Response+to+Mazibuko+Jara,+David+Masondo,+Bottom+Line




 * Bottom Line (YCL On-Line periodical) Issue 1, Vol 3: 16 January 2006 - 30 January 2006**

A response to Mazibuko Jara.

 * By David Masondo**

=Red is the Colour of our Flag—in Defence of the Rule of Law.=

Mazibuko Jara (herein after referred to as MJ) wrote a ‘confidential’ paper titled ‘ What colour is our flag? Red or JZ? A critique of the SACP approach on the JZ matter’, which eventually leaked to the media. The paper raises a number of critical conjectural, theoretical, strategic and tactical issues facing the working class, and the SACP in particular. The issues raised are not new. They have been discussed informally and formally within and outside the SACP and YCL structures, in which MJ actively participated as a listener. Unfortunately MJ gives a report back that significantly distorts the positions of the SACP and the YCL. After contemplating whether it was worth responding to MJ’s paper which is characterized by lack of originality, I then felt it is proper to respond not only to set the record straight for proper historical recording of the SACP and YCL positions, but also to respond to the slander, innuendos, lies and distortions entailed in the paper which is already in the public domain.

MJ makes a plea for a discussion of what has been dubbed the ‘JZ matter or saga’, as if there is no such a space and discussion within the SACP. MJ advises the SACP not to undermine ‘the importance of bourgeoisie institutions’ and must respect the ‘rule of law’. Thereafter, the SACP is effectively advised to stay away from the defence of ‘innocent until proven guilty principle’ and rather focus on its campaigns before it looses its ‘political capital’.

The YCL is treated with disdain and some petty-bourgeoisie arrogance. We are told that ‘the case of the YCL is sad, to say the least.... Through its recklessness, the YCL has also undermined the possibility of any left strategy in seeking to influence the outcomes of the 2007 ANC conference’. There is no substantiation on how the YCL has been ‘reckless’.

As one reads the paper, it is not clear whether MJ is implicitly arguing against JZ becoming the ANC President, or supports the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but not as it relates to JZ because he is a ‘former communist’, ‘traditionalist’ and anti-intellectual. A delineation of issues is not a mechanical way of analysis or a mere hair splitting exercise. A defence of the principle of innocent until proven guilty and whether this applies only to communists is distinct from the ANC presidential campaign, which is the role responsibility of the ANC membership. But in MJ’s paper both are conflated and the ANC presidential campaign is also attributed to the SACP and the YCL. For this reason, one will not only re-state the YCL’s positions and the manner in which I understand the adopted SACP’s positions on the matter even before the 2005 Augmented Central Committee, but also challenge certain conceptual flaws in MJ’s paper. Of course, an internal and external critical examination of the SACP and YCL positions must be welcomed for this will enrich our insights and perspectives. But this should not be based on lies and distortions of our positions as MJ successfully does.


 * Working class spontaneity, the intra-class struggles within the historically oppressed and the JZ saga.**

The current crisis, personified in JZ, is a cumulative experience of the last ten years, which must be located within class struggle and class formation underway, and how the post- (neo)-colonial state is used to deal with the working class, revolutionary dissent, different fractions of capital, leadership that may be sympathetic (real or perceived) to the working class, and how the state cherry-picks on corruption or selectively deals with corruption, including the arms deal. In this process of class struggle and formation, there are intra-class and inter-class contradictions, which produce particular forms of alliance, spontaneity, consciousness and organization that we may (dis)like.

The structural capitalist crisis, which predates 1994, aggravated by GEAR has produced different working class spontaneous and organizational responses. Contemporary social movements are as a result of the current capitalist structural crisis. Some of these movements were originally formed with the participation of the SACP and COSATU (e.g. APF). Within the congress movement, this has also led to the independent popular actions of the economic and political organs of the working class (e.g. SACP, COSATU) through public and mass-driven protests, albeit not organically connected to the contemporary social movements although the SACP has recently forged some alliances with some of the working class organisations on the financial, land and agrarian fronts. It is some of these struggles that led to the briefing notes that labeled the SACP and COSATU ultra-left. In these struggles that have produced certain working class spontaneous actions that MJ and others like and dislike.

The crisis was also accompanied by international and local white monopoly capital’s attempts to build a black bourgeoisie to serve as a buffer between the working class and the white monopoly capital. The process of the formation of the black bourgeoisie (miniscule as it is) in the post-1994 period, has been accompanied by intra-class struggles within this class and forging of new alliances, sometimes through co-option of the ANC leadership, by local and international capital. Some of the sections of emerging black bourgeoisie (miniscule as they are) are more connected to international and local capital than others. For this reason, both local and international capitals have their own preferred political leaders to lead the capitalist state in order to guarantee conditions for capital accumulation. The combination of the structural crisis and class struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie, and the intra-class amongst the black bourgeoisie as well as the inter-class struggle between black and white bourgeoisies manifested itself in the so-called JZ saga. This has also expressed itself through the working class spontaneity and capital intra-warfare.

The analysis that the JZ saga is as a result of the intra-class contradictions within the emerging bourgeoisie and the fact that the state is a key site of capital accumulation, has been made in informal and formal structures of the YCL (e.g. 2005 National policy conference). This intra-class contradictions or competition has losers and winners like in any capitalist mode of production in which there is always a tendency of concentration and centralization of capital (including power) arising out of this competition. The only thing that MJ omits in his report on the intra-competition of the bourgeoisie which finds expression in the ANC and the state, is what happens to those who get defeated and pauperized as a result of this competition and what should be the tactical response of the Party which is still in alliance with the ANC.


 * The ‘rule of law’, inconsistencies and what we have said**

The YCL and the SACP defended JZ on the basis of the principle of innocent until proven guilty. As the YCL and SACP, we did not do so because he (JZ) is a civilising modernist or a traditionalist or a sangoma, as our ‘rational’ civilising modernist MJ argues. We did not defend the Deputy President because he is left or right as MJ and co. have alleged. We did not defend JZ because he is Zulu as ethicists have argued. We defended the principle of innocent until proven guilty, which is in line with the Constitution and a basis for the ‘rule of law’. We have never minced words in defence of this principle, which cannot be divorced or separated from politics as MJ does, because the principle is inherently political and cannot be depoliticised. Some people located in different of society, have contravened this principle by treating him unfairly, including finding him guilty before appearing in a ‘fair’ court of law. In actual fact, some sections of the media and the state, particularly the NPA, have contravened the law, yet no one, including MJ and co., have called for respect of the ‘rule of law’. We are correctly asked by MJ to defend these democratic rights which are not inherently bourgeoisie, but have been appropriated to suit the bourgeoisie interests. But when we defend JZ on the same basis we are told that we are ‘demagogically questioning’ the rule of law.

The issue on whether comrade Deputy President has made an error of judgment in the manner in which he related with Shabir Shaik, described as a ‘generally corrupt relationship’, or the latest rape allegation, is neither here nor there because these must still be tested and proven in a ‘fair court’. This has been appropriated by some within and outside the movement to bolster their own political agenda.

Where does this agenda come from? The ANC NEC has already given us some pointers. If the agenda to deal with the ANC Deputy President is or may have been conducted by undefined forces outside the movement as suggested by the 18-20 November 2005 ANC NEC Statement, then it would seem that this agenda is consciously or unconsciously supported by some inside the liberation movement, albeit for different and common reasons. If it is inside, then it would seem that it is supported by outside forces. This does not mean we should conduct a witch-hunt or draw a red herring because not everything that goes wrong within the liberation movement can be attributed to outside forces. There are comrades in our ranks who do not agree with us not because they are in alliance with the outside forces. In other words we should not dismiss all revolutionary criticisms levelled against us as counter-revolution and as always inspired by imperialism and its local agents.

It is worth noting that there is something common in almost all the messages against our YCL position and the ANC Deputy President, yet distinct with different nuances and methods. A majority of them like MJ, have hypocritically invoked the respect for the rule of law as and when we defend JZ on the very basis principle of the ‘rule of law’, which is innocent until proven guilty. Some have selectively used the state institutions to pursue this political agenda, resulting in major inconsistencies in the manner in which the state conducts itself, including its application of the ‘rule of law’, thus confirming our view that the dominant factor behind what appears to be a ‘corruption trial’ is a political agenda.

During the Hefer Commission which was investigating spy allegations against the former NPA Director, it was alleged that he (Ngcuka) made racist remarks and smeared the Deputy President in the off-recoding media briefings and his office leaked information smearing the ANC Deputy President. This was further confirmed by the head of the commission who said: “However, I find Mr Maharaj’s evidence most disturbing. As I have already said, it is beyond doubt that leaks did occur. I have also indicated that it is highly likely that the guilty party was within Mr Ngcuka’s office and we have it from Mr Ngcuka himself that he or she could not be traced. Such a state of affairs cannot be tolerated’. It has been many months since this happened; yet no one has bothered to follow up in investigating the racist remarks alleged to have been made by the former NPA head and the media leaks originating from the same office. Despite these findings, no one was fired. But Billy Masethla, the suspended DG of Intelligence and his colleagues were suspended within a week after it was alleged that they investigated Saki Macozoma. MJ and co. is this not creating an environment in which others are more important and untouchable? Once touched all shall be fired!

The Public Protector also found that the rights of the ANC Deputy President were violated in many ways. Later the former Minister of Justice, Maduna and Ngcuka insulted the findings, and no one, including MJ called for the respect of the rule of law. But when the YCL criticized Squires for finding the Deputy President guilty in absentia, we are told that we do not respect the ‘rule of law’. There is nothing wrong in criticizing any outcome of a court of law or anything on, beneath or above the earth because there is nothing sacrosanct and infallible. There is everything wrong if other people have a right to criticize and others do not – if they do they are castigated and crucified for their views, as it has been the case with the YCL when we criticized Squires’s court judgment regarding JZ. When others criticize, they invite labels such as unprincipled populism’ from MJ and co.

By and large, MJ and company have never spoken against the abuse of state institutions directed at the ANC Deputy President. Why is MJ and co. not questioning these double standards as the defenders of the ‘rule of law’? How MJ and co. justifies these inconsistencies? There is no answer in MJ’s paper. The only answer we get from the paper is that JZ is guilty even before he is proven guilty because it is alleged that he supports virginity test etc. Surely these are practices that reproduce gender oppression. Should this principle be applied selectively to those who are real or perceived traditionalists? Is this conflating the task of ‘educating’ society about these issues and the principle of innocent until proven guilty, a correct way of dealing with these oppressive practices?

MJ argues that ‘it is questionable whether the defense of JZ represents a best strategy and tactics through which to conduct a political and class struggle against such a project’. Yes, if this class project abuses state power and finds people guilty before proven innocent, then this is one of the best tactics to deal with it. The basic contradictions under capitalism are between labour and capital, and secondary contradictions within capital are important as well. And if it means that we should form alliances with class forces that do not objectively have the same class interests with us in defense of this principle so be it, and simultaneously conduct a principled ideological struggle and maintain working class independence as has been the case. Independence of the SACP does not mean no to forming alliances. According to MJ we should not defend this principle because we will attract those ‘convicted, tax evaders, corrupt officials under investigations…’ We must deal with opportunism, but not abandon the principle.

By failing to speak out against this, MJ and co. (un) consciously strengthens and ‘fronts’ for a particular fraction of capital in the historically oppressed. He does not condemn its abuse of state power and the contravention of the ‘rule of law’. Instead he appeals to communists to uncritically support the ‘rule of law’ and indirectly strengthen the fraction of capital that uses state power to settle political issues within the liberation movement.


 * MJ, law fetishism and reification**

MJ asks ‘who loses most when there is no rule of law under capitalism…’ In answering this question, MJ reveals his reified and fetish conception of the law. He does not see law as a reflection of power relations in society. We are advised and cautioned that if the rule of law collapses then the working class will suffer. We are told that whenever there is a collapse of the rule of law the left forces suffer as if when the Tsarist or Apartheid rule of law collapsed, the working class suffered. We are referred to Congo and told that the collapse of the rule of law led to the suffering of the working class, as if the law just mysteriously collapsed outside the social class struggles and level of class organization and mobilization. The issue is: laws within each social formation reflect class power relations between classes. If the balance of forces significantly changes in favour of the bourgeoisie, the working class suffers, and the law will reflect the balance of power in society. The crises in the DRC or in any situation where the working class suffers reflect balance of forces between classes. It is not about the presence or absence of the rule of law as MJ and co. would like us to believe. Such superficial analysis puts the cart before the horse by making the presence or absence of the law the cause of the suffering of the working class, and the balance of class power the effects. Presence and absence of particular regimes of laws reflect balance of class power.

MJ sees the law and courts as neutral spaces like a market in which all consumers have a right to choose commodities. The issue of power relations is thrown out of the window in MJ’s analysis. Under Apartheid there was a rule of law which said black and white, men and women are not equal. Therefore anyone who defied the law was prosecuted. Under liberal capitalism, which is relatively better than Fascist rule of law, all of us are equal before the law, but on condition that you have money to defend your case. Justice is commodified. MJ as usual, commits a category mistake by confusing appearance (e.g. formal equality) and reality. We need to critique formal equality and formal legal rights because they are compatible with capitalism and have been successfully used to protect the system. As opposed to giving these rights a canonized liberal orthodox status as MJ does, we must radicalize these rights for social emancipation.

According to MJ, the ‘errors of Stalinism’ of bureaucratisation were as a result of the absence separation of powers between ‘parliament, judiciary and other state institutions’. This is just a shallow liberal account of the degeneration of the Bolshevik proletarian revolution. Yes, the degeneration of the revolution was a consequence of two related processes. On the one hand, there was a rise of bureaucracy within the party and the state and the decline of the proletarian democracy. These were the effects of the main cause which was the backwardness and underdevelopment of the Russian society exacerbated by the civil war which found expression in scarcity for material resources. As a result, the bureaucracy emerged as an instrument of control above the masses. Contrary to a reformist Kautskyian argument that the degeneration of the revolution was inherent in the Bolshevik strategy because it did not allow capitalism to further develop, this was due to the failure of the socialist revolution in the west, thus resulting in the isolation of the revolution which took a bureaucratic turn.


 * Presidential campaign as a dominant issue in the JZ saga**

As earlier pointed out, it would be politically naïve to argue that there is no political agenda behind the manner in which JZ has been treated. Zuma‘s relationship with Shaik is being appropriated by a particular fraction of capital to pursue this agenda .The key issue is about the presidential succession in the ANC and JZ is not a preferred candidate by this fraction. Even if the presidential candidate is not JZ, would MJ and co. agree that the state should be used to settle presidential succession debate in the ANC as it is the case right now, including finding someone guilty before proven innocent?

The dominant issue is about presidential succession in the ANC. Large sections of media have also taken positions on the ANC presidential succession debate and found the Deputy President guilty on the basis of their preferred choices. The Mail and Guardian editorial once said ‘Zuma is not a leader of South Africa in the 21st century. He should not be allowed to take us back to an earlier and darker stage’. In order to make sure that the Deputy President does not become the next ANC president, the media and MJ deemed it fit to violate the ‘rule of law’ and subject him to the highest kangaroo court and found him guilty because they want someone who will take us to the civilized and enlighten modern world. This means even if the courts find JZ innocent in all the charges, he has been declared unsuitable for presidential candidature because according to MJ, and JZ is a ‘former communist’ and traditionalist”. Of course MJ and any South African citizen have a right to comment on anything, including the issue of the ANC Deputy President, but the comments must be without personal smear.

We repeat: the agenda is about presidential succession in the ANC. We think this is due to the fact that currently it is only the ANC as a ‘political party’ which has a potential to be holding the state power for some time, therefore different classes, including the comprador and international bourgeoisie have an interest in who leads the ANC so that the leadership will play a role in securing their own class interests by taking sides in the class struggle underway. The SACP has also pointed out that part of the reason for this pre-occupation with the presidential succession debate is due to presindetialism, which is central in driving what is now incorrectly called the 1996 class project, which indeed, has marginalized the working class.

Imperialists always try to find junior partners (comprador bourgeoisie) within nation states to pursue their agenda. In the context of South Africa in which the ruling class shares the same boundary with the former colonized and current exploited, it (ruling class) is also interested in who should become the country’s president to guarantee conditions for capital accumulation as De Beers, who owns almost 80% of the world’s diamond trade and with 50% of these diamonds acquired from South Africa, Botswana and Namibia, once said that politicians come and go, but ‘a diamond is forever’. So they are interested in who will administer the capitalist state in their own class interests. Part of the strategy of the South African ruling class is to co-opt the leadership of the Alliance into the structures of capital accumulation, not as an act of charity or philanthropy but it is to ensure that they guarantee their interests, including ‘marketing’ their own presidential candidate.

MJ, like certain sections of our society, twist fact and tell lies that comrade Jacob Zuma is the ANC Presidential candidate of the SACP, COSATU and the YCL. These organizations have publicly and consistently said that they do not have the right to nominate or elect ANC leadership. ANC leadership issues are a matter of the ANC members, and they will only nominate or elect leadership as members of the ANC. It is only the ANCYL that has pronounced on the presidential candidate which is within its constitutional right as an integral part of the ANC. The fact that the SACP and YCL do not have the right to vote does not stop us from analyzing the implications of presidential candidates, in the same way we do during the US general elections. The SACP must do so in a non-factionalist manner especially because we are in alliance with the ANC, and what happens within the ANC has implications on the Alliance.


 * Ideological blackmailing and conceptual confusion**

There has also been an ideological black mailing on anyone who questions the outcome of courts and the ‘rule of law’. We are told anyone who does so is engaging in ‘unprincipled populism’ (as if populism was ever principled) and that anything that is supported by the people is populism. But when we the national or local general elections due to the support we get from the people - we are told that the people have spoken! But when they act against certain class interests, including supporting the Deputy President on the basis of a principle, they are populist, uneducated and ‘irrational’ and ‘self-interested’, to use MJ’s words. In as much as we need to critically examine what people say, we should also avoid elitist vanguardism – the idea that it is only the elite that has the truth, the people are empty vessels, and must be filled with the truth from the elite.

We are told that the SACP has squandered ‘political capital’ because we defended the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Concepts are important in ideological struggles. Concepts are ideological tools that enabled us to explain and enhance our understanding of the world, thus changing it.

Concepts can conceal or illuminate the world. Concepts are analytical, descriptive and can inhibit or catalyse political action. MJ as usual mimics the petty bourgeoisie’s usage of concepts. He uses the concept of ‘political capital’, like human capital, intellectual capital to refer to the so-called non-economic factors (e.g. social networks, trust, knowledge, political power) that bourgeoisie economism fails to explain in its economic analysis. Marx refers to capital as a social relation of production, which takes different forms (money, commodity, financial etc) to exploit labour. Capital is inherently political because the process to reproduce capital is political since there cannot be capital accumulation without control of labor given the inherent antagonistic between labour and capital. The specific form in which unpaid surplus is pumped out of the direct producers determines the manner in which the ruled and rulers relate and that is what is called power-relations. Now, how can the SACP possess capital? Does this imply the SACP is capitalist?

Let’s put aside MJ‘s conceptual confusion and deal with the lies that he tells about the SACP and the YCL. We are told that since the JZ matter started the Party ceased to be the Party of campaigns. In 2005 there have been a number of campaigns that the SACP together with other organizations have implemented, albeit in an uneven manner across provinces (see 2005 Annual Report).

I have never heard anyone within the YCL or in the SACP taking a messiah approach on the JZ saga– that is, suggesting that Zuma as a person will provide a space for left and possibly deliver socialism. This is just MJ’s hallucination. The democratic spaces and reforms are a product of mass struggles but of course individuals play a role in the social process of reproduction and transformation. JZ may not be that individual as MJ would argue, but MJ essentialises JZ as if he is a static human object that is not subject to change like any other human being. It is like JZ has genes that made him an unchangeable human object.

MJ’s lies are also based on fallacious logic. We are told that since JZ is supported by COSATU and the SACP and is attacked by capitalists, therefore JZ is a communist, by extension the ANCYL is a communist organization. This does not follow. The fact that Muslims will be attacked by G. Bush and communists come to their defence on the basis of a principle does not mean those Muslims are Communists or vice versa.


 * MJ’s Way Forward**

MJ suggests that the SACP should retreat from supporting the principle of innocent until proven guilty. This conclusion can only be reached by someone located in the sky, detached from activities on the ground and is only informed by abstract theorisation. Unfortunately MJ‘s intervention is devoid of any serious theoretical and conceptual engagement and does not assist in dealing with the so-called SACP’s ‘cumulative weakening of socialist analysis ….’. The SACP has taken an approach of a person who has to combine theory and practice, and who has to see both ‘the single tree and the whole forest and plan for activities whose results cannot predict with precision’ as Mzala would put it.

MJ counterposes the campaigns of the Party against the defence of the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The SACP must continue to root itself amongst and within the working class through campaigns. But it is wrong to draw a dichotomy between the defence of the principle and these campaigns. The SACP should combine all these spontaneous actions and the defence of a principle until proven guilty as it applies to anyone including JZ. There is no doubt that there has been unevenness in the implementation of the SACP programmes across the provinces, districts and branches. But it is wrong to generalize that the SACP is not implementing its programme. MJ should also assist in the implementation of the party and YCL campaigns as oppose to spending ‘massive resources and energy’ flying from one province to the other presenting his document. That’s the Bottomline, cos the YCL said so!


 * From: http://www.sacp.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=348&Itemid=93**