Cheche+Selepe+on+the+law,+materialism,+liberation+and+Zuma

Hi Dom, capitalism commodifies everything from law to education including the species relationships between man and woman.

As you correctly point out lately: 'On the contrary, our studies have taught us, through dialogue and readings of Alexandra Kollontai, Angela Davis, Evelyn Reed, Teresa Ebert, and others that the way to approach the question of women’s’ oppression is along the historical materialist road, and not the route of police action and psychological regimentation.'

In as much as we support true women emancipation from all oppression including capitalism, racism and sexism we cannot believe that prisons, police etcetera are the best institutions to deal with such capitalist ills. Instead we say the system is the root-core of the continuing oppression of women and such we do not patronise or support the bourgeoisie-oriented emancipation of women by sending so-called rapists to prison. But instead we search and attack the root-core of the very oppression of women. We search and attack the very conditions, the bases of women oppression, which is slavery, feudalism and capitalism.

Throughout history the root-core of women oppression is related to their relations to the means of production. Under slavery, the slave-masters could practice the worst forms of sexual violence against both men and women-slaves alike.

Under feudalism, as in our neighbouring Swazi Kingdom, the monarch could easily compel young drawers of water to parade so he can choose a wife, impose the state of emergency and do as he please. Under capitalism, the wealthy do the same, they are trafficking women and children on a global scale.

How do you free young girls and women who have to travel kilometres to fetch water because the system cannot afford free water for all in their homes? Will you convince their male counterparts to help go fetch the water in order to partly free the women and children labour? Or will you strive for the system to provide water for all in their homes and thus provide freedom for all men, women and children?

Justifying their existence, a leader of the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust honestly lamented thus: 'You need more money to enjoy the best legal brains.'

But it goes far beyond justice that needs money to get the best of it. You need more money to enjoy the best women-rights, education, best health, housing, and best everything in life. Capitalism is brutal in that regard. It commodifies everything; from fresh air to clean water and everything. Law and the "best-legal defence" is a commodity like bread and butter.'

In dealing with the side-effects of capitalism such as racism, sexism and injustice, the capitalists have built prisons and continue building more to deal with those who cannot afford its "best legal-defence." Prisons, the courts, the police, the intelligence and the army are all established to maintain and give a human face to the terminally ill and inhuman capitalist system. You simply cannot manage the system without the use of such instruments.

Back to the Zuma saga, I do not want to lament on whether he is guilty or not but instead deal with the conditions under which he is found guilty or not. In fact deal with the root-causes of him being brought to court in the first place. Naturally, the system sends people it deems guilty to its most dirtiest, inhuman and cruel institutions called prison. There are millions of people serving prison sentences in capitalist than in any other society around the world. The highest ranking countries in incarcerations are capitalist with a close history of colonialism, slavery, racism and feudalism.

In the semi-socialist republic of China with its over billion population they do not need more prisons as in US with a mere less-than-200 million population. The capitalist US has the largest number of prisons and the highest number of incarcerations in the world, including juveniles serving life-sentences. Well, some feudal societies of the middle East hang rapists in public in order to deal with the scourge.

We still not interested with what the feudal, slavery and capitalist societies do to rapists, but the very conditions to have rape and the concomitant public hanging in some of these societies is what we want to deal with.

We saying sending rapists, thieves and so on to prisons does not help solve the problem but instead it aggravates the matter. And as such, we argue strongly that the root causes of rape and crime in general is in the system of poverty and plenty. Sending Zuma to prison will not solve the scourge, neither shall it send a "clear message" nor bring a permanent solution to the matter, hence we calling for an everlasting and permanent solution.

This is where the matter really lie. It is here that we begin linking the isolated social ills with the system as a whole – the capitalist system and all what it represents including women oppression.

This reminds one of a remark by an ex-councillor in Soweto. He said the capitalists want to cool-down crime, but we want to up-root it. He was correct, capitalism cools down women oppression, but we want to up-root it. And up-rooting it does not lie in deciding whether Zuma is guilty or not and thus "sending a clear message." That is out of the question. What is in the question is the conditions for the very existence of sexual violence.

We asking why is Zuma accused. We asking this question not to deal with his offence, but to deal with the conditions under which the offence occurs. And deal with those reasons, the bases or conditions as such.

We asking why she did not have money to further her studies? Why she did not have proper housing to go sleep at. Why she did not have a car to drive herself out of the "crime" scene. We asking why does she have to make the accusations in the first place? We asking lots of why's.

Our arguments are not depended on what Van der Merve, the judge says. Ours are the arguments that seek to look beyond Van Der Merve's brain. Women emancipation here is not taken from face-value such as waiting to hear Van Der Merve's verdict. We look at the issues as to why Van Der Merve should be where he is and decide on the fate of the comrade at this point in time. We look as to why Zuma and the rest of others (accused and accusers) should be in court in the first place, and deal with the conditions as such.

It is in cases like this that we link the local paintings or isolated struggles with the bigger capitalist picture. We linking all what capitalism represents in the local courts, the streets, the prisons and factories to what it represents as a whole.

By virtue of his status and role in the liberation struggle, the Zuma saga provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on the class problems in South Africa today. It will be difficult for you to understand the problems of capitalism if one was to cite a case of a certain Skoloto Modidi staying at a shack settlement in some part of SA.

A Skoloto Modidi of working class, peasant and black background represented by another judge of another background is already expressed guilty by a bourgeoisie white prosecutor to a bourgeoisie white judge in highly racial and class divided country.

Under such conditions, the condition for women emancipation lies in the emancipation of humanity from bourgeoisie rule.

If we understand the fact that class, race and women emancipation is a pipe-dream under conditions of capitalism, we could then agree with a Soweto councillor's remark that capitalism seeks to "cool-down" crime.

Therefore under such conditions, should we allude ourselves in arguing that we should send more "criminals" to prison in order to deal with crime or should we deal with the root-causes of crime, poverty and homelessness.

My humble advice is that you deal with the root-causes of women oppression not by appointing too many women as directors of companies or hanging rapists and sentencing others to life, but by dealing with the very conditions that make companies have board of directors in the first place, and the conditions for crime.

That is the gist of the argument and in contrast to Dominic Tweedie's lament that: “Innocent until proven guilty” surely cannot mean, as Cheche seems to think: “innocent even if proven guilty.”

The issue is beyond the verdict on whether guilty or not, but it transcends to dealing with the conditions for being pronounced innocent or guilty. It looks far beyond Van Der Merve's decision, Tweedie's lament, Lorgart's dream, Suttner's and others' belief.

The problem with theirs is that they are face-value arguments. In fact, they are liberal in that they seek to reform capitalism and not transform it. They seek to deal with the effects rather than the causes of women oppression. It is the same people that seek to deal with the effects rather than the causes of racism. They even seek means to deal with the effects rather than the root-causes of capitalism. That is reformist.

Thank you. Cheche Selepe

1526 words