Relationship+SACP,+State+Power,+elections,+YCL+discussion+documents




 * Young Communist League, Discussion Document to the National Policy and Strategy Conference**
 * 11-14 August, 2005, Makopane, Limpopo Province**

__The Relationship of the SACP to State Power__
//“The main thing that Socialists fail to understand—which constitutes their short-sightedness in matters of theory, their subservience to bourgeois prejudices, and their political betrayal of the proletariat—is that in capitalist society, whenever there is any serious aggravation of the class struggle intrinsic to that society…There can be no alternative but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dreams of some third way are reactionary, petty-bourgeois limitations. That is borne out by more than a century of development of bourgeois democracy in the working-class movement in all the advanced countries. … This is also borne out by the whole science of political economy, by the entire content of Marxism, which reveals the economic inevitability, wherever commodity economy prevails, of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that can only be replaced by the class which the very growth of capitalism develops, multiplies, welds together and strengthens; that is, the proletarian class.” V.I. Lenin, March 1919. // //“Marx and Engels in their last joint preface to the Communist Manifesto (in 1872)[A] considered it necessary to specifically warn the workers that the proletariat cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made (that is, the bourgeois) state machine and wield it for their own purpose, but that they must smash it, break it up. The bourgeoisie are compelled to be hypocritical and to describe as "popular government", democracy in general, or pure democracy, the (bourgeois) democratic republic which is, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the working people… But Marxists, Communists, expose this hypocrisy, and tell the workers and the working people in general this frank and straightforward truth: the democratic republic, the Constituent Assembly, general elections, etc., are, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and for the emancipation of labor from the yoke of capital there is no other way but to replace this dictatorship with the dictatorship of the proletariat.” V.I. Lenin, December, 1918: Democracy and Dictatorship.//

The issue of how the SACP should relate to power, particularly state power has arisen anew. Ten years ago, the issue of the working class taking power through the SACP was a taboo. Thanks to the Mid-Term Vision and the Review of our 10 years of Democracy, the debate on the relationship of the SACP to power has arisen, raised by members and sympathizers of the Party openly and without any fear. The 10 years review really showed that the working class has made insignificant, but important gains, and the bourgeoisie has highly benefited from the capitalist regime of accumulation under way in the country. Since the discussion has started there was no debate on whether the Party should contest elections or not. There is agreement on the fact that the SACP should contest state power, the current discussion is whether this should take the electoral form, and whether the time has come for such the party to take that route.
 * 1. Introduction**

The key question, especially with the discussion on the Review of 10 Years of Democracy, is what did the Alliance DO with Parliamentary Democracy? What is it that is different that the SACP will do with such Democracy? Did the Strategic victory of the Alliance of the three successive relations change the nature and character of the state machinery, property relations and qualitatively change the lives of the working class and the poor.

Part of the conceptualisation of the YCL is that through parliamentary democracy, especially with the majority that the ANC has and the Alliance have won since, there is the might to change bring into effect the previous three positions, there is only the need for political will.

Since the starting of the debate, we would like to indicate that there are those amongst our ranks, or who jumped into our ranks, excitedly seeking to hijack the debate and pursue an ultra-left and anti-ANC and anti-Alliance route. We will later explore this emergent tendency, which had dissipated when the Party explored other route of asserting working class hegemony and they became sideline critiques of the Party itself.

We should caution that the debate, although well intended, can be used by other forces to try and destabilise the Party. The YCL is of the view that the political basis of this discussion should firstly be located within the latter and spirit of the Mid-Term Vision, and secondly and importantly, within Marxism-Leninism.

We need to also raise various concerns around the nature of the current debate, and what the eventuality of such a debate will be, for instance:


 * Firstly, there is no indication of what tactics the SACP will apply in advancing socialism through electoral power, if it wins elections, or what will happen, or should happen, if the SACP looses,
 * Secondly, as part of the scenarios, the debates does not consider the fact that, based on the balance of forces, the SACP might not win the elections and thus, all the decisions made will be by the ANC-led government and thus, will be prattle for the ‘working class’ and might have no major significance.
 * Thirdly, that the new arising of the debate is based on the MDC route, particularly as raised by the SACP document, and that this seeks to blackmail the debate and conned it into some “you dare contest for elections we will treat you like the MDC is being treated by ZANU-PF”
 * Fourthly, that the political decision on contesting for elections will or is being constrained by the financial resources to support such a decision, and also that technicalities around the membership status, human resource capacity and an ability to contest and win elections within bourgeoisie democracy is not possible.
 * Fifthly, that comrades conclude that the discussion on state power should be held outside the Mid-Term Vision of the SACP and that it is synonymous to breaking the alliance is in itself problematic.
 * Lastly, that some comrades have this discussion on state power being held with the forthcoming Local government elections in mind, and therefore, that we have the pressure of resolving this discussion so that we ready ourselves for those elections is a bit problematic.

The YCL discussion document will throughout seek to locate itself within the Mid-Term vision and the perspective of the SACP; of that the alliance remains a tactical manoeuvre; of that we realise the significance of the national and gender question as interrelated to the class question and of that the debate ultimately seeks to reaffirm our premise of building socialism now. With all this issues in mind, this discussion paper will focus on the following issues:


 * What do we mean by State Power and what significance does this have for the SACP.
 * What is our characterisation of a capitalist state in general and the SA state in particular.
 * Our Characterisation of the NDR and the SA State,
 * Elections, Parliamentarism and the struggle for Socialism,
 * Elections and Parliamentarism as a tactic of seizing State Power,
 * The SACP, the Alliance, the Historic mission and where to,
 * The Elections debate as an intensification of the Mid-Term Vision and the Mid-Term Strategy.

In conclusion, we will try and develop a YCL perspective on the debate, and therefore, the paper will trouble itself with the following:


 * The different positions within the SACP on how the SACP should relate to state power.
 * The shortcomings of each position and approach.
 * Also that the tactical and strategic choices that each position takes stems from the conceptualisation of the capitalist state in general and the SA capitalist state in particular.

Let us start with the obvious, because it is the obvious which is no longer obvious. Society did not always have a state. The state is a derivative of the emergence classes. The state is an instrument of class rule. The state takes functions of society, which were collective functions – economic, policing, justice etc. A capitalist state emerged in order to protect the interests of capital through the reproduction of labour, maintenance of property relations, protect local markets, and use repressive apparatus if other ideological instruments have failed.
 * 2. What do we mean by State Power and what significance does this have for the SACP?**

As young Marxist-Leninist we define the state as an institution of class oppression, and seek to capture the state for the advancement of working class interests and aspirations. We characterise the South African state as capitalist, and implementing Social Democratic and neo-liberal reforms that are compatible to the cruel and violent capitalist system. Although the ANC is dominant, and in fact, the majority party in all three spheres of government, most of the economic and social legislation succumbs to the international neo-liberal agenda. The manner, in which the South African transition was achieved, ensured that the Apartheid superintendents remain in control of the major state apparatus. This includes the judiciary, the police, the army, the media, and private capital and key public service institutions.

We believe as the YCL that the organised working class should express their relationship to power. In as much as the working class is the leading motive force of the National Democratic Revolution, and have bestowed their trust on the ANC as an organised formation to lead the project of the NDR, we should understand that the ANC is a multi-class organisation. We recognise the ANC as the leader of the Alliance with the SACP and COSATU; however, the SACP and COSATU are unapologetically socialist formations, organising workers and the working class.

There is a growing consensus that, as indicated earlier and as we will expand on the issue, and, based on the issues raised, the SACP should contest State Power. This discussion cannot go by without proper contextualisation by the YCL. We should ask the question; whose interest (class) will the SACP serve if it contests for state power and what nature and form will the Alliance take. There has also been suggestion that opposition from towards the ANC will come from within, mainly suggested by the bourgeoisie and liberal media, we should be careful that discussions to that end does not respond, or aim to respond to such suggestions framed in revolutionary lingo.

We have seen how in the past 10 years since 1994 the democratic state suffered major blows as a result of those whose interests are to undermine this transition. Significant working class friendly legislation for economic and social transformation have been passed, in the interest of advancing the National Democratic Revolution, but this have been undermined by white monopoly and multi-national capital.

The advances made since 1994 broadens and narrow the platform for a socialist agenda .It broadens the platform only in that it guarantees various bourgeoisie democratic rights such as the rights for trade-unions to organise and strike; the right for political parties such as the SACP to operate freely and legally; the right to maintain and advance criticism through any forms of expression without fear of state violence and repression. It narrows the platform in that our focus is the resolve of the class struggle, with its form being that of continued but illegal gender and racial oppression.

Parliament is also one of the bourgeoisie institutions that must be smashed! Parliamentarism is a form of bourgeoisie rule that emerged out the need for the bourgeoisie to control the ‘public’ finance generated through taxes they paid. To illustrate, the cause of the 1629-1640 Civil War in which Charles I imposed taxation without convening parliament. As a result they did not see the necessity for the working class to vote because they did not pay tax. The right to vote was initially the privileged of the white propertied men –slaves, women and wage-labourers were prohibited from voting or standing for public office.

Of course parliamentarism developed to a point where the working class, including women were allowed to vote, but its essence remained: that is parliament is an institution that guarantees ‘freedom’ for, but on condition that the interests of the bourgeoisie interests. A number of social democratic parties worked on illusions that parliament will bring about significant change. The history of the last century has proven that any anti-capitalist change from parliament is resisted by capital in different ways such as investments strikes, attack of the national currency, etc.

Put differently, the role of the state under capitalism is to maintain the political, social and economic system that facilitates the exploitation and domination of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie rule takes different forms in different periods. Fascism, Apartheid and liberal democracy are amongst other forms of bourgeoisie rule and domination. The form of democracy that emerged out of the English, French and American revolutions were initially meant to protect civilized white men – women and workers were disfranchised.

The intention of communist should not be to seize the current state, given our characterisation of its capitalist nature, but to smash it. We ask the question, is it possible to smash the capitalist state through parliamentarism, electoralism. Should we not be careful as communist that we do not lock ourselves in the parliamentary power such that we cannot proceed towards socialism? What is the significance of parliamentarism towards the advancement of socialism? We will deal with these questions later…

The structure and conduct of a capitalist state must be problematised. The hierarchy of the capitalist state itself is also problematic, it reproduces unequal power relations and domination, reflects the broader capitalist society of inequality. The Director Generals and other senior officials, earn more than an ordinary worker, whereas workers’ plays a major role in the state. The DGs and other senior officials earn a lot of money, and their standard of living is more or less similar to the capitalists.
 * 3. Summarily, what is our characterisation of a capitalist state in general and the SA state in particular?**

The ordinary workers in the state earn more or less the similar salaries with the factory workers. We need to argue for inequalities of income in the state. Officials or any member in the state should earn more than a skilled worker, this will deal with people who want to use public office for their personal interests and undermine careerism, which is one of the key material basis for ideological opportunism within the working class movement.

The capitalist state is oppressive in nature, it is about the suppression of one class by another. Lenin helps in summating the character of the capitalist state:

//“In no civilized capitalist country does "democracy in general" exist; all that exists is bourgeois democracy, and it is not a question of "dictatorship in general", but of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, i.e., the proletariat, over its oppressors and exploiters, i.e., the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance offered by the exploiters in their fight to maintain their domination.”//

We have earlier on characterised our attitude towards parliament, and indicated its suppressive nature in the past.
 * 4. Elections, Parliamentarism and the struggle for Socialism.**

The right to vote was initially the privileged of the white propertied men –slaves, women, wage-labourers were prohibited from voting or standing for public office. Representative democracy limits popular participation in government. Representatives are elected regularly but cannot be recalled immediately if they dishonour their obligations or implement reactionary policies. Representation obliterates participatory democracy. Representative democracy leads to the alienation of power from the people. The proletariat is not given an opportunity to exercise their power and run the country and their won workplaces because power is given to capitalists, managers and politicians. The bosses also manipulate the politicians, and the real power lies outside parliament. Bourgeoisie dominance does not only end in parliament – it is also extended or have influence in workplaces, schools, media, universities etc.

It will not be possible to overthrow capitalism through parliament. When the elections tactic does not work, the bourgeoisie would not hesitate, like it did with Allende in Chile in 1973 after he nationalised the mines owned by the US companies. It is for this reason that the masses must always be organized on the ground.

What are the tasks of communists in parliament? Parliament is part of the bourgeoisie state that has assumed a ‘democratic’ form. Lenin went at length in dealing with the role of communists in parliament in which he argued that parliament is not a representation of workers’ democracy. However, under certain circumstances communists need to participate in it not with an illusion that it will bring about socialism, instead communists must replace bourgeoisie state including parliament with workers state.

We need to, as the YCL, ask the critical question, in South Africa, where does Power Lie? When we say that we should seize state power, we need to ensure that we know where this power lie. We characterised earlier on state apparatus as the executive, the judiciary and the suppressive organs. Within the executive, most power lies in the hands on an individual, the president. In the judiciary, which is always purported as independent, power lies in the judge and in the army, power also lies with the president as the commander in chief. We need to ask ourselves as to how do we influence this apparatus through elections.

The struggle against Apartheid was the struggle for the extension of bourgeoisie democratic rights towards the excluded majority. This struggle, the National Democratic struggle, was for the eradication of racism and sexism and was characterised as a direct route towards the abolition of exploitation of man by man. The forces that were united behind the overthrow of Apartheid were mainly the black working class together with the then emerging middle class and the black petty bourgeoisie. The immediate objective of this class forces was the resolve of the National Question, and the creation of a ‘democratic’ society. All the forces that united towards this goal stood to benefit through the eradication of Apartheid.
 * 5. The SACP, the Alliance, the Historic mission and where to.**

These class forces were united under the leadership and organisation of the African National Congress [ANC], and the alliance with our SACP. There were various other organisations of mass character, comprising students, youth, women, workers and business. This class unity of forces ultimately led to the overthrow of Apartheid, the extension of universal suffrage protected by the constitution and the election of a government were all participated. From there henceforth, the unity of the same forces that we fighting Apartheid emerged and under the leadership of the ANC, a new government of national unity was formed.

The transition for the extension of the ‘basic democratic rights’, or bourgeoisie rights, was fraught with compromises. Part of the major compromises meant that the ‘white’ capitalist oligarchy, the judiciary system, the police and the army remained untransformed for quite some time. In essence, the democratic government had to introduce ‘reforms’ through legislation to ensure that the state apparatus reflected and was controlled by the new government. There was of course use of various institutions that the old regime were in control of, such as the media, to frustrate the determination of the new government to speedily transform and create a new order.

There remain two major issues that the revolutionary breakthrough could not change, and this signified the progress or regress made. These were the change in property relations and the mode of production. The consensus burden meant that white agricultural and finance capital remained untouched and untransformed. The approach of the ANC led government was to introduce measures that will ensure that this institutions, such as Anglo-American and others, to be as representative as possible. But the rule of the market remained.

Since 1994 there has been much emphasis on nation building and reconciliation, under the guise of the Freedom Charter’s ‘the land belong to all who live in it. Various symbolic acts were performed by the leadership of the ANC, particularly in government, to showcase the significance of a nation in racial unity and reconciliation. Parallel to such symbolic acts were persistent poverty and unemployment on the part of black South Africans, a problem that has remained with ‘non-racist’ South Africa for quite some time.

The political representatives of the various class forces can be constituted by the Democratic Alliance, the then New National Party, the IFP and the ACDP. These political parties advocate for market capitalism at all costs. On the other hand, you have the trade-union movement, the SACP and small but vocal formations such as the Anti-Privatisation Forum, characterising themselves as social movements and representing single and basic issues. These organisations have in form and content articulated the views and interests of the working class. the ANC on the other hand, that is the ruling class, characterises itself as social-democratic. Embracing the role of the state in the economy, but equally emphasising the role of market capitalism. This has emerged in various government positions and statements, especially in the Response to the Budget speech made by the President earlier in the year.

There is a new characterization of the state being developmental, taking forward action in the infrastructure development of the country, and ensuring that the market has some role to play in that regard. Some sense of creating a ‘neutral state’, serving both the working class and the bourgeoisie. This is what has become known as the ‘third way’. The SACP has hence through believed that it is possible to create building blocks of socialism within capitalism, and has gone to much greater extent in introducing various forms of economic development and pressurized both government and private capital to conform to such forms of economic development.

We need to firstly indicate as the YCL that the scenarios that are presented by some of the discussion papers are within the Mid-Term Vision of the SACP, and are presented through the traditions of the SACP. Those are the scenarios we will present here.
 * 6. The Various Scenarios Presented by Some Discussion Papers.**


 * //Scenario 1: The SACP Central Committee Discussion Document.//**

In summary, the SACP Congress Discussion Document of an Electoral Path for the SACP is full of technical justifications why we should not contest for elections. It indicates that in a capitalist society, and a capitalist state, it will be difficult for the bourgeoisie to finance an SACP campaign; the SACP does not have the financial and human resource capacity to run an election campaign; the party, although having experienced extreme growth in membership, remains weak at a branches and so forth and so forth.

The document goes further to intimidate proponents of state power not to be excited by the MDC route, and that unlike the MDC, we do not have the potential to invite global and local financial sympathy. An important issue raised from the document becomes the issue of ‘not confining state-power’ to electoral power. As the YCL, we subscribe to this view. We believe that we should be careful of the twin dangers of an electoral path. Firstly, it is not only through an electoral path that the working class can be mobilised for the attainment of socialism, and that the Party should not necessarily lock itself into parliamentary democracy and it becomes a strategy, rather than a tactic. As we said earlier, we need to consider what will happen should the SACP loose, and who will be taking decisions and what effect will they have on the working class. Secondly, that an electoral path has the potential of demobilising all other option or routes towards socialism.


 * //Scenario 2: The Congress should decide on a Scenario Planning Route!//**

The second scenario suggests that we need to engage ourselves into a scenario planning. The YCL is quite sympathetic to this view, moreover, our expressed fear is that the debate on State Power, or rather, electoral power, has mainly been an engagement in leadership. We believe that a process of scenario planning will take the debate down to branches, and whatever the decision, will be a popular and massive one. This does not necessarily negate the vanguard role that the Central Committee will continue to play in guiding the debate. We should however not use this to prolong the discussion. As Che Guevara warned:

//“The road is long and full of difficulties. At times, the route strays off course and it is necessary to retreat; at times, a too rapid pace separates us from the masses and on occasions the pace is slow and we feel upon our necks the breath of those who follow upon our heels. Our ambition as revolutionaries makes us try to move forwards as far as possible, opening up the way before us, but we know that we must be reinforced by the mass, while the mass will be able to advance more rapidly if we encourage it by our example” Man and Socialism in Cuba: March, 1965//


 * //Scenario 3: The SACP should through the ANC-led Alliance pursue Socialism, like the July 26 Movement in Cuba, the ANC constitute a viable route to socialism!//**

Comrades who are sympathetic to this view believe that, as the National Democratic Revolution, an interrelated struggle of class, gender and race, is pursued; this presents a direct route towards Socialism. Advocators of this scenario, linked to some of the views expressed in the Central Committee discussion document, argue that the ANC remains a working class organisation and that the strategic role of the alliance inherently leads to Socialism.

Correctly, this scenario argues that contesting independently for elections will change the nature with which the relationship in the Alliance is shaped.

A much more vocal argument is that there are representatives of the SACP in the national and provincial legislature and also in the municipalities, we only have to engage the ANC such that this representatives receives mandate from and speaks on behalf of the Party.


 * //Scenario 4: The SACP should stand for Elections as an incremental approach to the ANC’s presence in parliament.//**

This view is regarded as an extremist view. It suggests that the only way for the party to make a significant impact in local, provincial and national level is if it contests for elections. The argument is sometimes based on the idea that there are various compromises and set-backs suffered by the working class through the ANC-led government, and that the Party could do much more and build on the gains achieved for the past ten years.

It is submitted that, through parliament, the party can initially at a minimal level, and then gradually in a maximum level, change the lives of the working class for the better. Propagators of this argument believes that this can be done in alliance with the ANC-led alliance, and that the role of the Party, still, will be to complement for the work that the ANC-led alliance have done.


 * //Scenario 5: The SACP Special National Congress Resolution (2005:04)//**

The resolution of the SNC brings in a new dimension that we need not lament about, but take advantage of it. The SNC resolution states that the SACP Central Committee will establish a Commission that will:

“…assess the opportunities, challenges and threats to the achievement of our Medium Term Vision of building a Party of power, influence and activism… This must include the development of strategic options with regard to election participation by the Party… The commission must be guided by the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, by our Medium Term Vision, approaching an electoral strategic perspective in terms of the working class, state power and the role of the South African Communist Party...

…The commission should, amongst other things, assess the organisational capacity and readiness of the SACP… canvass the views of the organised working class and workers and the poor in general…engage our Alliance partners and other progressive social formations… assess the extensive electoral and state-power experience, both positive and negative, of our own Party and of Communist and other Left parties world-wide, and of the variety of organisational forms in which the Left is or has contested and exercised power.” Taken SACP Special National Congress Resolution on SACP Participation in Elections.

We have a responsibility as the YCL to ensure that the Party implements such a resolution. We have to insist that the work of the commission is kept on the public eye and that members of the SACP and YCL informs its ultimate outcome. If we are confident that SACP and YCL members desires such a Party, we need to foster then a popular decision in that regard.

We must insist that the SACP should seek direct representation in local government elections. This should be negotiated with the ANC and clear agreements need to be made on what the role of communists in such local government structures are, and to whom are they accountable to. This will be a step further and separate from the work of the commission.

The YCL is sympathetic to various elements of the scenarios as presented, and from our stand-point, the following conclusions can be made and build upon a resolution by the Special Congress:
 * //7. Conclusion.//**

Firstly, and emphatically, the SACP has defined its relationship to state power in the Mid-Term Vision. The MTV describes the relationship to electoral power as a conjectural issue, and in our view, tactical. We believe that periodic conjectural conditions should be assessed, and sometimes fostered, such that different phases of the National Democratic Revolution receive tactical or strategic action.

Secondly, the Alliance is a strategic platform and thus, given the various phases of the National Democratic Revolution, should not be used to compromise the strategic nature of the Alliance. The SACP ‘s strategic approach to state power must not obliviously not only be based on whether the contest will make or break the alliance, or guided by attempts to make the capitalist state work better by incorporating communists into it.

But it must be located within the overall socialist strategy to destroy capitalism, including its institutions, which reproduce and maintain class domination and exploitation. Unfortunately if the ANC wants to produce non-racial capitalism, it cannot be left untouched. It is not out the hatred of the ANC for the working class to contest state power, but it is out the hatred of capitalism.

Thirdly, that the SACP cannot seek to transform society outside the mainstream policy and legislative structures as an independent political party. If the current process of deploying communists (there is a new tendency of identifying communists as active in ANC structures as the only communists who qualify for parliamentary elections) can translate into the SACP virtually being present in parliament, then we should continue. The ultimate objective that the YCL seeks to advance, and achieve, is a representation of Communists in the various levels of government.

Fourthly, the SACP should continue is asserting its power and authority through various sections of the state. We should not however run with an illusion that the SACP will through a magic wand score revolutionary victory through the current bourgeoisie state and society. Our ultimate vision is to ‘smash’ the capitalist state.

Fifthly, it is not only though parliamentary, or bourgeoisie democracy that we can achieve socialism. As the bourgeoisie democracy intensifies, and bourgeoisie society deepens its presence, the struggle for socialism will be both difficult and simple. It would not, like the transition from Apartheid to inclusive democracy, be a negotiated transition. It will be about the real change in property relations and thus, will pit comrades against comrades.

'Debout freres de misere! (Up ! Brothers of misery !) 'Ne voulons plus de frontiers! (We want no more frontiers) 'Pour egorger la bourgeoisie! (To loot the bourgeoisie) 'Et supprimer la tyrranie! (And suppress tyranny) 'Il faut avoir du Coeur! (We must have heart) 'Et de l'energie!' (And energy!)
 * Taken from John Reed: The Forbidden**.


 * From: http://www.sacp.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=261&Itemid=107**