Can+TUs+lead+the+struggle+for+socialism?,+Wolpe+lecture,+Silumko+Nondwangu,+2007

=“The NDR and the Struggle for Socialism:= =Can trade unions lead the struggle for socialism?”=

Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture

 * Silumko Nondwangu**

//General Secretary of the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA)//


 * Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University**


 * Vista Campus**


 * Port Elizabeth**


 * 14th November 2007**


 * //‘Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is not freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently... its effectiveness vanishes when “freedom” becomes a special privilege.’ (Rosa Luxemburg)//**


 * //Are we debating this question because the working class in South Africa who are hankering for socialism have no political vehicle to carry this struggle, if I may ask? (Silumko Nondwangu)//**


 * //It is however, vital to maintain the distinction between trade union politics and an overall revolutionary leadership. A trade union cannot carry out this dual role. If it attempted to do so it would have to change its basic character and risk committing suicide as a mass legal force. In addition, the very nature and purpose of the trade union disqualifies it from carrying out tasks of a revolutionary vanguard. (Joe Slovo)//**

I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views with trade unionists, communists, social democrats and comrades from all walks of life, and the academia on this topic, “The NDR and Socialism: Can trade unions lead the struggle for Socialism?”

I must also thank the Eastern Cape Social Economic Consultative Council – ECSECC – for broadening its reach nationwide and honoring me with the opportunity to join several other trade unionists such as the former South African Municipal Workers Union General Secretary, Roger Ronnie, to give these important Lectures in honour of Comrade Harold Wolpe.

Comrade Harold Wolpe was a committed academic, intellectual and a communist activist who saw it fit to join the liberation struggle in South Africa by actually belonging to the South African Communist Party. Those of us who are activists of the liberation movement in South Africa remember Harold Wolpe not just for his seminal intellectual and academic ideas on the nature, structure and operations of South African capitalism, but also for his contributions to several key theoretical and policy positions the SACP took, in those days.

I am further pleased to note that this discussion is being held in an academic institution which once was regarded as an integral part of the apartheid education architecture, exclusively an institution meant to cater for African students in the townships. I guess the organizers arranged this deliberately, for reasons I suppose, to engender class analysis and ideological work in this institution, and to nurture leaders for this decade and many more to come. As a trade unionist, I also hope that indeed at the end of our encounter today, an imprint will be left in these walls of this institution of the work that trade unions do in their daily interactions with our broader South African society.

I must say that I had difficulties in determining how to approach the topic at hand for a number of reasons, largely due to the phrasing of the topic itself, and secondly, due to the political environment in which this discussion is being pursued, and the possible misrepresentations that characterize what every leader says or is perceived to have said today, on these matters. Therefore, I decided that I will present what others would have said on the topic, so that indeed when I am misrepresented, I might escape by saying that it was not me who first authored those words! Trust me, ladies and gentlemen and comrades, everything I will say today comes from my convictions as a leader in the ANC led Alliance.

It is Rosa Luxemburg who once said:

‘Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is not freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently… its effectiveness vanishes when “freedom” becomes a special privilege.’

I invite us all not to fear to think differently, to hold views which may not be current with the majority, and to be fearless in our defense of the right to think, and to think differently! This is, after all, what our struggle martyrs shed their blood for – that we too may reclaim our rightful place among thinking human beings!

It is my intention to borrow a lot from the works of Comrade Joe Slovo, the highly respected and loved late General Secretary of the South African Communist Party (SACP). He, more than anyone else among South African communists, correctly located the issue of the relationship between the NDR and Socialism in the South African context, as a Party led conceptual and theoretical project.

Today, we all must remember how Joe Slovo admonished us all concerning the dangers of refusing, stubbornly, to shed some of our negative communist baggage from our past, thus:

“The commandist and bureaucratic approaches which took root during Stalin’s time affected communists parties throughout the world including our own. We cannot disclaim our share of the responsibility for the spread of the personality cult and a mechanical embrace of Soviet domestic and foreign policies, some of which discredited the cause of socialism. We kept silent for too long after the 1956 Khrushchev revelations.

It would, of course, be naïve to imagine that a movement can, at a stroke, shed all the mental baggage it has carried from the past…”

As a committed communist, a member of the ANC and a trade unionist, I hope my discussion with you all here today will be but a small contribution to destroying some of this baggage.

During the cold war era, trade unions all over the world had to contend with the question which side in the international conflict they had to take. Should we, for material, ideological and financial reasons, embrace either the Soviet line of march or remain non-aligned as it were, or for ideological reasons, tread in-between the so-called middle road of social democracy? I would argue that in the South African situation, the dominant strand, even though it varied depending on the circumstances of the period, remains today, a combination of elements of the Soviet era, influences again even though remote, of social democracy, and very subtle, and thirdly, tendencies that you would find in Latin America, the temptation to become what we are not, a ‘Workers Political Party’. The latter, which has its own variation today, can be traced from the formative years of trade union federations in our country, an emphasis at the time on narrow economist struggles to the exclusion of broader social and political issues. This tendency sought to extricate trade union struggles from the broader societal struggles, whilst on the other hand, re-enforcing syndicalism. The ideas of this tendency have not remained static in history; they have taken different forms depending on the conditions prevailing at the time.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Rudolf Rocker, a German American, widely recognized as the founder of syndicalism, understood this notion as a theory and a programme for revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism.

In his work, “Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism”, Rudolf Rocker wrote:

“Anarcho-syndicalists are of the opinion that political parties are not fitted… 1. to enforce the demands of the producers of the safeguarding and raising of their standard of living or, 2. to acquaint the workers with the technical management of production and economic life in general, and prepare them to take the socio-economic organism into their own hands and shape it according to socialist principles…

According to their conceptions the trade unions has to be the spearhead of the labour movement, toughened by daily combats and permeated by a socialist spirit. Only in the realm of economy are the workers able to display their full strength; for it is their activity as producers which holds together the whole social structure and guarantees the existence of society.

Only as a producer and creator of social wealth does the worker become aware of her strength. In solidarity union with her fellows she creates the great phalanx of militant labour, aflame with the spirit of freedom and animated by the ideal of social justice.

For the Anarcho-syndicalist the syndicates are the most fruitful germs of a future society, the elementary school of socialism in general. Every new social structure creates organs for itself in the body of the old organism; without this prerequisite every social evolution is unthinkable.”

There were ideological battles with such anarchists in the Communist International, and Lenin penned these words in a letter, to the Communist Party of Germany in 1921:

“Until sufficiently strong, experienced and influential Communist Parties have been built, at least in the principal countries, we shall have to tolerate semi-anarchist elements at our international congresses, and to a certain extent it is even useful to do so. It is useful in so far as inexperienced Communists, and also in so far as they themselves are still capable of learning something. All over the world anarchism is splitting up… into two trends… one in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and others opposed to it.

We must allow this process of disintegration among the anarchists to mature and become ripe… It goes without saying, however, that the semi-anarchists elements can and should be tolerated only within certain limits. In Germany we tolerated them for quite a long time. The Third Congress of the Communist International submitted an ultimatum to them… If now, they have voluntarily resigned from the Communist International, all the better… They have saved us the trouble of expelling them.”

In his December 1910 article, “Differences in the European Labour Movement” Lenin wrote:

“The principal tactical differences in the present day-labour movement of Europe and America reduce themselves to a struggle against two big trends that are departing from Marxism, which has in fact become the dominant theory in this movement. These two trends are revisionism (opportunism, reformism) and anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism).

“Both these departures from the Marxist theory and Marxist tactics that are dominant in the labour movement were to be observed in various forms and in various shades in all civilized countries during the more than half-century of history of the mass labour movement….

“Again, a constant source of differences is the dialectical nature of social development, which proceeds in contradiction and through contradictions. Capitalism is progressive because it destroys the old methods of production and develops productive forces, yet at the same time, at a certain stage of development, it retards the growth of productive forces. It develops, organizes, and disciplines the workers – and it crushes, oppresses, leads to degeneration, poverty, etc.

Capitalism creates its own grave-digger, itself creates the elements of a new system, yet, at the same time, without a leap-, these individual elements change nothing in the general state of affairs and do not affect the rule of capital.

It is Marxism, the theory of dialectical materialism that is able to encompass the contradictions of living reality, of the living history of capitalism and the working class movement.

But, needless to say, the masses learn from life and not from books, and therefore certain individuals or groups constantly exaggerate, elevate to a one-sided theory, to a one-sided system of tactics, now one and now another feature of capitalist development, now one and another lesson of this development.”

The argument advanced here is that the leadership for the struggle for a socialist society cannot be allocated to a trade union, anarchists nor revisionists; it may well be that with the passage of time, social developments and the ever changing conditions that exist have necessitated that others in their actions and conduct think that this is a possibility. Without labeling them as anarchists and revisionists, they will have to be made to produce compelling evidence that should prove that this is possible. Let’s assume that this argument is advanced for whatever reasons, in whatever form and shape, because history is not static, it involves and creates new conditions that we would not have anticipated. This would entail that trade unions transform their theoretical, institutional and strategic outlook, and overall, re-constitute themselves into revolutionary socialist parties of some sought. They may have to borrow, for an example, from the many workers tendencies that have existed in our country, and if they feel comfortable, from the tendencies pursued by Rudolf Rocker. Because, simply stated, the pursuit of political power, especially revolutionary political power, is the province of revolutionary political organs or parties.

Returning back to Slovo’s work on this issue, he defines trade unions as follows:

“A trade union is the prime mass organization of the working class. To fulfill its purpose, it must be as broad as possible and fight to maintain its legal status. It must attempt, in the first place, to unite, on an industrial basis, all workers (at whatever level of political consciousness) who understand the elementary need to come together and defend and advance their economic conditions. It cannot demand more as a condition of membership. But because the state and its apparatus is an instrument of the dominant economic classes, it is impossible for trade unions in any part of the world to keep out of the broader political front.”

He then deals with the role of the trade union movement in a detailed manner, and in many respects how this institution has evolved, drawing lessons in part from the then Soviet Union. And he says in one section of his paper; “Has Socialism Failed?”

“Workers had no meaningful role in determining the composition of the top leadership which was, in substance, answerable to the party apparatus.”

This in my view, may be the essence of the debate today, as it captures the fundamental historical existence of an association of workers, a trade union, in its historical conception, its present and its future and its relationship to political power.

Whoever defines a trade union differently would have to convince members why they should not belong to a union for their immediate interests, and to a vanguard political party for their working class and political interests and the struggle for socialism.

Perhaps the real and fundamental debate that we should pursue is not whether, trade unions can or cannot lead the struggle for socialism, but rather, the possibility of them being turned into instruments for struggles for political office, and not for workers in particular, and for the emancipation of the working class in general. There is a body of literature in many parts of the world where this has happened. The continent has got a fair share of this experience. We are yet to learn how far the MDC in Zimbabwe will have abused the ZCTU. Chiluba in Zambia quite brutally used the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions not only to become the president of Zambia, but to directly reverse close to 30 years of gains the Zambian nationalists had won for Zambian workers. Have we taken the time, and I should ask, to study and examine these experiences very closely, and to understand, how in the midst of a confusion, and generated expectations on the post-colonial society, ordinary workers become the most vulnerable instruments for all sorts of, sometimes, dubious political projects.

Slovo says, and instructively:

“It is however, vital to maintain the distinction between trade union politics and an overall revolutionary leadership. A trade union cannot carry out this dual role. If it attempted to do so it would have to change its basic character and risk committing suicide as a mass legal force. In addition, the very nature and purpose of the trade union disqualifies it from carrying out tasks of a revolutionary vanguard.”

This too, is the essence of today’s debate, the basic character of a trade union, whether indeed conditions can lead to its character being redefined such that it ventures to become a repository of working class struggles, or does it seek as its basic and defining character, as a ‘prime mass organization of the working class, and cannot demand more as a condition for membership” but in another dimension, involved in politics to the extent that it recognizes that its role is limited to the extent that it provides basic service to its members, and more importantly and without imposing any particular ideological goal, emphasizing the need to understand and appreciate the bigger picture of economic oppression and exploitation.

I somehow find this a difficult task to balance, and have engaged two extremes in this discussion, one that over-burdens unions with class politics, and to the extent of affecting its basic foundations, and the other that simply reduces a union into a mere burial society, where members join on the basis of what benefits does the union provides. There has always been an attempt in the former to combine both class politics and trade union basic work. But the fundamental issue though, is to safeguard trade union independence at all material times irrespective of the immediate interests and conditions. History is full of experiences where this independence is compromised, and unions never recover again. We are no exception to this rule, this could happen to us.

We should return at some point to another discussion and perhaps not in this lecture, on what is the nature and relationship of a trade union with a revolutionary socialist/communist party of the working class?

Because this would answer the question in theoretical and practical terms, on whether unions can on their own lead the struggle for socialism. In the South African context, the debate today would have been relevant to the extent that this section of the working class, the trade union movement, has a firm foundation in other formations of the working class and has grasped the Marxist and Leninist doctrine of socialism. In the presence of a revolutionary Socialist/Communist Party, is this not a question relevant to itself, and its ability to marshal all formations of the working class in a struggle for socialism?

Are we debating this question because the working class in South Africa who are hankering for socialism have no political vehicle to carry this struggle, if I may ask?

The basis upon which such a discussion is pursued elsewhere has to consider the following, among others, in my view;


 * The extent to which in trade unions, ‘freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently….’ a related question, whether we lead a passive constituency or a constituency actively and directly involved in the inner life and existence of unions. I have strong views in this regard that unions are gradually becoming what one comrade in Nigeria told me recently; ‘a group appropriating an organization for its own sake and not for the masses.’
 * Trade union consciousness cannot be taken for granted as class consciousness in whatever circumstances. Strikes on their own are not a barometer to test this level of consciousness, and sometimes and conveniently so, this is to romanticize the ordinary trade union consciousness and mistake it for revolutionary working class lass consciousness.
 * Outside of Cosatu, there are thousands of workers organized in Nactu, Fedusa, Consawu and other independent unions, let alone the rest in farms, small traders, taxi drivers, garages, and many others that we have not reached in our organizing strategy, who get exploited without any form of protection. This is a task that primarily, should pre-occupy trade unions, and limited available resources, should be dedicated towards this project. The mass character to organize the most vulnerable, and the ability to wage battles of a mass character.
 * In Cosatu, we should indeed be worried like any revolutionary trade union formation, of the quality and depth of leadership we have at all levels. You sometimes wonder whether indeed what we are really all about. At the very least I would say, if you cannot grasp the ABC of Marxism and Leninism, be capable of doing the basics, organizing and servicing workers.

To conclude: we in trade unions are a mass formation of workers from all shades of life, formed to protect the basic interests of workers at the workplace; we do not organize them on the basis of party political affiliation, religion, culture nor tradition, that is the starting point; it is this basic primary task that defines us first, not the other way round. To say this is not to sink into narrow workerism, but rather, to recognize the dialectical and historic role of trade unions in the leadership of the struggle for socialism.

It can only be the role of a Party, and in this instance, a Communist Party that leads the struggle for socialism. The issue that has arisen in many debates is whether the SACP embodies the traditions and revolutionary culture and practice of a modern and all inclusive Marxist-Leninist Party or what Slovo said; ‘…the spread of personality cult, and to be naïve to imagine that a movement can, at a stroke, shed all the mental baggage it has carried from the past…’

As I reflected at the beginning of this discussion, this was not an easy topic to discuss because Limpopo is around the corner, and personalities, rather than issues loom large. But I have expressed my thoughts on it. I hope that they will serve to generate some intelligent discussion on the matter!

Thank you!


 * Bibliography:**

1. Joe Slovo; Has Socialism Failed; (1990) 2. Joe Slovo; The South African Working Class; (1988) 3. Vladimir I Lenin ‘A letter to the German Communists,’ in: Selected Works,’ Volume 10, London, (1946) ; p. 291. 4. Vladimir I. Lenin; ‘Differences in the European Labour Movement, (1910) 5. Rudolf Rocker; Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism; ‘The Reproduction of Daily Life. 6. The Rosa Luxemburg Reader, edited by Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson; p. 305.

3641 words