SACP Secretariat Report To The National Strategy Conference 26-28 May 2000
26 May 2000
Presented By Blade Nzimande, Sacp General Secretary
Cde National Chairperson,
the SACP Central Committee,
the leadership of our Alliance Partners,
the ANC and COSATU,
invited guests and comrade delegates.
Let me take this opportunity, on behalf of the National Secretariat, to
welcome all of you to this Strategy Conference.
As we meet at this Strategy Conference it is possible to see the core
elements of an emerging, or perhaps renewed, common approach to the
understanding of our global context. It is an approach that we need to foster
within our alliance, but also broaden it so that it becomes hegemonic within our
broader society. But to grasp the nettle it is necessary to see beyond much of
the noise and chatter that passes for political commentary in our country. It is
also necessary not to become absolutely distracted by , or entrenched within the
irritations, the real and legitimate concerns and the important debates that are
happening within our party, our alliance and our country.
At the heart of this approach, lies a deepening awareness that, whatever the
wide international acclaim accorded to our democratic political settlement six
years ago, the world as we find it is not designed to promote sustainable growth
linked to more and better jobs, and equitable development.
As President Mbeki reiterated in San Francisco this week: Globalisation
has benefited the wealthy northern countries while doing nothing for poor
nations in the south. Over the last six years we have had a barrage of
neo-liberalism directed at our new d emocracy. We have been told to apply the
rules of the international markets, there is no alternative, we have
been advised. But those rules, as President Mbeki told his audience in San
Francisco, are precisely part of the problem. He singled out the WTO and said it
required major restructuring. There is little doubt that we all need to work
together to overcome the challenge of development. This will require a massive
resource transfer into developing countries and a broad-based Development Round
at the WTO to address these issues.
We also need to learn from some of the recent examples to properly understand
this challenge, like the unfolding situation in Zimbabwe. The erosion of the
rule of law in that country, and the harassment of trade unions and other
progressive forces are of deep concern to the SACP. The bureaucratisation of the
former liberation movements, the venality of much of the political elite, and
the widening gulf between them and other popular formations is worrying. It was
precisely these realities which led, in t he course of the late 1980s and
through the 1990s to a growing dependence of Zimbabwe on the IMF and World Bank.
This dependence, and the bureaucratic aloofness of the political elite from its
mass base, entrapped Zimbabwe in enforced, and punishing struc tural adjustment
programmes, that deepened poverty and unemployment. Let us not forget that just
five years ago, the IMF and World Bank were trumpeting Zimbabwe as a model for
the rest of Africa to follow.
We call for free and fair elections in June, but as desirable as such free
and fair elections are, they will not, in themselves, be a basis for sustainable
development in Zimbabwe. The key is massive land reform. To say that land reform
is the key, is not to support, electorally, this or that party in Zimbabwe. It
is not to turn a blind eye to the major subjective failings that have occurred
in Zimbabwe in the last two decades.
Daily, these and other examples, underline to us as South Africans that we
have to have the courage to chart, as best we can, our own way, working together
with the countries of the South and with progressive forces in the North. There
is no salvation for our country and our people in the script that is written and
rewritten in the capitals of the North. Whatever the goodwill that we still
enjoy internationally, and that is surely a great asset to be nurtured, at the
end of the day, the part that we are s upposed to play is of a peripheral,
dependent third world economy, in which a narrow comprador class here in SA is
the only indigenous beneficiary. The script has to be changed. We cannot do that
by declaring UDI from the world. We have to engage with t he realities of the
world, as we find them, but we cannot accept them as we find them.
Whilst we may debate the correct path for development and engaging with these
global realities one thing is absolutely clear; A hegemonic capitalist class
internationally, or domestically, is unable to offer a vision or a strategic
line of march capable of offering any sustainable growth and development in our
country.
Over the last three to four years the SACP has, in various ways, been trying
to grapple with the nature of, and contestations over, South Africas
transition to democracy, against the background of capitalist globalisation.
Emerging out of this analysis we are saying, as outlined in one of our
documents, that The attempt to transform our society on the terrain of
capitalism, but without sufficiently analysing the contradictions of
contemporary capitalism runs the risk of a restructuring process that leaves the
fundamental inequalities of our society intact
Further,
We have expressed concern that we need to be vigilant that change is not
reduced to the transfer of some power, privilege and wealth to an emergent black
elite, while the underlying class, race and gender inequalities of our society
remain largely intact. The danger of this outcome remains very real
To make the above points does not mean that there have been no major advances
and achievements after the democratic breakthrough. Our government has scored
major achievements on many fronts that have been beneficial to the working class
and the poor. After our 1999 electoral victory we have also continued to further
consolidate our democracy by seeking to accelerate change for the benefit of the
mass of the people of our country.
But we have also pointed out that these achievements continue to be
threatened by the capitalist character of South African society, within the
context of deepening capitalist globalisation. One expression of this is the
persistence of deep inequality as a result of the wide ranging restructuring of
the economy to the detriment of the working class over the past decade, which
has continued deep into the transition. The opening up of the South African
economy to global capitalism has seen more than half a m illion jobs shed in the
formal non-agricultural sector since 1994
Many of those in formal employment
have been subjected to the intensification of exploitation through
casualisation, piecework, being contracted out, and many anti-worker
measures. Despite recently released statistics showing stabilisation of
employment between 1996-1998, it is clear that the minimal jobs created in this
period were survivalist jobs at the expense of quality jobs, and in fact an
outcome of the job-shedding, casualisation an d outsourcing.
We had correctly characterised this process as a job loss bloodbath. This has
been underlined by the fact that the brutal realities of capitalism have
meant that, in general, it is working people and the urban and rural poor (a
majority of them women) who have had to bear the brunt of the profound economic
restructuring process underway in our country. That it is the working class
that should borne the brunt of economic restructuring is neither desirable nor
inevitable.
It is from this angle that we should seek to properly understand the current
working class struggles and their implications for the broader struggles over
the direction of South Africas transition. In the light of the above, would
it not be correct to und erstand the current working class struggles as
essentially about contesting the terms of the economic restructuring in the
transition and politically being about reclaiming the political space by the
working class in shaping the direction of the transition ?
An accumulation regime that threatens to sideline the working class?
It is going to be important for this Conference and all our structures to
frankly grapple with these questions. They should principally be approached from
the standpoint of our characterisation of patterns of class formation and class
struggles in South Af ricas transition to democracy. During the transition a
particular process of capital accumulation (albeit weak) has been taking place
which is largely benefiting finance capital, possibly Afrikaner capital and a
small minority within the black community a t (potentially) the expense of the
working class in particular and the poor in general. Even the benefits to the
black petit bourgeoisie is in doubt if one looks at the patterns of accumulation
and rapid decline of the share of black capital in the JSE.
As we have noted before what has not been sufficiently underlined is the fact
that capital accumulation is not a neutral phenomenon. What this requires
therefore is a deeper analysis of the nature of the current regime of capital
accumulation, as well as i dentifying its main beneficiaries.
The current working class struggles 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 a nd the poor.
Our approach to South Africas transition as the SACP is principally that
it seeks to address and lay a basis for the resolution of the class, racial and
gender contradictions in their relationship to each other, and not sequentially.
To state these object ives is not simply because it is fashionable nor just a
subjective choice to pose the fundamental questions of our revolution this way.
It is because the South African revolution is objectively faced with the
totality of these contradictions, whether one s ubjectively chooses to ignore or
selectively emphasise one over the others. This approach has progressively
characterised the strategic approach not only of the SACP but of our movement as
a whole. The characterisation of Colonialism of a Special Type was precisely
based on the understanding that much as the dominant contradiction under
apartheid was the national question, but CST was a variant of bourgeois rule. In
other words CST was characterised by a particular relationship between national
and class st ruggles, within a social system of gender oppression.
But precisely at a time when the totality and interrelationship between these
contradictions continue to characterise South African society, the struggle over
the direction of a post-apartheid South Africa tend to increasingly show a
selective emphasis by this or that class force on one or two factors over
others. This reflects principally the deepening of the class struggles in South
Africas transition to democracy, and a struggle by each of the dominant or
emergent class forces to shape a post-apartheid South Africa for their own
interests.
There has always been class currents and interests in our national liberation
struggles. As the SACP we are not at all surprised by this development, as we
knew that in a post-apartheid reality the expression of these would take
different forms. This requi res that we forge an even deeper patriotic unity,
but on the basis of working class interests and leadership. It would therefore
be theoretically and strategically incorrect to continue to analyse this period
without at the same time recognising the specif ic and conjunctural
manifestations of the class character of our society.
The distinct feature of South Africas transition to democracy therefore is
that whilst the apartheid regime has been removed, and significant progress
being made to consolidate our political democracy, South African capitalism,
dominated by a powerful whi te monopoly capitalist class, remains intact, though
not without its crises. Firstly, this is as a result of the fact that whilst the
capitalist class was prepared to support negotiations in the face of the crisis
of CST by the end of the 1980s, it was si multaneously seeking a new
political order within which to pursue some kind of seemingly non-racial and
inclusive capitalist path. Secondly, our transition is taking place in an
international context where capitalist globalisation and its neo-liberal ideol
ogy is as dominant as ever, particularly after the collapse of Eastern European
socialism. Capitalist globalisation is the main driving force in strengthening
and deepening the power of capital and the capitalist character of South African
society, togethe r with its attendant crises.
This reality of the simultaneous deepening of our political democracy and the
continued dominance and deepening of the capitalist character of South African
society is the most dominant feature through which we can characterise South
Africas transition. I t is however a deepening capitalism that is in a crisis
precisely because it is incapable of addressing the needs of our society,
including its inability to set a foundation for the eradication of racism and
gender inequalities.
In the light of these developments we need to remind ourselves that in fact
the very concept and revolutionary strategy of a national democratic revolution
was premised on the weakening of South African capitalism as the terrain upon
which to deepen our de mocracy. In other words, the very resolution of the
national and gender contradictions is critically dependent on the weakening of
capitalism in South Africa. In essence the struggle to eradicate the legacy of
national oppression, the transformation of gen der relations is intricately
linked to a fundamental transformation of property relations. This also means
that the struggle to eradicate racism, is bound to fail unless it is premised on
challenging the key features of the capitalist economy itself.
Transformation of gender relations unpaid labour, women in the labour
market and local government
We cannot assess the South African transition without assessing the
transformation of gender relations in our society. Without conflating the
concept of gender with women, but for us gender relations are largely about
gender equality and womens emancipati on.
Women, poverty and constraints to employment
Gender inequalities structure modern capitalist economies and, because of
their position within the economy, women and female-headed households face a
substantially higher risk of poverty and disease. Women also face much higher
levels of unemployment than men. Property ownership is concentrated among men,
further weakening womens economic position.
Poverty is high in South Africa and tends to increase in rural regions. The
following statistics from NALEDI describe the extent of gender inequalities in
our country: -
- Irrespective of race, 26% of female-headed households are in the bottom of
the income structure, as compared to 13% male-headed households - On the other hand, 27% of male-headed households are in the top income
bracket, compared with 11% of female-headed households - 37% of African, non-urban, female-headed households,fall into the poorest
20% of the population, while less than 1% of white, urban,male-headed
households fall into the same category - Three in every ten (31%) of African, female-headed households and one in
every five (19%) African, male-headed households, are in the bottom income
category.
The position of women in the economy, both in relation to their paid work in
the formal and informal sectors and their unpaid work, disadvantages them in
terms of access to employment. Women are discriminated against in their access
to education. This disc rimination is caused by traditional attitudes, early
marriages and pregnancies, inadequate and gender-biased teaching and educational
materials, sexual harassment and the lack of adequate accessible schooling
facilities. Furthermore, girls are expected to manage both education and
domestic asks which often results in early dropouts and poor performances at
school.
Although there has been an increase in women`s share of the labour force over
the past thirty years, this has not been accompanied by an improvement in the
working conditions of women and in fact, these gains are being undercut by
regressive and contractin g economic policies. In South Africa, there have been
massive job losses in the Clothing Industry as a result of rapid tariff
reductions in the face of trade liberalisation.
Underlying many of the above factors is patriarchal ideology, which views
women as subordinate and inferior and incapable of contributing to the economy,
except within pre-defined "feminine" roles.
These jobs often involve a largely reproductive, rather than productive
element. There is a mutually reinforcing relationship between the subordinate
status of women which influences how their work is regarded and the fact that
lower-status occupations are reserved for lower-status workers, i.e. women.
Women are most likely to be service workers (nearly 60%) - this includes
teachers, nurses, and domestic workers. On the other hand, women are least
likely to be in mining (4%) or construction (6%), they are a lso significantly
under-represented in manufacturing (31%).
Women and unpaid labour
In our Strategy Conference last year we took a resolution on struggling to
engage the question of womens unpaid labour. This in fact is an important
arena and entry point in the struggles for transformation of gender relations.
This is indeed a massive st ruggle which should begin with the transformation of
gender relations within our own party structures. But what is critical is the
intensification of the struggles for the delivery of affordable services which
will go a long way in transforming gender rela tions in the home, and relieve
the burden of unpaid labour from women. But this will not happen automatically.
What it means is that our struggles against ideologically driven privatisation,
struggles for MSPs beneficial to the poor, and the increasing rol e of the state
in economic transformation, and job creation should all be explicitly linked to
the question of the liberation of women. In other words lesser service provision
reinforces gender inequalities and increases unpaid labour performed by women.
It is from this perspective and framework that we should be approaching all
the work at this Strategy Conference. Commission chairs and facilitators will
have to guide discussions such that the question of transformation of gender
relations is explicitly l inked to local government transformation, economic
transformation and the restructuring of the public sector.
It is against these class and gender realities that we should seek to
understand and deepen the current working class struggles both as a matter of
strategic and tactical priority.
The nature and extent of current working class struggles
Between January and May, according to unofficial Cosatu estimates, more than
four million workers have taken to the streets and participated in the May 10
General Strike. Even SACOB agrees with these figures. There is no doubt that
there has been a massiv e response to the COSATU call for action over job
losses. Another critical dimension is that these struggles have been supported
by all the major components of the democratic movement, as well as working class
communities.
The creative linkage of jobs to poverty eradication has also led to the
working class occupying a higher moral plane in concretely relating the struggle
to defend jobs to a broader struggle against poverty. Those who have been trying
to project working cla ss struggles as being narrow and selfish have had to come
to terms with the reality that there can be no mechanical separation between the
struggles of the workers and those of the poor. As a matter of fact these
struggles are in the interests of society a s a whole. A Sunday Independent poll
revealed that more than 70% of the public polled supported the action. This is
indeed a major victory for the working class, and an important foundation to
reposition this class to assert its leadership role in wider so ciety.
Let us take this opportunity to salute you comrades for having ensured that
the full weight of the SACP has been thrown behind the struggles of the working
class. Let me also salute our thousands of communist cadres who also ensured
that the political mess age of the importance of jobs in poverty eradication
becomes the dominant message of the campaign. We have on the whole successfully
fulfilled part of our 2000 Programme of action to use the first four months of
the year as a focus on jobs and poverty.
Indeed the bourgeoisie, which all along has been dragging its feet, is now
beginning to respond to the call for a national crusade against job losses.
Indeed this action is also beginning to show serious cracks within the ranks of
the capitalist class itse lf on how to respond to this patriotic call of
defending jobs.
Obviously we have a long way to go, as what we are dealing with is
essentially the capitalist character of South African society and economy. But
one major lesson we need to learn out of this is the need to keep the working
class mobilised in order that it takes its future into its own hands. This was
an important confidence builder and an important signal to the nation that the
working class will not allow itself to be weakened as a precondition to economic
growth that, under these conditions can only bene fit a few.
It is our responsibility as the SACP to ensure that as part of building the
confidence of the working class, we relate its struggles to the broader
questions of addressing the national and gender questions. It is for this reason
that as the SACP, in seekin g to strengthen the struggles of the working class,
we have consistently pointed out that it is not just the working class that is
bearing the brunt of economic restructuring, but it is the primarily the black
working class. It is not just abstract poverty that we seek to eradicate by
defending jobs and struggling for job creation, but it is real poverty mainly
found within the African population of our country. Therefore the struggle for
job creation is simultaneously the struggle to eradicate racial inequ alities
and the legacy of national oppression.
As the SACP we have also consistently pointed out that much as the job
losses, casualisation and outsourcing affect the whole of the working class, but
it is mainly women who suffer most from these scourges. It is women workers who
occupy vulnerable jobs i n services like cleaning, catering and the textile
sector who are likely to be easily retrenched, casualised or outsourced. And at
the same time it is women who have to look after the unemployed, the sick the
elderly and the children suffering from malnutr ition. Therefore the struggle
against job losses is simultaneously a struggle for gender equality. In short,
the quality of our democracy is dependent on the quality of the socio-economic
life of the working people and the poor.
The economic debate will ultimately not be resolved in the boardrooms but
through the strategic deployment of the mass power of the working class, backed
by working class communities. These struggles provides a unique opportunity for
our Party to deepen it s independent class organisation amongst the ranks of the
working class. It is also very clear that the working class needs a strong SACP,
and the SACP needs a revolutionary and militant working class in order to take
forward the struggle for socialism. Th is should be the clarion call to South
African communists, wherever they are located: Root the Party in the working
class!
Some of the challenges in the wake of the May 10 strike
In a way the paper on our economic strategic perspective provides the basis
for seriously addressing some of the key economic challenges of the South
African revolution, centrally raised in the current working class struggles. The
issues raised in the pape r point to the urgency of reopening a national debate
on our economic policies and that it cannot be business as usual.
The SACP is today calling for a new economic policy consensus in our country,
a consensus based on addressing the social and economic needs of the
overwhelming majority of our people. The challenges of the period calls for an
open, broad, honest and frank reflection in all of our movement on some of the
weaknesses in our economic policies. We are calling for the development of this
economic consensus and such reflection not to score political points, but as an
urgent necessity dictated by the realities faci ng our country at this juncture.
The Economic strategic perspectives document, that will be used as the
basis for one of our key discussions this weekend, is a document that has
emerged from discussions and debate going back to February this year. It has
gone through various SACP struc tures, including the PB and CC.
Back in February, we were pleased and relieved, along with many others, to
note that some key economic indicators were looking more favourable, and that
modest but important growth of some 3,5% looked probable for this year, and at
least for another few ye ars. But, already back in February, we were warning
against excessive optimism.
Sadly, at the beginning of this week, Statistics SA released GDP figures for
the first quarter of the year, showing a drop of growth, down to 0,9%. Most
main-line economists were predicting a more favourable 3%. We take no pleasure,
as the SACP, in noting this slow-down, which will certainly impact negatively on
job creation, and development.
The major contributing factor to this significant slow-down in growth has
been the floods - with agriculture recording a 17,7% decline for the first
quarter of the year. But four other major economic sectors also reflect a
significant slow-down - manufact uring, electricity and water, construction, and
finance and real estate.
The point we were trying to make back in February is that without a clear
growth and development strategy, anchored around an industrial and
infrastructural development policy, growth will prove to be a cyclical spurt,
rather than a sustained process.
Whenever there are set-backs, we tend to be told that the fundamentals are
sound, it is just market perceptions, or external shocks - like
floods, or Asian melt-downs. But isnt that what everyone said about the
Titanic? -the fundamentals are sound , it was just hit by an external
shock!
Is it not time, once more, to ask questions about these so-called
fundamentals? Why is a low inflation rate a fundamental, but a low
unemployment rate not? Why is a low budget deficit a fundamental? Yes, a low
deficit can certainly give a government b reathing space. But borrowing wisely,
for a massive infrastructural development programme might also provide a
breathing space. Why is one a fundamental, and the other not? When we talk about
fundamentals, whose fundamentals do we actually mean? Are fu ndamentals
fundamentally universal? Are they neutral in their effects, or do they represent
particular class and global interests?
We hope that our discussions on economic strategic perspectives this weekend
will help to contribute to a broader and constructive discussion. It is a
discussion that needs to resonate through our entire alliance, and more widely
within our country. But it is also a discussion that, for various reasons, has
not taken off effectively in the last four years.
Why? One reason is that, in our estimation, governments GEAR document
conflated two things - an emergency, perhaps even tactical, stabilisation
programme on the one hand, and a strategic programme for growth, employment and
development, on the other. Th e very robust, ensuing debate within our alliance,
and uncertainties about the actual success of the strategy have now led to a
certain wariness, a tentativness about opening up discussion on the broader
questions of economic strategy. That is a great pit y, and we need to do
everything we can to help sustain a strategic assessment and discussion.
Compounding the problem has been the fact that, within the Alliance, we have
often been reading each other through the distorting lens of the media. Key
government ministers are routinely presented in some of the media as heroic
Thatcherites, as slash and burn privatisers (and awarded accolades for
this). The SACP, COSATU and others are presented as economic populists, as
a loony left that doesnt understand the real world in which we are
living. Some leading political commentators reduce all eco nomic policy debates
to this puerile dichotomy. We sometimes ourselves reinforce it through our own
political conduct.
Take the Mail and Guardians political correspondent, Howard Barrell, for
instance. He tells us that, since the triumph of the neo-liberal consensus
(capitalist, pro-market with an emphasis on prevailing Western
orthodoxies), the domain of the econ omic is beyond politics. There are
no real political choices to be made, no meaningful policy debates of worth, the
only rational choice is to recognise that you must, as he puts it, play
by the markets rules.
The Sunday Times political correspondent, Ray Hartley, shares many
assumptions with his counterpart on the M & G. Hartley writes admiringly
about what he imagines to be our Minister of Finances strategy. Trevor
Manuels strategy, Hartley writes, has been to assemble a team of
high-powered technocrats to crunch numbers and construct an intricate policy
matrix that has enabled SA to weather the storms on the global capital
markets. (Sunday Times, April 23). By contrast, scoffs Hartley,: the
belief that meetings of Cosatu, the SACP and the ANC stand any chance of
arriving at appropriate technical decisions about the economy is at best
painfully naive, at worst evidence of a cynical belief in the virtues of
political compromise
Barrell, Hartley and others mistake the actuality of powerful global and
domestic constraints for no choice whatsoever. Yes, capitalist corporations and
the markets they dominate are highly coercive realities, so much for the
free market. No medium-siz ed, developing (if, indeed, we are developing)
economy can live in ignorance of this reality. But that does not mean we have to
become entirely supine.
For the same reason, the idea that it is only high-powered technocrats
who should be allowed to think about the economy is terribly misguided. A summit
meeting of the tripartite alliance is certainly not a substitute for technically
proficient macro-eco nomic modeling. But the job of technocrats is to inform
political choices, not to make them. Technocrats need to model different
outcomes, to deepen our understanding of the relative advantages and
disadvantages, the respective trade-offs. It is the job of a democratically
elected government to make informed choices, to take responsibility for its
decisions, and to empower a pubic debate and an ongoing public evaluation of
these choices. An engaging and critical media would help.
The actual debates that are happening within the ANC, its alliance, and,
indeed, between government and serious economic players have been passing these
journalists by. One of numerous examples -inflation targeting. It is, in all
probability, a far super ior monetary policy mechanism to defending the exchange
rate of the rand. But what is the optimum inflation band in our specific
situation? What are the trade-offs to be made between low inflation, growth, and
interest rates? What sectors and what strat a of our society are most likely to
benefit from different scenarios? Is there an absolute coincidence of interest
on optimum inflation targets between short-term bond investors and longer term
domestic and foreign direct investors, between big and small businesses, between
the owners of capital and all of the rest of us? Have the high-powered
technocrats actually modeled any of these things?
Answers to these questions cannot simply be read off some assumed
prevailing Western orthodoxy - even if our intellectual laziness or sense
of national inadequacy inclined us to look uncritically in that direction.
Globalisation is a thoroughly contradictory reality, the idea that you can
simply mimic what the big guys do, and jump on board to be guaranteed of endless
growth and development is deeply flawed. Profit-driven globalisation creates the
technical possibili ties for global solidarity, but it also actively deepens
inequality and chronic poverty. So much for Barrell and Hartleys western
consensus that we should all just mechanically apply.
There are real debates within our alliance about economic policy, but we need
to ensure that these are more thoughtfully and actively pursued. We believe that
there are now real prospects for greatly strengthening our overall strategic
unity through debat e. In fact, we think that there are possibilities and the
necessity of building a wider national economic consensus. The COSATU/Business
Millennial Council, Nedlac, the proposed Jobs CODESA, industrial sector
summits, these, and many other initiatives can be used to build such a
consensus. But, above all, the consensus will require a strategically united
alliance, and a bold national democratic developmental state. We trust that this
conference will contribute to that process.
Yesterday, the SACP and COSATU have agreed to convene Peoples Forums
Against Job Losses and Socialist Forums between now and the end of July. These
forums must be held in townships, rural areas, informal settlements, the cities
and wherever our people are in order to report back, consult our people and plan
the way forward in transforming our economy in favour of the working class and
the poor. Let these Forums act as revolutionary councils, basically tools in the
hands of our people to shape and drive our economic transformation. Without
these Forums, we face the danger of separation of the unemployed from their
natural allies - revolutionary organised workers. The Forums are part of taking
forward the mobilisation of the working class to defend jobs and t ackle
poverty. In this regard, the SACP will mobilise its structures across the
country to convene these peoples forums so as to reach a target of at least
30 forums convened by the SACP across the country.
The NDR as the most direct route to socialism
In understanding our challenges it is important that they be located within
the broader framework of our political strategic perspectives. At the same time
we need to use this opportunity to answer a set of interrelated questions about
the role of our Part y in the current period once and for all.
We have been asked by some of our comrades as to what we mean by socialism,
how do we intend getting there and what is the intermediate stage we should be
striving for as a step towards socialism? We have always and correctly asserted
that the NDR (and sub sequently its deepening in the era of the democratic
breakthrough), under the hegemonic leadership of the working class, is the most
direct route to socialism. The NDR is the intermediate phase between capitalism
and socialism!
Some might ask, wasnt this perspective premised on the existence of a
block of socialist countries? And therefore with the collapse of the Soviet
Union and Eastern European socialist countries, can we say this perspective is
still valid? In fact this may be part of the reasoning behind these questions.
Perhaps these questions might be based on a pessimism about the future of
socialism in the light of the international setbacks.
It is indeed true that yes, to a large extent the conception of an NDR was
premised on experiences from, and support of socialist countries for national
liberation outcomes beneficial to the overwhelming majority of the peoples of
the developing world. But at the same time our conception, the main content of
the NDR, and our strategic orientation, were based on a truly indingenous
theorisation of the concrete conditions in our country. The notion of
Colonialism of a Special Type, articulated for the first time in our 1962
Road to South African Freedom was such an indigeneous and creative
Marxist-Leninist approach to the South African revolution.
The characterisation of South Africa as a colony of a special type was based
on the understanding that the primary challenge under the colonial and apartheid
order was the national liberation of the black majority. But since colonialism
of a special type w as not simply racial oppression, but also a particular form
of capitalist rule, for the legacy of national oppression (and indeed gender
oppression) to be completely eradicated requires a struggle against the
capitalist foundations of such oppression. This remains even more valid in the
current period.
Indeed it would be wrong not to accept the reality that the collapse of
Eastern European socialist countries has changed the international terrain
dramatically thus posing new strategic and tactical challenges to all
revolutionary and socialist organisatio ns. But the fact of the collapse itself
does not invalidate the necessity of struggling to eradicate the legacy of
colonialism and neo-colonialism, and that capitalism is incapable of eradicating
the problems facing humanity today. In fact the defeat of ex isting socialism
does not translate into a victory for capitalism.
As a matter of historical record we were among the first of the communist
parties in the world to frankly and openly confront the realities and/or
implications of the collapse of existing socialism. Cde Joe Slovos paper
Has Socialism Failed, despite man y disagreements about some of its
propositions within our ranks, was an important intervention some of whose main
theses and conclusions were generally accepted in the Party. His main conclusion
was that it was not socialism that failed, nor Marxism-Lenini sm that was
invalidated, but it was a particular experience and effort to build socialism
that failed.
Much more importantly Cde Slovo warned of two dangers in our response to this
crisis. On the one hand he warned that we should not seek to find excuses for
the distortions of then existing socialism, but it is more vital than ever to
subject the past of e xisting socialism to an unsparing critique in order to
draw the necessary lessons. To do so openly is an assertion of justified
confidence in the future of socialism and its inherent moral superiority.
On the other hand he warned of an even more dangerous response which he
referred to as unilateral ideological disarmament which dismisses the
whole past of existing socialism as an unmitigated failure and thus the
impossibility of socialism in future. He was particularly scathing of those
(former) communists who had turned into a past-time the exclusive criticism of
failures of existing socialism at the expense of tackling the social
inequalities within capitalism. He continued to argue that such defeati sts were
completely ignoring the continuing plunder by international capital of the
resources of the developing world through neo-colonial manipulation, unequal
trade and the debt burden. Those who have submitted to unilateral disarmament
today are so voc al about the failure of socialism in Africa, but say very
little, if anything, about Africas real failure; the failures of
capitalism.
It was these very intense debates and internal self-reflection that led to
the adoption of the slogan of Socialism is the future, Build it now at our
1995 9th Congress. This slogan marked a shift from a stageist approach to
the NDR and the struggle fo r socialism, but captured an interconnected between
the NDR and socialism. As we stated at our 1995 Congress As an SACP we are
struggling, here and now, for transformations that are both feasible and
realisable, which have their own inherent value, (but w hich simultaneously) lay
the basis for a future socialist transformation
Indeed this shift was also necessitated by the enhanced possibilities of
deepening the NDR in the wake of the 1994 democratic breakthrough, as the
apartheid regime had been dislodged from power and new avenues for a
people-driven transformation process and change. This slogan also captured the
reality of a much more dynamic link between struggles to deepen democracy and
socialism.
It is the necessity to concretely, and in an ongoing way, elaborate these key
tasks, both in policy and strategic terms, that forms the basis of our strategy
conference. It is in seeking to engage with current restructuring of our
economy, state assets, lo cal government and building the organisational
capacity of the party that we seek to deepen the NDR and the struggle for
socialism. This is because socialism or any possible intermediate stage
towards socialism will not emerge from abstract strategic de bates, but
from engaging the concrete realities and challenges of the present period. It is
in the struggles of the present that the foundations for socialism will be laid.
The tasks before this Strategy Conference
In order to locate the tasks before this conference it is important to report
on progress regarding the implementation of the resolutions of the 1999 Strategy
Conference, and how this years conference seeks to build on these.
Last year we took a number of far-reaching resolutions. I am happy to report
that there is significant progress in the implementation of these resolution,
albeit unevenly. In fact most of our resolutions helped to guide and are part of
the our Year 2000 Po A. One of the difficulties we still face, which the Party
Building Commission will have to deal with, is the difficulty of extracting
accurate and timely reports from provinces, thus severely affecting our capacity
to monitor and co-ordinate our activities with provinces.
Let us highlight progress on some of the key resolutions. The Central
Committee has finalised our resolution on MSPs and it is included in the
documentation for your information and to guide all our structures in our work
at local government level.
With regards to the resolution on HIV/AIDS some provinces have actively taken
up this campaign, together with NGOs. Important work is being done in the
North-West, and KZN party structures are working closely with the Treatment
Action Campaign. We are abou t to be represented as the SACP in the National
Aids Consortium. We have also raised this issue throughout COSATUs job loss
campaign, particularly highlighting the need to integrate HIV/AIDS campaign into
the work of workplace health and safety committees. Nevertheless, as the SACP we
still need a thorough discussion on the political economy of HIV/AIDS and the
question of drugs.
One of our key resolutions was that of ensuring that key parastatals must
remain in the public hands. At the public ideological level we have done
relatively well in tackling ideologically driven privatisation, as well as
engaging with the Ministry of Publ ic Enterprises and Ministry of Public Service
and Administration on many of these issues. We have also started to engage in
public actions in this regard, the first one being our picket at the
Privatisation Africa 2000 Conference. At national level we have been having a
number of bilaterals with unions, and we actively intervened on the question of
the proposed restructuring of Transnet. The paper on transformation of the
public sector reflects part of this work and we hope the commission will guide
us on f urther concrete action and activities in this area of ongoing work.
On rural transformation, we have been engaging with SAAPAWU and some of the
rural provinces have actively taken up the issue of farmworkers. This in fact is
a priority question and there is still a lot of work to be done. In particular
we need to assist in the organisation of farmworkers into SAAPAWU, given the
fact that more than a million farmworkers are unorganised. But the challenge is
for our provinces to focus more attention on this issue.
One of the key resolutions was that on co-ops. This is perhaps one of the
most important challenges and areas of strategic intervention by the SACP. We
have come to the realisation that a lot of groundwork needs to be done in this
regard. We have also visi ted the Italian national association of co-ops and are
working on co-operation in this regard. Our plan for the next six months is to
work towards establishing a central structure to provide support and advice to
our structures. We have also employed someo ne to assist us in this regard.
On poverty eradication, as we pointed out before we have done relatively well
in integrating this question into working class struggles. We are also actively
participating at national level in a number of poverty eradication initiatives.
The key challenge that we need to actively take up as the party is mobilising
our communities to effectively participate and benefit in governments poverty
alleviation programmes. On the youth desk we have already formed a national
committee on youth activities as a means to begin to drive communist activity in
this area.
An area which we discussed at the 1999 Strategy Conference but never took any
substantial formal resolutions is the area of finance and banks. We are
literally allowing banks and the financial sector in this country to get away
with murder. South African b anks are simply refusing to be part of addressing
poverty and economic reconstruction in our country. We would like the Party
building commission to discuss this matter with a view to a massive campaign to
expose the banks and pressurise them to play their role particularly in the area
of credit access for SMMEs, co-ops and housing. As the SACP we should seriously
consider campaigning for legislation to force banks to set aside certain amount
of money for low-cost housing and credit access. Related to this we need to call
for the regulation of this faceless credit bureau whose blacklisting of
retrenched workers and the poor is actually undermining our attempts to provide
access to finance for a number of community development activities. We simply
cannot all ow the banks to hold our development initiatives at ransom and allow
workers and government s moneys to be used by the banks for speculation and
continue to support an agenda that is hostile to the overwhelming majority of
our people. We need to consider a day of action throughout the country to
kickstart such a campaign. Related to this we need an urgent sectoral summit on
development financing and banks. We need to ensure that this issue is placed
very high on the agenda of NEDLAC. This campaign needs to be dealt with together
with that of the issue of prescribed assets.
This Strategy Conference comrades should be seen mainly as taking forward
many of the activities and resolutions taken last year, as well as to refine our
programme of action. We have already dealt with the question of our strategic
perspectives on economi c restructuring. In addition, we had taken a resolution
on the role of the developmental state, and we are using this years
conference to disaggregate the state and focus on the question of its
restructuring. This will greatly assist us in the assessment of the extent to
which current restructuring is in line with our perspectives and further
concretising our resolution on defending and extending the public sector as well
as ensuring that the state plays an active, interventionist and developmental
role.
This year we have decided to also focus on party building. One of the key
issues to be discussed is on what kind of an SACP cadre do we need to develop
and nurture in the current period. We must expose and eliminate tendencies that
are inconsistent with th e culture of the Party e.g. traditional
leadership, the step-ladder phenomenon, grudge branches, and
other members members. The Party building commission needs to discuss
these issues frankly and openly and come with very specific proposals, withi n
the context of strengthening our Party.
With these words comrades we invite to fully participate in this conference,
with the knowledge and confidence that we will come out a stronger SACP after
this gathering. Amandla!
