Social+Movements,+Cosatu,+Lehulere



=**Once more on COSATU and the New Social Movements**=

//A rejoinder to Harvey, Greenberg, Ngwane (Socialist Group) and Bohmke//

 * By Oupa Lehulere**


 * Dear Comrades,**

In debates such as the one we are engaged in at present it is customary for protagonists to ‘welcome debate’ and to note the importance of this or that debate. In general, I take comrades at their word and also welcome such debate. But in specific cases it is necessary to go beyond such general phrases, and to challenge comrades about how genuinely they “welcome” debate. This challenge is necessary because as activists today, many of whom were involved in the struggle against apartheid-capitalism and against a Stalinist politics practiced by the dominant political currents in the 1980s and 1990s, we have an opportunity to develop a new kind of politics in the mass movement. It is in this context that I make the preliminary remarks below.

Preliminary Remarks
Firstly, there is Ngwane and the Socialist Groups’ attitude to debate and engagement. For this current (and Ngwane claims to speak on behalf of the SG), all and any debate revolves around the person of Trevor Ngwane, and therefore my intervention is part of the attack on him, the “administrator”, the SG and the SECC in the APF. Not only is this view a reflection of Ngwane’s conceit, but it also smacks of the old Stalinist politics that we all want to leave behind.

As part of this alarm he wants to raise, Ngwane argues, “Oupa’s argument is that the old left is actually reactionary or rightwing”. Once again, the fact that I do not agree with Comrade Desai’s view on this or that strategic question in no way means I think he is “reactionary”. I will continue to raise any disagreement I have with anyone, notwithstanding the SG’s attempt to poison the air. Those of us who were around in the 80s and 90s have seen this kind of attempt to silence debate, so that any criticism of Ngwane and the SG is portrayed as an ‘attack’ on him and the SG.

The second remark I would like to make, unrelated to the quasi-Stalinist politics of Ngwane, concerns my views on the relationships between the views of the various protagonists I have characterised as the “old left”. The fact that I have chosen to respond to the four comrades together in no way means that I am oblivious of the fact that you do not agree on all questions. As I remarked in my original paper, the various currents I seek to engage (the “old lefts”) “do not agree on everything, and in some cases their positions diverge on important questions”. On the other hand, I still think that there is a fundamental convergence among yourselves on the question of the relationship of the social movements to COSATU, and on the question on how to approach the orientation of the social movements in this period. On this question at least, I would still argue that the “old lefts” should be treated as a bloc. The responses raise many issues, some important, some not so important. For reasons of space, I will focus on a few issues I think are fundamental, and that I think take the debate forward. And now to the substantive issues in debate.

The Question of Orientation
As happens in debates of this nature, it is easy to loose sight of the issues with which the debate began, and to get lost in a new debate created by the protagonists. In the first instance, Bohmke creates his own debate when he asks: “Do we dare reach out to elements in COSATU?” Even though Bohmke has to admit later on that “Oupa acknowledges that fronts may well be ‘entered into with COSATU before it leaves the Alliance”, having created a new debate of his own, he has to continue engaging the fictitious argument that I do not want to link up with “elements” in COSATU. What is the issue in debate?

The fundamental question at issue is that of an //orientation//. In my paper I wrote on what is meant by an orientation: “ By an orientation we mean the overall political direction of an organisation. This direction determines its strategies and tactics, its organisational priorities, the way it deploys its resources and its cadre…” It is clear from the responses that the concept of an orientation is not understood. Bohmke wants to link with “elements”, Ngwane (as a Marxist) wants to orientate to the “working class”, Greenberg wants to “identify points of common interest and work out how to engage the grassroots”. In fact, all of you present us with a promised land in which the link-up between COSATU and the social movement will result in a formidable left movement. As Harvey eloquently writes, “Don’t forget too that such a united front of working class organisations – if indeed it will be a united front instead of a multi-class popular front – will imminently create revolutionary momentum that will not be easily managed by COSATU leaders. The revolutionary possibilities are numerous…” All this is great and laudable, but then we cannot substitute political analysis and strategy with wishful thinking. //We need, through serious analysis, to demonstrate (or at least theorise) the social and historical basis of these revolutionary possibilities//. Let me go back to the question of an “orientation”.

In the struggle for a new social order every social class that seeks to bring about the necessary social change must, firstly, elaborate a vision of this new society. Secondly, it must create the organisational weapons or means to realise this vision. Thirdly, it must coordinate the struggles of various sectors of society and ensure that these lead to the victory of its political and social project. Of course, these do not happen one after the other, but are simultaneous processes. But in order for all of this to happen, this social class must create or produce a “layer of militants”, a “cadre” or a “vanguard”(as Lenin used to call it) that will anchor and carry forward this political project //over an extended historical period//. Understood in this sense, this “layer of militants” is **not** an organisation (even a party), it is not a small group of political friends, and it is not a ‘struggle elite’: a layer of militants or a vanguard is a whole generation of militants that is deeply rooted in society more generally. It is a group whose way of thinking, its ‘style’ of politics, its temperament, its political outlook and culture, is formed by a similar series of political events, processes and challenges. These events and processes create common reference points; the militants draw their theoretical inspiration from the same body of ideas, and so on. An example of such a “vanguard” understood in this sense is the generation of militants of the Black Consciousness movement. They did not have to belong to one organisation (whether democratic or centralist); they were part of an entire historical and political culture (who can forget “I am black and I am proud!); they are formed over a whole period (at least over a 15 year period) and not through one event; they had a distinctive ‘political style’, and so on.

Do we have such a layer of militants today? I think it’s not difficult to see or understand that in South Africa we have come to the end of an historical cycle of struggle. The cycle of struggle that opened up with the formation of the black consciousness movement at the end of the 1960s, and was confirmed by the Durban strikes in 1973, has now come to an end. That cycle of struggle produced a “layer of militants”, a “vanguard”, that - through its various ideological and political mutations - anchored the anti-apartheid struggle for close to 30 years. That vanguard or cadre is now politically exhausted; it is now lost to the working class.

In order to struggle on a sustained basis, however, the working class – and indeed any other class – has to produce a cadre, a vanguard understood in the sense we have been using it. But how is the vanguard, or the layer of militants, constituted? A vanguard is constituted through struggle, through broad-based and sustained social struggle. The social struggles act as a process of historical selection, in which those within the broad working class that have the temperament, the will and the stamina to act as an anchor for working class struggles over an extended historical period are selected. As you can see, they cannot be selected by a ‘party’ (even if, according to Ngwane, it is a “true” party).

In an historical period in which the working class is constituting its cadre or layer of militant, the question of orientation comes down to this: where are social struggles registering most consistently, that is over time? Where are the common reference points for the new vanguard being forged? Which site of struggle within the broad working class, which social stratum within the working class is producing the new vanguard most consistently? Where, to borrow from Gramsci, are its ‘organic intellectuals’ being created?

It is clear that the new vanguard is being forged, is being created, in the context of the struggles taking place in the townships. It is also clear that it is the new social movements that are intersecting most consistently with this process of historical selection.

And so, when Ngwane says “as Marxists we orient(ate) to the working class”, and that the working class is here and there, he simply confesses to a lack of understanding of the concept of orientation. Similarly, when Bohmke wants to “reach out to elements” in COSATU, or when Greenberg wants “to bridge the gap between those working ‘inside’ (the Alliance)….and those ‘outside’ to build a counter-hegemonic pole of attraction” they misunderstand the question of orientation. They confuse the question of orientation with the question of organisational tactics, at worst, or at best with political questions of a purely conjunctural or temporary character.

Of course, every new vanguard, especially when its still in the early stages of its formation, has to contend with the traditional organisations of the working class, including COSATU. Like Greenberg, I also think that developments, or as he says “tensions”, within COSATU are relevant to the trajectory of class struggle in South Africa. But then such developments must be analysed and understood, so that conclusions about their significance for the class struggle can be drawn and acted upon.

Characterisation of COSATU
There is a lot that can be said about COSATU, including questions about whether a ‘labour aristocracy’ exists or not, and so on. But many of the issues (or wishes) raised by you comrades are not fundamental in this context. The fundamental question that determines orientation is the following: can we say there is a cadre in COSATU which is leading and anchoring the struggles of the working class today, that is giving a voice to the struggles against neoliberalism, that is elaborating a vision of a new society, that is building mass formations of the working class, and that is coordinating the working class’s struggle. Let us be clear that what we are asking here is not what Harvey or Greenberg wishes; we are asking for an answer based on developments over the last few years.

COSATU (and the unions that went into forming it) was in many ways a key site for the formation of the ‘old’ cadre, of the old vanguard. The political exhaustion or decline of the old vanguard is mirrored most sharply in COSATU. One only has to know something about the COSATU trade unions today to understand the depth of this exhaustion. Even within the best of the unions today, SAMWU, the scandal surrounding the loan schemes – which involved many officials and shopstewards – is only the tip of the iceberg. It is the height of conceit for us to think that just by wishing it, a vanguard forming process can take place in COSATU. We need to come to terms with unions as they actually exist, and not as we wish them to be. And so, even if Greenberg decides to be “inside” COSATU in order to “widen contradictions”, he will have to orientate to the social movements and the struggles that are nourishing them if he wants to take forward the struggle in any meaningful way.

If, on the other hand, you want to insist that COSATU continues to be the repository of the vanguard or layer of militants today, then you have a number of analytical challenges. You have to show us which layers in COSATU are engaged in consistent struggle, which of these layers is linking up with struggles in the townships, which of them is elaborating a vision of a new society, what kinds of struggles have these layers being engaged in within COSATU – against the corrupt politics (Zuma and all that) of the leadership of COSATU. We need to be shown how these currents are “widening the contradiction”. I have to say, comrades, that it will be the height of conceit for you to think that all these processes will happen once you go to a COSATU conference, or once you ‘decide’ to “widen the contradictions”, and so on. There are militants who have been at this work for the last decade at least, and they can tell you a thing or two about the real historical and political conditions under which “widening contradictions” in COSATU takes place. Ngwane’s childish, thoughtless and snide remarks about GIWUSA can be done from the comfort of an APF office. It is a different story altogether when he chooses to venture into a real struggle in COSATU. And this is not just because of the Stalinists: the difficulties, and some may say impossibility of realising all the dreams of Harvey and Greenberg, is that the political and historical conditions of cadre formation within COSATU are not favourable. Indeed, they have disappeared.

Reading through your responses, it became clear to me that your sense of indignation (Harvey), or your wishes (Greenberg), your tendency to word-spinning as opposed to serious argument (Bohmke) or indeed your arguments in general (Ngwane) are as much a product of your distance from the unions and what is happening within them, as they are a product of your misunderstandings.

The issue, as you can see, is not about being “too categorical and sweeping in his (Oupa) writing-off of organised workers” (Bohmke), or as Ngwane argues, “(Oupa) blames COSATU rank and file members for the class collaborationist policies of the COSATU leadership”. There is an irony here of course. While all of you tend to be rather sensitive about the danger of “writing-off” COSATU members, you in fact end up not with the members, but with the COSATU leadership. Take for example Harvey, who puts a lot of weight on the fact that he was invited to the COSATU conference by Vavi, or his fear of criticising COSATU just in case Neva Makgetla of COSATU walks out of a meeting. Take also Greenberg, who starts with engaging the “grassroots”, and of course ends up with having to “engage the leadership”. But more important here, is the fact that none of you can explain to the activists the fact that organisations like the APF go out of their way to support COSATU, and they are rebuffed all the time. Further, when the leadership of COSATU rejects cooperation or joint work with the social movements, we do not hear or see any revolt from the members of COSATU. We are left wondering if the “member” that is the hope of this orientation will only move into action when you – by some miracle – manage to work ‘inside’. But getting inside, however, requires, as Greenberg admits, “engagement with the leadership” – and there lies the problem.

Hairline cracks or hairline analysis?
There are some of you who seem to habour some illusions about the ANC. Greenberg, and Ceruti earlier, seem to see some ‘hairline cracks’ in the ANC. Harvey too argues that the ANC is not “a party of monopoly capital, period”**.** Contrary to Bohmke’s protests, in his contribution Desai argued that “there is nothing incompatible with an Alliance with the ANC in challenging local or national government to remain, true to the Freedom Charter or RDP”. For reasons of space I cannot spend time on this question. It is however revealing how commonplace an understanding of the ANC as a party of big business is. In an article in Business Day (25 Nov 2005) Karima Brown and Vukani Mde wrote: “The ANC is suffering from a systemic malaise that infests all aspects of the organisation. This malaise is structural, moral, political, strategic and historical….Thus today the party’s NEC is a collection of crony capitalists living off the largesse of the state.” S’thembiso Msomi too, in his article in City Press (27 November 2005) understands this process of mortgaging the ANC to capital: “The 18 [practising capitalists – Lehulere] out of 86 [members of the NEC] people sounds negligible, until one considers the fact that despite its strong left-wing tradition, //not even a single member of the NEC is a trade unionist or a civil society activist.//” (Emphasis mine)

It does not help one bit to advance the worn out argument that the majority of the members of the ANC are working class. We all know that if the capitalist class had to vote for itself it would never get into power. All parties of capital have to create an electoral base within the working class.

An idealised view of the “mass of active militants”?
According to Bohmke, “(Oupa) takes an idealised, and even reverential view” of the “mass of active militants”. This theme is taken up by Greenberg when he argues that “Oupa may want to hold onto the SMI as the only possibility for creating a counter-hegemonic pole”. I have to say that all this is too tendencious a reading of my position, and in some cases reflects a lack of reading of my position at all. At a number of places I have written on the weaknesses of the current layer of militants. For example, I wrote that an orientation of the movements has to be grounded on the understanding that we are going through a period of temporary retreat. I wrote that “everybody is agreed that the New Social Movements are still weak, and lack any developed or refined programme of analysis or demands.” I pointed to the limitations of the attitude of the militants to COSATU, and argued that while it is politically and socially valid, “it does need to be grounded within the worldwide body of experience of the socialist movement”. As to where Bohmke gets his idea that I write about this layer of militants with “reverence”, and all his talk about how “Oupa ascribes developed positions and radical subjectivities…” I have no idea. My guess is that this is just one of those many cases in which Bohmke gets lost in his own cleverness and sophisticated words.

Fishing in the slimy waters of the Zuma affair
What has been remarkable in the whole debate, especially from some of the rejoinders, is the desperation shown by comrades to find the ‘hairline’ cracks in the ANC, and between the ANC and COSATU. For example, for Bohmke there is “something deeper at play” in the Zuma saga. He even waxes lyrical about “subjective forces vested in the unconscious”, he talks of “mass psychological energy” that is wrapped up in the support for Zuma. Zuma, we are told, could mobilise and unleash previously repressed sentiments…” and so on and so forth. All great psychoanalysis. But then what is the historical evidence?

We know that there is not even one social struggle that has been taken up under the banner, or the leadership of the Zuma faction, both in townships and factories. We still have to see Zuma banners when evictions take place, when water is cut-off. There is not attempt on the part of Bohmke and the other “hairline crakers” to explain why the “mass psychological” energy that is waiting to be released is not intersecting with the social struggles in the townships, why the ANC’s base is mostly preoccupied with infighting about council posts (or is there something deeper here too?).

What we are confronted with here, again, is a lot of idle speculation on the part of Bohmke and all those looking for hairline cracks. This is the same idle speculation that takes the face of indignation at “writing off” the COSATU rank and file. We have to come to terms with the fact that for the left only slow, hard and patient work will lead to lasting political results. Chasing after Zuma and the imaginary contradictions will not lead us anywhere.

Bohmke’s defence of Desai, and some concluding remarks
In his spirited defence of Desai against my criticism, Bohmke bases his entire defence on the argument that Desai did not argue for an orientation to COSATU, that he did not argue that an anti-neoliberal struggle can be conducted under the banner of congress politics, in effect, that “Oupa ascribes to Ashwin (Desai) things he simply did not say or even infer”. Now, one can spend a lot of space and time on quotes and counter-quotes. I can only say that readers of Desai’s talk to COSATU will have to decide for themselves. But then Bohmke is nervous about his own assertions, and goes about convincing us that Desai’s call not to break the Alliance “needs to be understood in terms of where Ashwin (Desai) was and what he was doing when he made it”. “Ashwin (Desai)”, according to Bohmke, “rather deftly acknowledges that the struggles would be in conflict with the real terms of the Alliance…”. Bohmke even goes on to argue that Desai was engaging in charm and ‘flattery’, and so on. For those who know Desai, he is not a person who has a different politics for each event, or one who is given to ‘flattery’ as a substitute for politics. The facts of the matter, however, is that Desai does argue that:

1. “…I am sure that they (the social movements) could benefit from a more structural and macro-economic understanding of their oppression that you could bring them” 2. “These community movements especially will benefit from COSATU’s national linkages, resources and legitimacy…” 3. “There is nothing incompatible with an Alliance with the ANC in challenging local or national government to remain… true to the Freedom Charter or RDP…”; what is needed is “practical act(ion) in support of ideas that have historically underpinned the Alliance”.

One could go on. The point here is that Desai ascribes, to COSATU, a position of leadership over the movements. COSATU is called upon to provide political leadership, to provide an //interpretive framework// that explains the nature of working class oppression today, and to provide an organisational scaffold on which the movement is to be built. We know that these tasks are not going to be performed by the COSATU rank and file: these tasks will be performed by the COSATU leadership. Does Bohmke really believe that COSATU can play such a role in the ‘united movement’ without determining the “overall political direction of the organisation”, without determining its strategies and tactics”? After all, and just in case Bohmke is not aware, strategies and tactics are derived from the “structural and macro-economic understanding of [working class] oppression” (Desai). Can Bohmke really defend, with a straight face and a clear conscience, a promotion of a Stalinist politics – or to put it differently, of ideas “that have historically underpinned the Alliance”? Quite frankly comrade, idle word-spinning or even being clever in front of a COSATU audience is one thing, but I am unfortunately not impressed by your false sense of indignation when I challenge Desai on these fundamental questions.

Lastly, there are a couple of other issues that I could not take up. Many of these, like the issue of how we understand spontaneity and its historical significance and the issue of how it has been treated in socialist literature (legend of Lenin and ‘What is to be done?’). I have not dealt with the issues of the ‘strike wave’, the importance of the point of production, and maybe with other one or two minor issues. Many of these issues will certainly come up for debate – in their own right – in the coming few months and years. We are at the beginning of the movement building process, new traditions are being formed, new vanguards are being forged, and new organisational forms are being thrown up. Yes, with respect to the Zuma affair (which still remains to be analysed from a left perspective), the evolution of COSATU, and the character of the ANC – all these issues remain before us, and we have a lot of opportunity to debate them in the light of practical and historical experience. I am certain that the historical process will enrich our understanding, and doubtlessly will settle a few of the controversies captured in these debates.

Yours in Solidarity

Oupa Lehulere November 2005