SACP and Nzimande – Not a Class Act

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Sithembewena Tsembeyi

unread,

Oct 13, 2011, 10:43:39 AM10/13/11

to Jorge Martin

SACP and Nzimande – Not a Class Act

In response to Rapule Tamane’s “The strident tune of a one-man band” (M&G 01/08/2011), Yunus Carrim and Ben Martins are correct to argue that to reduce the SACP General Secretary’s apparent authoritarian behavior and intolerance to his “personal whim is simplistic”. As they correctly state, Nzimande does not simply conduct himself of his own accord but is at the head of representing the politics and character of his party. We therefore need to look deeper into this question to explain Nzimande and the majority of the SACP leadership’s intolerance of dissenting views within their ranks, which incidentally precedes Nzimande and has characterized its long history.

At the same time, rather than focusing on the nature of the SACP, Carrim and Martins tend to airbrush the SACP and focus mainly on its former glories of the anti-Apartheid struggle instead of taking a serious look at the nature and role of the SACP today. In doing such a review of the party during the post-Apartheid era, the central question that needs to be posed is can the SACP claim the mantle of being the vanguard party of the working class that “is a political party that is interested in power to advance the interests of the workers and the poor” (Nzimande M&G 08/07/2011).

My view is that the political path that the SACP has chosen has contributed to the malaise of class struggle in South Africa. The SACP in its privileged historical political position at the helm of the working class and its largest formation, Cosatu together with its theory of National Democratic Revolution (NDR) is the political basis of the setbacks that the working class has experienced over the last two decades at least. It has failed to overcome the first self-imposed hurdle for asserting class struggle back onto the country’s political agenda, namely the issue of the class character of the ANC government and the nature of the state in South Africa. This question is deliberately evaded. After all the ANC is the party with which it enjoys a symbiotic relationship with and any serious review by a “Marxist-Leninist” organisation must pose the central question of whose class interests does the ANC and its government represent?

An honest review and assertion will show unequivocally that the ANC has primarily and historically represented the class interests of the black petty bourgeoisie and has subsequently used political power and leverage over the state and public resources to enrich and elevate a small section of this “class” to the ranks of the big capitalists (Ramaphosa, Sexwale, Macozoma, Kunene, Shabangu et al). Largely due to the monopolistic nature of the South African economy and the class dynamics of political transition in South Africa, this process could only happen through a conscious and rapid allocation of capital by the white South African bourgeoisie to a small number of strategically located individuals allied to the ANC. By so doing white monopoly-capital bought off its political security from the ANC. The interests of the new black section of the bourgeoisie which the ANC predominantly represents, is therefore integrally tied up with that of white monopoly capital (and the capitalist state) - a part of which Julius Malema and the ANCYL now want nationalized in order to access a piece of the capitalist pie.

This analysis has two important consequences for class struggle in South Africa. Firstly, that the dominant forces and leadership of the ANC a-priori represent the interests of monopoly-capital. This helps to explain its ready adoption of and refusal to move away from the neo-liberal GEAR economic policy. Secondly, it does shed some light on a notion eagerly promoted by the SACP leadership as part of NDR, namely that of relying on a patriotic black section of the capitalist class to ensure progressive capital investment into the national economy to ensure job-creation and pro-poor development. What is not clear from this half-baked idea is on what basis this black “patriotic” section of the bourgeoisie would invest their capital any differently from their unpatriotic white counterparts. Patriotism is roughly defined as the love of and loyalty to one’s country. What’s long been established in the history of capitalism is that the capitalists’ loyalty, irrespective of the skin pigmentation is first and foremost to the maximisation of profit.

There is nothing other than a struggle background and skin colour that distinguishes the very small black section of the capitalist class from their white monopoly capitalist counterparts. Given that they have much to catch up with in terms of capital accumulation compared to their white brethren they would in all probability be the least inclined towards patriotic investments and even less still, uplifting the black working class upon whose backs profit-making in South Africa has and still is predicated upon. Any doubts about this selfish role of the black section of the bourgeoisie is easily dispelled by the Aurora mining company scandal and the endless number of instances of state corruption by this predatory group’s insatiable appetite for wealth accumulation (like their white counterparts) at the expense of the working class and poor.

We need to recognise that despite the ANC’s mass electoral support by the black working class, it is essentially a capitalist political party and much of its policies like on privatisation, cuts in social expenditure, the AIDS pandemic, commercialisation and user fees system of public services such as water provision, electricity and public education are against the interests of the working class.

Because of the SACP leadership’s failure or refusal to recognise this reality of class struggle in South Africa and its reformist perspective of the capitalist state and society in general it continues to promote the false idea that somehow the South African ANC led state can be incrementally reformed to represent and favour working class interests. It therefore sees the tripartite alliance and the organs of state as the vehicles for this process. For this reason it has ensured that a number of leading SACP cadres occupy very strategic positions in various levels of the ANC and government since the Mandela and Mbeki eras. These include several cabinet ministers, members of parliament, premiers and chairs of portfolio committees such as Jeff Radebe, Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, Charles Nqakula, Alec Erwin and lately Nzimande, Cronin and Manamela.

During all this time the capitalist state under the ANC government has not become more biased towards the working class. In fact many will argue that these SACP leaders in government have often been the most vociferous defenders of neo-liberal capitalist policies, with the latest example being of Deputy Minister of Transport, Jeremy Cronin defending the Gauteng toll-road system that will impact worst upon the working class. As Lenin correctly pointed out nearly a century ago that the bourgeois state tends to transform those who work within its framework rather than the “communists” who claim to want transform it. Lenin also advocated on the basis of strong theoretical and practical foundations the need to “smash the bourgeois state” and replacing it with alternative organs of working class power as the first concrete steps towards socialism. Ironically now, these SACP “Marxist-Leninist” leaders are fighting a battle to their left to maintain their privileged big-earning positions within the ANC government and hang onto their well-paying party leadership positions simultaneously, despite the legitimate and rational objections by many within their party.

So Carrim, Martins, Nzimande, Cronin, Mantashe and the entire SACP membership need to ask more serious fundamental questions about their party and themselves, namely how far are we with our strategic path of “Socialism is the future, build it now!” when in fact average working class living standards are worse now than under Apartheid with nearly 70% of black people living in poverty, nearly 50% unemployed and South Africa is the most unequal society in the world.

The truth is that the SACP persist with its socialist rhetoric but does very little in practice that radically distinguishes it from the bourgeois ANC. For all Blade Nzimande’s regular critical rhetoric of corruption and the tenderpreneurs within in the ANC government, what have he and the SACP done to actually challenge it? The answer is very little and in all probability nothing. In fact Blade and the SACP leadership are supporting Jacob Zuma for another presidential term - the man who epitomizes the plundering of state resources for the black political elite.

We can only conclude that the SACP is not “a political party that is interested in power to advance the interests of the workers and the poor” but rather provides a radical facade to the ANC’s neo-liberal capitalist project. In doing so it too, like the ANC nurtures the middle-class material aspirations of many of its key leaders and loyal members at all levels of the party through securing of positions within the state and trade unions guided by its strategic cadre deployment policy. Its NDR political position ensures this and those who try to interpret it more radically to support working class interests or begin to challenge the SACP leadership are marginalized, victimized and even expelled. So Rapule, there is much more at stake than just bad man Blade.

Martin Jansen is the director of Workers World Media Productions and wrote the article in his personal capacity.