Debate: programme for South African revolution

DEBATE: PROGRAMME FOR SOUTH AFRICAN REVOLUTION The following article has been received from comrade Bo Marwana of the Unity Movement of South Africa. It takes up a debate that began in AIS with a review by J Hunt of the pamphlet 'Soweto, June 1976: the Call to Arng' by V.K. Ntshona. It was continued in a reply to this review by A. Sondlo and A. Benjamin and a comment by the editors in Issue No.5 Because this reply contains certain nisunderstandings of the points which we have made previously we have appended a series of notes taking up the most import- We are of the op ant points of these. inion however that to continue the debate in the encentirIly historical terns posed by ode Maarwana will not be very Rather, what is urgently refruitful. quired at the present moment ig :; debate about the realities of the southern African revolution at the present momentand about perspectives for building 1t. For that reason we are closing the present debate with these conments. We invite all interested parties from whatever tendency to submit material which we undertake to publish, subject to restrictions in length, which deals with the present situation and the prospects for the socialist revolution in that area. The Unity Movement of South Africa and the Legitimacy of the National Liber ation Struggle, by B. Msarwana, The levity with which 'Africa in Struggle' approaches serious political problems and the manner of conducting the debate borders on the dishonest. First, Mr. V.K. Scrape Ntshona writes a pamhplet on Son eto whose political contribution is nil. Its purpose was: a) to discredit all the 'traditional' political organisations of South Africa, including the Unity Movement whose member he claims to be, without any analysis of the different programmes and policies of each of these organisations. b) to separate the youth with its various organisations at home, and sow seeds of antagonism between them and all the 'trad- ¡tional' organisations. He palms off the pamphlet as a publicntion of the UMSA his home address as that of the movement. The IMG assist in the distribution of this dishonest pamphlet and the AIS honours it with a review as a publication of the UMSA, thus compoundiog the fraud, despite knowing that all the while 27 Nishona has been suspended from membership on security grounds. When Ao Sondlo and A. Benjamin took up the cudgels in defence of the UMSA and exposed Nishona's politics and his fraudulent claim to membership, the editorial defended his political position and endorsed some of his accusations against the But, like a bolt from the blue Movement. they conclude their commentary with this astounding statement: "If Ntshona is not indeed a member of the UNSA then me consider that his publication of this pamphlet under the nome of the UNSA is highly unprincipled ..this answer is in no way intended to align ourselves with him, nor to defend hig political practice". This double talk is all the more reprehensible considering that the members of the UMSA in England had for months discussed with the AIS group the positions of Ntsbona, and that the documents suspending him vere accessible to the AISG. Even in the latest issue it still persists in giving the impresaion that V.K. Ntsbona was the victim of the UMSA bureaucracy and of sectarianism. interview The latest issue of AIS contained a question and anawer interview with a African Trotskyist who has been in the black liberation struggle since the early 1950g". Significantly this Trotskyist too gave a swipe at the Unity Movement. What is strange is that in the early 1950g all the progressives, the socialists and Marxists In South Africa with one exception participated in one or other of the two tendencies in the liberation movements, the African National Congress on the one hand and on the other the organigations affillated to the UM. But none of these organisations now operating in Lusaka have any knowledge of this The exeption was a amall Trotskyist. group which called itself the 4th International, whose attitude wast a plague on both tendencies. This group soon dis integrated. It will be noted that the only article in defence of the UMSA drew some sharp editorial comments. But those discrediting it were printed witbout coument. We must therefore conclude agreement of the AISG with these articles. 2'8 Indeed, piecing together these omissions and the editorial comment on the article by Ao Sondlo and A Benjamin, it becomes abundantly clear that these critics of the UMSA have a common denominator: a refusal to accept the legitimacy of a national struggle in South Africa. They are not alone in this. ist Party of South Africa took up the same position in the 1930s when there were serious discussion on whether It was correct for revolutionary marxists to help form a national liberation oxganisation. Today the same question is being raised, particularly amongst those in England and Europe, The approach takes many forus. Some argue that because South Africa, like Europe, is a highly developed industrial country and therefore a bourgeois state, there is no need for a national liberation etruggle. Otbers go so far as to argue seriously that there is in fact no such thing as a peasantry in South Africa. Thus more than seven million people are wiped out of existence because they do not fit into the intellectuals' scheme of things To return to the editorial comment in reply to the article by Sondlo and Benjamin. It opens with a quotation from the Transitional Programne of the 4th International 1938, On the basis of this AIS proceeds to suggest that the UMSA might be classified as 'Classical Social Democracy'; that there is nothing either 'principled' or marxist about their use of the term 'minimum progranme'; that it uses the term to 'hide the essential sectarianism that guides its politics'. Presumably this essential sectarianisn can 'be amply demonstrated by the fact that the UMSA has always claimed itself to be a National Liberation movement .. a non-Leninist term'. confușion - The confusion here stems from the non- Marxist refusal to distinguish between a national liberation movemnt and a Marrist party. In the quotation from the Transitional Programme Trotsky was addressing himself to the revolutionary marxist parties of the world. The very first phrase makes this clears 'It is necessary to help the masses'. Who are the masses? Surely not members of marxist parties? It would appear from the editorial com ent that Lenin never used the term 'national liberation movement' and that its use it a violation of Leninism. Time without number Lenin wrote and spoke of national struggles and national movements with approval. He supported the right of oppressed nationalities to selldetermination. Is it the insertion of the word "liberation' in between nation al' and 'movement' that is so objectionable and nom Leninist? What then were these national movements (that Lenin approved of) fighting fos if not for political liberation from the domination of oppressor nations? Lenin writes: 'From the socialist point of view it was undoubtedly a mistake to ignore the tasks of national liberation in a situation where national oppression existed' (in "The National Liberation Movement in the East'). We emphasise here that to denounce the very existence of, or even the term 'National Liberation Movenent' in conditions where national oppression ex ists is, to say the least, non-Leninist and nor Marxist. The Minimum Programme and the Maximum Programme. The editorial commentary declares; " "othere is nothing either 'principled" nor indeed anything marxist about their use of the term 'minimum programme'. It is behind the use of this term that the UMSA and the two comrades alike attempt to hide the essential sectar ianism that guides their politics', The mysterious trotskyist adds his piece in the interview published in the same issue: "••The leadership of the UMSA in exile says that there is a 'maximum programne but that this is the exclusive property of the leadership'. denounced the programme of "Classical Social Democracy' which was divided into two parts, the minimum and maximum prog rames without any connection between Therefore the words Minuman Progthem. ramme become a swear word and shield to covex up 'essential sectarianis', "opp otunism' etc. The UMSA Le not a party. It 1s a Nato ional Liberation Movemnt, a federation of organisations at different levels of political development. It was bor under specific political, economic and social conditions. It must be evaivated in this context. It has a programme » the 10 point Prograume which is a demand for bourgeois denocratic rights and a policy of non-collaboration with the oppressor, It sets itself the task of mobilising the oppressed population, the African, Coloured and Indian, the workers, peas anta and the petit bourgeoisie on the bag. of a clearly anciated programme and policy. Non collaboration in this cor text meant the rejection of all interior political institutions created for their on oppression Under the given condit ions the programme that had a mass appeal to all the sections and classes amongst the oppressed was a demand for democratic rights which they all lacked. The petit bourgeois could not fulfil his aspirations because as a black man or women he/ she lacks democratic rights. game reason a peasant could not buy land where he chose and in most cases could not buy it at all even if he had the mon ey to do so. The black working class was discriminated against on the grounds of colour because it lacked democratic rights. In fact, even normal trades union demands: the right to forn unions, equal now for emuel wors, the right to apprenticeship and to strike are, in the conditions of South Africa, not merely economic They are primarily political demands in the sense that ands for therecognition of the Black workers as equal to the White workers who alone have democratic rights. demand and struggle on this basis in the conditions of south Africa was and still is a necessary and progressive step until such times as the potentialities of the national movements have been exhausted. To appreciate the policy of the UMSA - non-collaboration-it is necessary to know that when the white government threw the whole of the African population out of the body politic, it beçame necessary for it to create channels of communication between itself and the black masses. These were in the fora of Bungas (Native Councils) in the Iural areas and the Native Advisory Boards in the urban locations. quisling The main task of these quisling bodies • was to transmit all oppressive laws and regulations passed by the white parliament and the white city councils to the masses in a palatable form with a view to getting the masses to accept them and at the same time to see to it that they were obeyed. The policy of noncollaboration was directed specifically at destroying these and similar institutions. It takes little imagination to realise the potency of propaganda that calls for the boycott of institutions that are the instruments of one's own oppression. The programme of the UMSA which is a demand for full democratic rights was called a "minimum progranme'. Why? What does that mean?, jeeringly asks the editorial commentary in AIS. It simply neans that all those organisations which ask for anything less than full democratic rights are precluded from affiliation to the UM. The term was :29 designed to exclude government created political institutions or organisations If this conand suchlike stooge bodies. stitutes 'essential sectarianism' then the UM must plead guilty before these But it will stern and irate judges. continie to regard its political stand as a principled one. We turn now to the question of the 'maximum programme' and we quote from AIS: '.othe leadership of the UMSA in exile says that there is a 'Maximum Programme' but that this is the exclugive property of the leadership'. Further it goes on: 'In addition, it refuses to build an independent revolutionary organisation (read party) outside the We have explained above that the UMSA was founded as a federation of org anisations which were at different levels of political development. Amongst these oxganisations were socialists and marxist It is taken for granted that revolutionary marxist parties musthave, in addition to a transitional programne, We have explained a maximum programme. too that the reason for calling the UMSA programme a minimum programme use to fix• the lower limits, that is to exclude. those who demanded less than full denoc- But the upper limit was ratic rights. deliberately left open in order to allow marxist parties to affiliate and participate in the decision making conferences of this national liberation movenent. In this way they could fulfil the demands flung at the UMSA by the editorial in the form of a quotation from Trotsky: 'It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between the present demands and the socialist programme of the revolution. The bridge must include a sytem of transitional demands stemming from todays conditions and from todays conaciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat'. maximum programme It is not necessary to anaver here the question: where is the maximam programme of the UMSA? Why does the UMSA refuse to form an idependent marxist 'party? The ridiculousness of asking such questions of a national movement it too patent to warrant an answer. What we must however dran attention to is a much more serious accusation. The editorial comm entary would have its readers believe that the UMSA has two programmes, the minimus and the maximum and that in the fashion of classical social desocracy there is no connection between them. 3,0 This impression is gathered on e gossip level from the Scrape Ntshones and repeated by the mysterious Trotskyist. It does not even occur to AIS to investigate whether this absurdity is true or not. Or is it that the UMSA in stating its case on this subject did not repeat the exact words of Trotsky? They do not even notice that the UMSA's position has already been made clear on the point. In a pam- 'The Revolutionary Road for South Africa' issued by the UMSA (May 1969), in a section that discussed the dilemna confronting the various socialist groups in South Africa during the crisis created by the notorious Hertzog-Smuts Bills, the UMSA states on pg 8: '..the Communist Party of South Africa, ever reformist in outlook, conceived the struggle as divided mechanisticelly into categories and stages. The first stage was fox equality between white and black, in other words for bourgeois democracy. When the oppressed become absorbed into this system they would learn to organise themselves for class struggle, In short, theirs was a reformist policy of gradualism which determined their strategy and tactics...' 'That group which was later to constitute the leadership of the UM conceived the struggle very differently.. After a thorough analysis of the objective sit.nation in South African society, economic, political and social, this group came to the conclusion that the problem of the oppressed could not be solved within the framework of the capitalist system. It would require nothing short of a revolutionary socialist overturn. bourgeois democratic demands fox the opp ressed black masses could not be achieved except underthe dictatorship of the proletariat assisted by the peasantry".