Build Working Class Power for a People's Economy!
To the 8th National Congress of the Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers' Union, Durban, 10 August 2001
As this Congress of the Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers' Union (SACTWU) meets, the South African Communist Party (SACP) wishes to underline that we are in the midst of major struggles order to ensure that South Africa truly becomes a non-racial, non-sexist and democratic country whose primary feature would be an increasing standard of living for all its people, particularly the previously oppressed black majority.
Intensify the struggle against racism
You are holding this Congress on the eve of the World Conference against Racism, to be held in this same venue at the end of this month. The holding of this conference in South Africa is a tribute to the struggle of our people, in particular the working class, for the role they played in the defeat of the criminal apartheid system and its regime. We should use this Conference as a platform to further intensify the struggle against racism globally, as well as to eradicate the legacy of apartheid in our own country.
It is absolutely imperative for the working class to play a leading role and be at the head of the struggle against racism, globally and in our own country. This is because it is only the working class, in our context, that best knows that the struggle against racism is integrally linked to the struggle against capitalism and gender oppression. It is also the working class that understands that the struggle against racism is also integrally linked to the struggle against capitalist globalisation. Unless the working class is at the head of these struggles, there is a very real danger that deracialisation will only take place at the top echelons of our society, whilst leaving the legacy of racial inequality intact for the majority of our people. Signs that this might already be happening is the fact that black economic empowerment is increasingly defined as meaning the creation of a black section of the capitalist class, and not the empowerment of millions of ordinary black men and women.
The SACP also strongly condemns the arrogant and bullish attitude of the US government towards the agenda of this Conference. This attitude clearly shows on which side of the racism debate the US government stands. It should also be a reminder that it was the same US government that stood firmly behind the apartheid regime through the notion of "constructive engagement". It is time that all progressive forces in the world send a clear message to the US government, that we shall no longer tolerate this dictatorship. I urge your Congress to adopt a resolution in this regard.
As the SACP we wish to reiterate our stance that slavery and colonialism were crimes against humanity, and that the issue of reparations is a centrally important one. We also wish to reiterate that Zionism is racism. The problems of the Middle East is precisely a direct result of Zionism. The wars, the killings and maiming of innocent Palestinian civilians is a direct outcome of Zionism. Whilst the conferenced is not a platform to negotiate the resolution of the Palestinian and Middle East problems, but it should clearly indicate the urgency of the Resolution of these questions. Let us demonstrate next Thursday at the US embassy to express our condemnation of the US government's attitude.
As the working class we are waging the struggle for the deepening and consolidation of the NDR in a terrain not of our choosing. Specifically we are struggling to consolidate the NDR on a terrain of capitalism. Much more critically our country, in the light of the deepening capitalist and neo-liberal global restructuring, has entered a stage where it is becoming clear that it is the working class, including the urban and rural unemployed and poor, that is bearing most of the brunt of current economic restructuring. As the SACP we have consistently argued over the last few years that this is neither desirable nor inevitable.
During the transition there has been weak economic growth and a relatively weak process of accumulation of capital. For many of the major South African corporations, the key strategic objective has been to disinvest, to use huge capital reserves, generated over decades of apartheid to now accumulate capital and profits in other markets. Government's liberalisation measures have, by and large, played directly into this agenda. However, insofar as there has been accumulation within South Africa, the following statistics provide some pointers:
We believe that these trends are indicators of accumulation and class formation processes under-way. They underline just how difficult it is to implement a thorough-going NDR on the terrain of a capitalist economy, and in the broader context of an imperialist and considerably uni-polar world. Above all, they underline the need for clear analysis, and for much greater clarity around our understanding of motive forces, and the principal strategic dangers to our NDR.
The current working class struggles, not least the current and planned strikes, are also a response to the neo-liberal position, which envisages growth in South Africa as that which should strengthen the power of the capitalist class with the promise that this will trickle down to the working class and the poor. The very restructuring of state assets seems to be more informed by this kind of approach than to foster a developmental role for these institutions.
The distinct feature of South Africa's transition to democracy therefore is that while the apartheid regime has been removed, and significant progress made to consolidate our political democracy, South African capitalism, dominated by a powerful white monopoly capitalist class, remains intact, through not without its crises.
The above reality is manifesting itself in a number of other ways. First and foremost in the job-loss bloodbath underway, is a concrete manifestation that it is the working class, particularly its organised sections, that is being asked to sacrifice its jobs in order to "turn our economy around". Related to this is the growing ideological discourse, manifesting itself in a number of different, but essentially common, ways seeking to justify the sacrificing of the working class in current global and national economic restructuring.
One ideological justification for this is that the working class must "grow up", be "realistic" and understand that globalisation is all over us. Another variation of the same ideological theme is that the working class, in seeking to defend itself and challenge the terms of economic restructuring, it is acting as an "aristocracy" and in a "selfish" manner. Again, in seeking to justify the attacks of the working class and demonise its struggles, we are being told that the time for "adversarial" labour relations is over, as if capitalism has stopped being adversarial and had stopped exploiting the working class.
Another variation of basically the same theme, sometimes found within the ranks of our own broad movement, is that for the trade union movement to act in a revolutionary manner it must understand the "broader picture" (the necessity for current job destroying economic restructuring in order to create jobs in the future!). But nowhere is it clear how the working class interests are factored in this argument or how is this linked to advancing the interests of the working class as the main motive force in the revolution. In essence, this argument, practically translates into asking the working class, in the name of broader revolutionary understanding, to approach the transition and the current period from class interests other than its own!
The net intentions of all the above arrogance is to seek to marginalise socialist and left approaches to the task of deepening the national democratic revolution. One particular expression of this is the tendency to describe working class struggles as essentially being sectarian and narrow by virtue of being working class struggles. This also comes from some within our movement and sections of government. Of course it is important that we should constantly guard against the working class acting in a narrow and sectarian manner, just as the working class should guard against the danger of acting as if there is no reality of capitalist globalisation and the overwhelming dominance of private capital. But to characterise working class struggles as being inherently narrow and sectarian, is to seek to privilege other class interests, thus, consciously or unconsciously projecting those as being in the national interest.
We are highlighting these issues in order to illustrate the importance of constantly seeking to analyse and understand the current period from a consistently working class perspective. We should not allow ourselves to be diverted from this path, as it is only the interests of the working class that are capable of being the interests of society as a whole. These issues also serve to underline the fact that one of the sharpest contradictions in the current period is that of deepening the NDR on a terrain of capitalism. Indeed we knew that the defeat of the apartheid regime would not mark the end of capitalism. But to seek to deepen the NDR without sufficiently analysing the nature of our capitalist terrain can act to undermine the very goals of the NDR. It therefore requires of us to approach the NDR from the standpoint that it is a struggle to confront three interrelated contradictions, the class, national and gender contradictions. It is a fact that the national contradiction (racism and the legacy of national oppression) still remains the dominant contradiction in our society, this contradiction cannot be addressed except in its relationship to the class and gender contradictions.
We need not remind these bourgeois apologists that the working class constitutes the overwhelming majority of the people of this country and that its interests are the national interests. To denounce the working class struggles as sectarian is nothing but a defence of the bosses and their greed. The interests of the bosses are in fact the most selfish and narrowest of interests that unashamedly aim to secure wealth for the few at the expense of the majority. And the bosses do not hesitate to advance their narrow interests. Why should the working class hesitate to advance its own interests, which in fact, should be national interests overall?
We are highlighting these issues in order also to demonstrate a point many in our movement are loathe to admit - that some of our economic policies were based on an exeggerated expectations of FDI flows and that these policies, particularly GEAR, have not worked.
Globalisation is imperialism
The SACP advances this, perhaps obvious, perspective, not for the purposes of a rhetorical flourish, but to ensure that we approach current international realities scientifically, and not just descriptively. For the past 25 years or so, there has been another intensified wave of internationalized capitalist expansion, driven, not just by technological advances (notably in ICT) but also by sharpening and systemic internal contradictions (notably declining profitability in the core centres of capitalist accumulation).
To side-line the concept "imperialism", displacing it with the vague and entirely descriptive term "globalisation" runs the risk of portraying current international realities as largely neutral and benign processes, brimming with positive possibilities, apart from a few "market failures". The latter are portrayed as the result of a combination of developing countries and their governments failing to "adapt" to the new realities, and of some unfortunate aspects ("oversights") in the international "rules of the game", which we need now to "change" through persuasion.
When we speak of imperialism, we are not using the concept as a mere emotive slogan, or as a swear word. Lenin's development of the concept, for instance, is thoroughly dialectical. Imperialism (like the broader category "capitalism" of which it is a part) is, in some ways, a progressive, innovative and historically objective reality which produces many things that are essential for socialism, including the historical forging of an increasingly internationalized working class itself. But when we speak of globalisation as being essentially a new phase of imperialism, we are reminding ourselves that it is a process that is riven with systemic contradictions, that is based on super-exploitation, and that is simultaneously a process of development and systematic under-development. While engaging with this reality is unavoidable, simply "joining" it, or "structurally adjusting" to it is no solution to its systemic contradictions. While changing the "rules of the game" (if this is possible) may be a worthwhile tactical and short-term endeavour, it is no substitute for a consistent struggle for the transformation and abolition of imperialism.
We do sometimes find a vulgar or pseudo-Marxist appropriation of the term "globalisation", including within our movement at times. This argument seeks to use Marxism one-sidedly, particularly the Communist Manifesto, to justify globalisation as an inevitable, objective process of capitalist development. Globalisation is those things, but it is no less barbaric, no less riven with contradictions, and no less incapable of securing development and human civilisation for that reason. This vulgar Marxism (drawing on a long tradition) argues that we must "allow capitalism to run its full course", l before it can be destroyed. Any serious challenge to it at this point is presented as "premature", as the worst form of voluntarism. Thus those who seek to challenge the logic of capitalist globalisation are normally dismissed as "unrealistic", "infantile", "ultra-left" and not understanding the contemporary realities that we face.
This argument essentially enjoins us not to wage a struggle against capitalism and imperialism, but rather to seek the best possible terms of incorporation under the present international economic order. Not only does the argument side-line class struggle, but it presents the economic logic and development of capitalism as a relatively smooth progression, free of systemic contradictions. This is tantamount to unilateral ideological disarmament.
Globalisation is both an objective and alterable process. It is the development of a particular mode of production - capitalism and capital accumulation. To emphasise only its objective character (and then in purely technical, and evolutionary way)- as vulgar Marxism does - leads to the disarming of forces wanting to challenge capitalist globalisation. To emphasise only the subjective character of globalisation is infantile. Both positions are unMarxist.
Sometimes it is said that to point out the imperialist character of globalisation is to fail to understand or is to resist engagement with globalisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. To engage capitalist globalisation from an understanding that such engagement has to be informed by an anti-imperialist approach is a far more realistic approach than that which seeks to de-emphasise imperialism. As the SACP has consistently said, to engage with global realities without a sufficient analysis of its capitalist character is bound to lead to a lot of problems.
The Clothing and Textile Sector
Related to the question is the SACP's concern that the clothing and textile sector in our country is faced with enormous problems and is a threatened sector. It is sector threatened by lowering of tariffs, job losses, outsourcing of work from factories to home industries and worsening levels of exploitation. It is a sector threatened by the entire process of globalisation and reduction of labour. But to what extent did our own government's policies accelerate the decline of this sector. There is good reason to believe that we could have slowed down the pace of lowering of tariffs. Our government seems to have gone far ahead of the required pace. Why is this the case?
Therefore, part of the current struggles must be how clothing and textile workers position themselves in a strategic leadership position to deal with a thorough discussion of the future of this industry and how it can be protected for the sake of our economy and for the sake of our people. The SACP has for a long time argued for sectoral summits and an active industrial strategy for our country, systematically looking at all the key sectors of our economy and how they can be transformed from a working class perspective. Within this we must review the very policies of our own government which have contributed to this decline.
Engaging private capital - necessary as it is - is neither the starting point
nor does it inevitably translate into privatisation
The reality of capitalist globalisation is the dominance of private capital in the form of transnational corporations that dominate almost the entire globe. No serious revolutionary can afford to ignore this reality, or fail to adequately strategise on how to deal with it. But there are a number of myths and problematic notions that are being peddled as a result of this reality, which are seriously flawed.
If there is one persistent criticism of our Party, both from inside and outside our movement, it is that we have not adequately answered the question of how to engage private capital in the contemporary period. Our starting point as revolutionaries cannot be how to engage private capital. Rather the starting point - as the SACP has consistently argued - is what kind of a state do we need to build. We have said we are struggling to build a developmental state, with a coherent industrial policy, that should play a leading role in driving a reconstruction and development agenda, including decisive intervention and leadership in economic development. It is only from this perspective that we can then ask the question of how do we engage private capital, as a component of the overall task of building a developmental, national democratic state. This approach is fundamentally different to that which starts by asking how do we engage private capital and only then to define the role of the democratic state in relation to dealing with private capital. The latter approach effectively subjects the logic of the developmental state to that of the imperatives and logic of private capital. The former approach seeks to subject the logic of private capital to meeting the objectives of a national democratic state. To start by asking the question of how do we engage private capital inevitably leads to one answer - that of privatisation and of seeking to develop the state in a manner that does not upset the market.
However the most important argument in this thesis is that engaging private capital does not equal privatisation. There are a number of options available in engaging private capital, and privatisation is only one of many. What we have perhaps not fully explored as the Alliance are the other options of engaging private capital, within the framework of building a developmental state. Privatisation is in essence disengagement and not engagement with private capital, and in many instances the retreat of the state from those areas that are in private hands.
Building a people's economy - the main challenge facing the working class in
the current period and beyond
Captured in the above perhaps are three interrelated tasks in deepening the NDR and asserting working class hegemony in the process. These tasks are deepening democracy through building popular power; accelerating the transformation of the state as a developmental state and struggling to build a people's economy. A people's economy seeks in the first instance to challenge the logic of the capitalist market whilst simultaneously building elements and a momentum towards socialism. A people's economy places the eradication of poverty at the centre of economic restructuring, coupled with a deliberate strategy to defend and strengthen the public sector. Key components of this people's economy are an integrated industrial policy driven through sectoral summits, a strong public sector, an active labour market, a growing co-operative sector, a transformed and diversified financial sector and a social security system.
Over the last few months we have been engaged in discussions on what is posed as an industrial policy by the Department of Trade and Industry. From what we have seen we are still far from an industrial policy. Instead we have a very limited sectoral policy which focuses on increasing global competitiveness and improving information based technologies as if competitiveness for its own sake will grow our economy and as if information industries will create jobs, develop infrastructure and meet the basic needs of our people. As the SACP we are saying firmly that the current discussion document from DTI needs to go back to the drawing board. An appropriate industrial policy for our country should in the first instance seeking to mobilise our own country's resources behind a state led programme.
And thus the importance of workers talking and acting on what happens to the huge reserves of money they own but do not control in pension funds, provident funds, medical aids, etc. Our struggle for the transformation of the financial sector has witnessed some major achievements and victories viz. the NEDLAC summit in November this year and the investigations into the credit bureaux. Our key demands include legislation for co-operative banks, community reinvestment legislation, investigation and government regulation of the credit bureax, and a comprehensive review and analysis of the role of the financial sector in advancing our developmental objectives, including job creation.
Building a people's economy is also about the challenge of welding together the different sectoral and localised workers' struggles into a sustained national class struggle. Much more importantly to weld all these together with the struggles of the unemployed, the urban poor and the landless rural masses into a struggle against poverty.
The role of a revolutionary trade union movement in broader political and social struggles and the building a people's economy in particular is to firmly locate workers' their struggles within the broader struggles for deepening the NDR and a struggle for a humane, caring system. But it is not the task of a revolutionary trade union movement to stop militant struggles to genuinely represent the legitimate interests of its members, under the guise that such actions undermine the broader revolutionary objective. This would kill the labour movement, and would threaten our very democracy that we have fought so hard to attain. To be a revolutionary trade union movement means faithful representation of workers' interests, challenging an attempt to return to apartheid type labour practices and seek to strengthen the political capacity of the working class as a whole.
Conclusion
Our detractors disguised as "realists" may, once again, accuse the SACP of tailing behind organised workers. This accusation is nothing but an unprincipled and opportunistic asking of the working class to abandon its immediate and long-term interests in the name of recognising the realities of capitalist globalisation. We need no bourgeoisie patronising that struggles or organised workers do not constitute the totality of working class struggles. Struggles of organised workers are an indispensable part of broader working class struggles in our country. As the SACP we shall never tail anyone. But if our struggles are demonised as such, to tail behind workers' legitimate struggles is a thousand times better than to tail behind the bourgeoisie and its economic policy!
The message should be clear comrades, as we build a stronger SACTWU, let us also build a stronger SACP as the effective political voice and vanguard of the working class.
With these few words, we trust that your Congress will meet these difficult and many challenges facing the working class and broader revolutionary movement in our country. We thank you for the opportunity of addressing this important Congress.
Amandla!