered in high-road liberalisation and deregulation, and never paid attention to fundamental economic transformation, and thus failed to help us resolve deep-rooted problems which continued to persist. By pushing for a second phase of our transition characterised by radical economic and social transformation the ANC too recognises either the absence or lack of such a transformation in the first two decades of our democracy.
On the contrary, maximalism swaps between the point of departure and the destination and campaigns for immediate arrival without travelling. It's trying by all means to feed from the ANC-led Alliance and revolutionary movement. Now maximalism, which is expected, has the backing of entryists of all sorts. In their marketing campaign, maximalists project themselves as "more revolutionary than thou". They attack the Alliance and its partners consistently and then say it's the Alliance and its partners that are attacking them as such. They are trying to manufacture sympathy by projecting themselves as the "the victims" of the Alliance. They want to instil in everybody, especially the workers and poor, a feeling that "they, too", have been "victimised" by the Alliance and the ANC-led government (On 7 May 2014 in the 5th general election the people rejected this fallacy).
Instead of focusing on waging and intensifying the struggle against economic exploitation and imperialism (the main problems facing the working class) and directly confronting the class enemy, the maximalists project the Alliance and its partners as the enemy number one of the people. Consequently, they are engaged in creating new organisations not only in open opposition but also in open confrontation to the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement. They are just not prepared to be convinced otherwise through persuasion. As a result, they react negatively towards constructive engagements including constructive criticism. They rather prefer to engage the Alliance via the private monopoly media.
One proto-fascist right-wing maximalist faction, which is being paraded "robust" by the same media, has already theatrically turned parliament into a circus in which they practice their hooliganisation in their red-clown outfits - used to cover expensive designer labels.
To take our cue from Gramsci, we ask whether the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement will act like the beaver in the face of consistent attacks from the South African version of maximalism and proto-fascism, which are but two new chapters of a counter-revolution?
Will the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement embark on voluntary ideological and political self-disarmament, become fatalistic and passive towards the attacks the movement is facing, and then commit suicide?
What are the likely consequences not only for the ANC led Alliance and revolutionary movement but also for South Africa should the movement behave like the beaver?
Alex Mashilo is SACP Spokesperson and Hlengiwe Nkonyane is BA graduate from Wits University and she's presently studying towards an Honours at UNISA, both writing in their personal capacity.
- See more at: http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=4546#redpen
No comments:
Post a Comment