💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › workers-solidarity-federation-fighting-racism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:52:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Fighting Racism Author: Workers’ Solidarity Federation Language: en Topics: anti-racist, history, national liberation, race, South Africa, syndicalist Source: Retrieved on January 1, 2005 from http://www.cat.org.au/aprop/race.txt
“What do we mean by respect for humanity? We mean the recognition of
human right and human dignity in every man, of whatever race [or] colour
...”
Mikhail Bakunin, 1867, Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism, reprinted
in S. Dolgoff (ed) Bakunin on Anarchism, 1971, Allen and Unwin, p147
“...Equal rights for all without distinction of sex or race...”
From the Pittsburg Manifesto, 1883, founding charter of the
International Working Peoples Association, historic mass U.S.
anarcho-syndicalist organisation. quoted in P. Avrich, 1984, The
Haymarket Tragedy. Princeton University Press. Princteton, N.J. p. 75.
“Your revolutionary duty is to stifle all nationalist persecution by
dealing ruthless with the instogators of anti-Semitic pogroms [racist
attacks]...”
Makhnovist Army and Nabat Anarchist Group, “Workers, Peasansts and
Insurgents. For the Oppressed, Against the Oppressors — Always!”,
proclamation issued in 1919 during course of Anarchist-led Ukrainaian
revolution, 1918–21. Reproduced in Peter Archinov, History of the
Makhnovist Movement, 1818–21. 1987 Freedom Press edition.
1. By racism we refer to either of the following features:
1.1. Attitudes, belief and ideas that denigrate other people on the
basis of their supposed physical characteristics (e.g. skin colour); and
1.2. Systematic social, economic and political discrimination against
people on the basis of their supposed physical characteristics (e.g.
skin colour).
2. We will use the term “Black” to refer to all people discriminated
against on the basis of their supposed racial characteristics. This
obviously includes Africans, Coloureds and Indians. We will use the
words “African”, “Coloured”, “Indian” etc. when referring to a specific
Black group.
3. South Africa is characterised by extremely high levels of racial
inequality. This racial inequality is intertwined with high levels of
class (and gender) inequality. [1]
3.1. Race: the following figures released in 1995 give some idea of the
racial inequalities in South Africa: whites, who make up 13% of the
population, earn 61% of total income, whilst all Black groups (Africans,
Coloureds and Indians), who make up 87% of the population, earn only 39%
of total income. Africans make up 75% of the population but they receive
only 28% of total income. Other indicators of racial inequality are:
only 2 out of every 10 African schoolchildren reach metric whilst 8 out
of 10 white children do so; 28,3% of African children suffer
malnutrition to the extent that their growth is stunted, whilst the
figure for Whites is 4,9%; the life expectancy of Africans is 9 years
lower than that of Whites . The World Bank/Southern African Labour and
Development Research Unit survey of 1993 showed that 47% of African
households were living at or below the relevant Household Subsistence
Level, compared with 19% of Coloured households, 6% of Indian households
and 2% of White households. Before the 1990s, racial inequality was also
expressed in terms of civil and political rights: Black people were
voteless, subject to the pass system, denied the right of union
organisation, and the main Black political organisations were also
banned.
3.2. Class: however, it is a mistake to say that all inequality in South
Africa follows purely racial lines. There are also high levels of
inequality on the basis of class and gender (sex). A recent study
confirmed the high levels of racial inequality, but found that at the
same time “[a]lmost three quarters of total inequality can be ascribed
to inequality within population groups”. For example, the richest 20% of
African households (many of whom are entrepreneurs, professionals and
managers etc.) increased their real incomes by almost 40% over the
period 1975- 1991, while the poorest 40% of African households’ incomes
decreased by nearly 40% over the same period. A similar decline in real
income was reported for the poorest 40% of Whites. The study concluded
that “The 1960s saw a huge gap developing between the incomes of whites
and blacks; the 1980s has seen a similar gap emerging within the black
population group.”. [2] This is borne out by another estimate, according
to which the wealthiest 10% of African households have incomes over 60
times those of the poorest 10%, compared to ratios of roughly 30 times
amongst Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Overall, the means of production
have historically been concentrated amongst a minority of the
population. About 80% of the country’s wealth is owned by 5% of the
population, whilst four large corporations own 81% of share capital .
See position paper on women’s freedom for discussion of inequality
between men and women
4. As Anarchists we fight for the creation of a free and equal society,
based on grassroots democracy and socio- economic equality. We are for
the destruction of all forms of exploitation and domination. We are
opposed to coercive authority and hold that the only limit on an
individuals’ freedom should be that she or he does not infringe on the
freedom of anybody else. We believe that only a revolution by the
productive, exploited classes of society (the working class and the
poor, and the working peasantry) can create a free world, and we
recognise that these classes can only be mobilised and united on the
basis of opposing all forms of oppression. For all of these reasons, we
Anarchists/Syndicalists are the avowed opponents of racism and racists.
An “Anarchism” which does not directly tackle racism is nothing short of
a disgraceful fraud.
5. Anarchism has a vigorous history of fighting racism. [3]
5.1. From the condemnations and criticisms of racism by the main
Anarchist theorists (e.g. Bakunin, Reclus, Makhno, Rocker), to mass
organising drives and struggles against racism, capitalism and the State
(e.g. the struggles of the International Working Peoples Association in
the U.S. in the 1880s; the efforts of the Anarcho-syndicalist Industrial
Workers of the World in the USA in the 1910s among Black and immigrant
workers; the centrality of the battle against anti-Semitism to the
Anarchist revolution in the Ukraine of 1918–21), to the struggles
against fascism and racism today, Anarchists have consistently combated
racism. We are proud to stand in this revolutionary tradition.
5.2. Anarchism/Syndicalism has historically attracted millions of people
of colour and racially oppressed minorities. Many, perhaps most,
Anarchist/Syndicalist movements were based in the Third World, and thus
took up issues of anti-imperialism, anti-racism etc. From China, to
Cuba, to Nicaragua, to Herzegovenia, our influence has been huge. Even
within the Western countries, our movemenmt consitently combatted racism
and won to its side people of colour and racially oppressed minorities;
many of these bacame prominenet Anarchist/Syndicalist activists, such as
Lucy Parsons (an African-American), Frank Little (of Native American and
white descent), Ricardo Flores Magon (of Mexican and Native American
descent), Alexander Berkman (of Jewish descent), Nestor Makhno (from the
Ukraine, a Russian dominion), and James Connolly (from the immigrant
Irish community in Edinburgh during the time that Ireland was still a
British colony). It did this because it was fundamentally opposed to all
oppression, and championed class struggle. It took note of both class
exploitation and special forms of oppression,welding all workers
together in an internationalist, anti-racist fight against capitalism,
the State and all forms of oppression. It is therefore obviuos that
Anarchism/ Syndicalism was not “Eurocentric”, either in the composition
of its adherents or in terms of the content of its theories and
activities. Nor did it fail to deal either theoretically or practically
with racism. Nor was it the property of any one nationality, it was the
creation of the toiling masses of the whole world.
See note[4]
6. We reject the argument that humanity can be biologically or
scientifically divided into a number of distinct, and unalterable
“races” ((e.g.) Africans, Asians, Europeans etc.). The idea that
humankind can be divided into distinct “races” on the basis of physical
characteristics like skin colour, hair type, nose and eye shape etc.
seems like common sense, but is nonetheless wrong. There is only one
“race”: the human race.
6.1. It is true that people differ by skin colour etc. but it has proven
scientifically impossible to rigidly and clearly define people into
clear cut “races” because there is no known single physical feature or
group of physical features that clearly mark off one race from another .
For example, Whites are said to have straight hair: but so do Asians,
and some Africans; and many Whites in fact have woolly hair. Similarly,
not all Africans have dark skins, while not all Whites have light skins;
some Africans are fairly pale, and some Whites are dark. The point if
all this is that no hard and fast divisions can be established amongst
the different races, who blur into one another in a number of ways.
6.2. This is not a coincidence. The fact of the matter is that there is
no “race” gene. Only 6% of genetic variations among human groups can be
accounted for by “race” differences such as exist between (e.g.). Asians
and Africans. An expert in the field, remarks that “If the holocaust
comes and a small tribe deep in the New Guinea forests are the only
survivors, almost all the genetic variation now expressed among the
innumerable groups of our four billion people will be preserved”. The
genetic or biological variation between people of any given “race” is as
great as the genetic variation between that race and any other given
“race”.
6.3. In practical terms this means that Eugene Terre’Blanche may be
genetically closer to a Australian Aboriginal or an American Indian than
he is to Paul Kruger. It also means that it is impossible for different
“races” to be biologically “inferior” or “superior” to each other. And
it means that history cannot be understood in terms of a “race struggle”
between so-called “inferior” and “superior” races. Instead, many of the
physical differences between people (like skin colour and eye colour)
reflect environmental conditions.
6.4. This is why what people see as a “race” differs between different
times and places (e.g.). books that spoke about “race conflict” in South
Africa in the 1920s referred to conflict between white Afrikaners and
English-speakers. What “race” you are refers to your own self-definition
and the definitions of other people and social forces. “Race” does not
have a scientific basis but it is a reality in society.
7. So why has “race” and racism become so central to our society (and
many others)? We need to understand the roots of racism if we are to
fight this oppression and its effects.
8. Racism is not the inevitable result of different people coming into
contact with one another, “white culture”, or Calvinism. Racism is the
product of a society based on exploiting and exploited classes. Racism
is a means of organising and justifying the oppression of large masses
of people. [5]
9. Racism may have been present in pre-capitalist forms of class
society. For example, in feudal Europe, the aristocracy (lords/ knights)
apparently justified their rule over the mass of unfree peasants (serfs)
on the basis of their allegedly superior “blue blood”. [6] However,
anti-Black racism was not a feature of these societies.
10. Racism has been an integral part of modern capitalist/ State society
since it emerged in Europe in the 1500s. Racism was generated by
capitalism and the State at every stage of their development. [7] See
position paper on fighting imperialism for more information on these
periods.
10.1. Merchant capitalism and slavery: This early stage of capitalism
dates from the early 1500s to the late 1700s, and was characterised by
the accumulation of capital through trade and plunder. This was the
period when capitalism began to forcefully expand itself into Africa,
the Americas, and Asia. Slave plantations were set up in the Americas
and elsewhere, and supplied by an enormous slave trade. Slavery
generated racism — racism did not generate slavery. The merchants and
the planters initially tried to use White and Native American slaves,
but from the second half of the 1600s, slaves from Africa (and Asia)
began to provide the labour force of the plantations. These black slaves
were substantially cheaper, as well as available in larger numbers, and
easier to identify (and thus help police) than the White slaves. The
enslavement and sale of human beings was “justified” on the grounds that
the slaves were from a sub- normal and savage people, unfit for freedom.
This kind of argument was especially necessary with the rise of radical
ideas of equality in the English, American and later the French
Revolutions.
10.2. Colonial conquest: From the 1500s until the 1900s, capitalism and
its State were involved in the conquest and colonisation of Africa, the
Americas and Asia. This was motivated mainly by the need to obtain cheap
(often forced) labour and raw materials (like crops and minerals), and
by the need to find new markets. Again, however, racist ideas found
fertile ground. It was said that the success of European imperialism
reflected the innate superiority of the “White race”. In addition, the
colonisers argued that they were helping the darker skinned “natives” by
bringing “civilisation” to them- teaching them Christianity, the wearing
of European clothes and the “dignity of labour”. Such ideas obviously
aided the exploitation of the indigenous peasants and workers- these
groups were paid very low wages or crop prices on the basis that their
“uncivilised lifestyle” required less income; they were prevented from
building up unions and similar bodies, on the grounds that they were
“too immature” to “properly” use such structures; they were subject to
harsh and racist forms of labour control on the basis that they were
“muscular machines”, unable to manage their own work without “White”
brains and supervision. (We will discuss these forms of Black working
class and peasant exploitation in more detail below).
10.3. Genocide: In a number of colonised territories, particularly in
the 1800s, there was no pretence of trying to “civilise the natives.”
Instead, there were widespread and indiscriminate massacres of
indigenous people, in what amounted to a campaign of extermination
(genocide). Attempts were made to exterminate the Australian Aborigines,
the Native Americans, the New Zealand Maoris, as well as the southern
African Khoisan. In addition to the killings, the indigenous people were
also affected by new diseases such as small pox, and social problems
like alcoholism.
10.4.1. Racism is also promoted by the bosses and rulers because it
helps to divide the working class, particularly in the First World. In
particular, it splits the White working class and poor from immigrant
and Black working class people. Where the working class is racially
divided, it lacks the solidarity necessary to fight and defeat the
bosses and rulers. The bosses promote the division of the working class
by means of the mass media (which they control), by making racial
divisions correspond with job divisions, and by discriminating against
Black workers. Racism is great stuff for the bosses: Black workers
without political rights, job security or decent wages provide an
“excellent” and flexible super-exploitable labour force to be hired and
fired for the worst jobs whenever necessary; it provides a ready source
of strike-breakers to be used against as a threat against White
strikers; and it allows them to shift the anger that the White workers
feel at unemployment and low wages to Blacks and immigrants who are said
to be “taking our jobs”.
10.4.2. So why do many White working class people in these countries
accept and support these racist ideas and practices? The first reason
has been given above — the media. Secondly, there is economic
competition among the workers, who may be desperately fighting over a
limited number of jobs. Or the bosses may be trying to replace skilled
workers with cheaper and less skilled workers. The workers may, in some
(but by no means all) cases, respond to this competition in racial
terms, and develop racial antagonisms. Thirdly, the White working class
and the poor may get a “public and psychological wage” in that they can
are (slightly) better treated than Black and immigrant people, and so
can consider themselves part of a “superior race” (no matter how
oppressive their lives are).
10.4.3. Do white workers benefit from racism? See section below
See note[8]
11. 1. Racism in South Africa is rooted in a combination of all of the
processes mentioned above. It is the child of capitalism and the State.
These factors, and not “white culture”, Calvinism or Afrikaner
nationalism, have been the main driving force behind the various forms
of racism in South Africa, up to and including Apartheid.
11.2. The South African ruling class did not comprise all the Whites. As
in all countries the ruling class was made up of those who held
political and economic power: capitalists, top State officials,
generals, and professional politicians. Most Whites were and are middle
and working class. And clearly the ruling class thus included those
Blacks who held important positions, such as many of the chiefs as well
as all of the homeland leaders and the upper staff of the homeland
states. Nonetheless, the ruling class was fundamentally White-dominated
as its leading members were of European descent and were, indeed, often
the direct beneficiaries of colonial and apartheid policies (see below).
Overall, there were very few large Black capitalists. In addition to
these Black allies, the White bosses and rulers also sought to draw in
allies from other White groups such as the middle class and working
class (see below) . This alliance was made possible through the material
benefits provided to Whites by racial capitalism, by deliberate
government policies and by the strength of racism in the society. Some
have referred to this alliance of all White classes and a section of the
Black elite as an oligarchy or power bloc.
12. Racism in South Africa before the 1870s: [9]
12.1. The Cape Colony and slavery: The establishment of a colony at the
Cape by the Dutch East India Company in the 1600s should be seen as part
of the general expansion of merchant capitalism in this period. The
Colony was initially set up to provide a stop-off point for the trade
with Asia, but it was not long before slave plantations were
established. The slaves were imported from both Africa and Asia. At the
same time, the pastoralist and hunter-gatherer Khoisan people were
dispossessed of their lands, cattle and water holes, and subjected to
various legal disabilities ((e.g.). pass laws, various forms of
indenture) that reduced them to a condition of unfreedom very close to
the slaves. Slavery in the Cape Colony was particularly widespread (at
least two thirds of farmers owned at least one slave in 1800). It was
also particularly brutal, even in comparison to other slave colonies,
and defined on strict racial lines (unlike some slave colonies, racially
“mixed” marriages were very rare, and neither racially “mixed” children
nor their Black parent obtained “White” privileges). In addition to the
White farmers and slaveowners, there was also a substantial “poor white”
population. [10]
12.2. Colonial conquest and dispossession: By the 1870s, the various
White-ruled colonies that were later united as the Republic of South
Africa in 1910 (the Cape Colony, the Orange “Free” State, Natal, and the
Transvaal) had been established. All of these colonies were based on the
conquest of land from African people, although not all whites were
landowners — some of them were poor peasants (bywoners), or landless
workers. In all of the colonies White farmers made a number of attempts
to extract labour from African communities, by such means as hut taxes,
and demands that amounted to forced labour. Some Africans were able to
resist these demands by becoming peasants farming for the market (some,
mainly chiefs and headmen, growing rich enough to employ workers);
others had no choice but to become workers for at least part of the
year. As had happened elsewhere, these colonial processes received a
racist justification. For example, in 1835 a leading settler and State
official in the Cape Colony wrote of Queen Adelaide Province on the
eastern frontier as follows: “the appearance of the country is very
fine. It will make excellent sheep farms ... far too good for such a
race of runaways as the K*****s”. [11] This type of idea — that Black
people were lazy incompetents who could not farm properly and needed to
be taught the “dignity of labour” (by Whites) — was a standard feature
of colonial ideology. See also position paper on anti-imperialism for
more details.
13. Racial Capitalism in South Africa after the 1870s: [12]
13.1. The impact of the diamond and gold discoveries: By the 1870s, what
was to become South Africa was a mainly agricultural area. The colonies
were all involved in farming for local and overseas markets, but the
extent of commercialisation varied greatly, from the highly
profit-oriented farms of the Cape to the much weaker links to the market
of the Transvaal White farmers (and African peasants). The discovery of
diamonds and gold in the 1860s and 1880s at Kimberly and the
Witwatersrand drastically changed the situation. The new mining industry
led to a rapid development of capitalism because it attracted large
amounts of foreign investments, increased the taxation available to the
State, promoted the building of roads and railways, and led to the
emergence of large cities. These developments helped create a small
manufacturing and financial sector, and they greatly accelerated the
commercialisation of agriculture.
13.2. Super-exploitation of Black labour: Both the White farmers and the
mining bosses now needed a large workforce. Some labour was provided by
immigrant White workers and poor Afrikaners, but this was often
expensive and in any case in short supply. The farmers and miners set
out to smash the African peasantry and independent African areas to
create a mass labour force. This aim was supported all the way by the
various colonial states, who passed and enforced a long list of laws for
this purpose (e.g.). hut taxes, land reservations, banning
sharecropping. The bosses did not just want a large labour force but an
ultra-cheap one as well. This was particularly important for the mines,
which not only had a very low grade of ore but faced a fixed
international gold price — the only way to cut costs and become
profitable was to minimise labour costs. The bosses also wanted to get
rid of competition in the market on the part of Black farmers, peasants,
traders and independent diggers (e.g.. on the diamond fields).
13.3. Once a large Black labour force was created, several methods were
used to ensure that it remained ultra-cheap. First, African workers were
subjected to a host of coercive controls that undermined their
bargaining power ((e.g.). bans on unionisation; pass laws; housing in
compounds). Secondly, African workers were often employed as migrants
who came to the cities, mines and commercial farms on contract for
limited periods, whilst their families remained rural areas. This
allowed the bosses to pay very low wages on the grounds that the workers
families could supposedly support themselves on their own land, and
would assume the responsibility of caring for retired or crippled
workers. Finally, on some farms the bosses made use of labour tenants:
these workers were only allowed to live on the farms and have a small
garden of their own in return for providing virtually free labour
13.4. Super-exploitation was “justified” by racist arguments: Some
examples: in 1892 the editor of the bosses’ magazine The South African
Mining Journal justified repressive controls and the compound system on
the grounds that “The position of k*****s is like children”, needing
“special control and supervision when exposed to temptations”. [13] One
mine-owner warned that “We should not over-pamper the native and thus
ruin his naturally strong constitution”, whilst another insisted that
“the natives far prefer those compounds which are not too
well-ventilated or airy”. [14] According to one farmer in 1947, “All the
wages and housing schemes will not change the native. He will remain
dirty, lazy and thoroughly dishonest. .. If we want the natives to be
law-abiding, let us speak to them in they language they understand: the
language of the sjambok, administered frequently and with vigour”. [15]
13.5. The divided working class: The bosses were also able to use racism
to divide the working class: White working class from Black; and the
various Black groups from each other. Particular attention was paid to
trying to get the White working class to support the racial capitalist
system by giving it a privileged and protected position. According to a
government report in the early part of this century, “the European
minority, occupying ... the position of the dominant race, cannot allow
a considerable number of its members to sink into [poverty] and to fall
below the level of the non- European workers”. [16] At the same time, it
was illegal for Africans and Whites to be members of the same union. In
general these policies were successful, particularly from the
1920s-1980s, although there were a few instances of integrated worker
struggles, and a number of socialists and democrats still emerged from
the White working class.
13.5.1. On the mines: The White miners were divided from the Black
workers from the start by their skilled work, political rights, freedom
from most labour-coercive laws, and permanent residence in the towns.
But although they thus benefited from racial capitalism, this system
also made them economically insecure as the bosses constantly tried to
replace expensive White labour with cheap Black labour. This contributed
to militant mass strikes (most famously in 1922). Instead of opposing
the system of Black super-exploitation that caused their insecurity in
the first place, most White miners demanded job reservations for Whites.
The State and the capitalists eventually accepted this demand in the
1920s, partly because of the militance of the strikes, because the
bosses were afraid that the Africans would get ideas, and because it was
too destabilising for the racist State to keep shooting White workers.
By agreeing to job reservation, the recognition of White trade unions,
and the exclusion from registered unions of “pass-bearing Natives”, the
State ensured the continued racial division of the workers.
13.5.2. The “poor whites”: Many White workers were not in the privileged
position of the White miners — even before the Great Depression began in
the early 1930s, there were at least 300,000 Whites living in dire
poverty, often in the same slums as poor Blacks. These unskilled Whites
were permanently under-employed, not because they refused to do “native
work for native pay” but because the bosses preferred to hire rightless
and ultra-exploitable Black workers for low- grade work. While these
conditions did create tensions between poor Whites and poor Blacks, they
also had the politically explosive potential of creating a united
working class. Such conditions challenged the racist social order that
the bosses were trying to build. Thus the State, starting mainly in the
1920s: segregated slum areas, promoted White education and training and
gave Whites preferential employment in the State sector (the “civilised
labour” policy). The “civilised labour” policy had the additional
advantage for the ruling class of allowing the bosses to attack the
conditions of skilled Whites in sectors like the railways. Aided by the
recovery of the economy, these policies largely succeeded in ending the
“Poor White Problem”. [17]
14. Why the state supported racial capitalism: As noted above, the State
played a central role in building the system of racial capitalism. This
was for a number of reasons.
14.1. Firstly, the State always defends and supports the ruling class,
which in South Africa drew its wealth and power directly from racism.
The various colonial states of South Africa since 1652 were racist
dictatorships built to exploit and dominate Black workers, peasants and
slaves, and to divide these classes from poor Whites. At times they used
Black collaborators to aid these purposes (e.g.. rich “amakholwa”
peasants before 1913; homeland leaders and chiefs from the 1950s), at
other times not. The leading personnel of the State were drawn from the
ranks of the White bourgeoisie, and the State was funded mainly from the
taxes and loans derived from Black super-exploitation.[18]
14.2. The second reason why the State supported racial capitalism was
that it aided social control. The migrant labour system made it
difficult for stable Black working class communities to develop around
the “White” cities and the labour- repressive laws and the compound
system made it very difficult to organise resistance. The dangers to the
bosses and rulers were recognised by the State — according to the Board
of Trade and Industries (1945), “The detribalisation of large numbers of
Natives congregated in amorphous masses in large industrial centres is a
matter which no government can view with equanimity. Unless handled with
great foresight and skill these masses of detribalised Natives can very
easily develop into a menace rather than a constructive factor in
industry”.[19]
15. To sum up: racism served the following functions for the
White-dominated ruling class in South Africa
15.1. It justified and strengthened the power and wealth of the bosses
and rulers (allegedly members of a “superior” race, representing
“European civilisation”).
15.2. It allowed the ruling class to deeply divide the working class.
15.3. It made possible the super-exploitation of the majority of the
South African working class
and migrant labour on the gold mines, African labour costs actually fell
between 1911 and 1931, and then, once they had risen back up to the 1911
level, remained constant right up to 1969 despite a doubling of African
employment levels over this period. African miners real wages remained
virtually unchanged over the whole period 1915–70.[20]
it seems clear that between 1860s-1960s that the very poor living
conditions and amenities for Black workers remained unchanged; cash
incomes remained largely static in monetary terms, while incomes in cash
and kind may actually have declined in real terms over this period.[21]
Democracy
16. By the mid-twentieth century, these various processes had resulted
in a country with the following type of social structure: a mainly White
ruling class, aided by Black collaborators like homeland leaders and
chiefs; a middle class drawn from all races, but disproportionately so
from Whites, who also held the most prestigious positions here; a White
labour aristocracy; and a desperately impoverished and rightless Black
working class made up of Indian, Coloured and African people, with the
Africans concentrated in the lower grade jobs and receiving the least
social benefits.
17. The system of racial capitalism entered a crisis in the 1970s due to
a combination of factors. Together these factors laid the basis for the
move towards some sort of bourgeois democracy in South Africa.
18. Economic factors that led to the crisis: All sections of capital
(farms, mines, manufacturing, services) have clearly showed their
overall compatibility with Apartheid policies and institutions. However,
the racial capitalist system also carried an increasing number of costs
for large manufacturing concerns, as well as parts of the service
sector. These costs were increased in importance by the fact that South
Africa followed the world capitalist economy into an economic slump from
the early 1970s.[22]
18.1. Firstly, the migrant labour system and the job colour bar (not to
mention the “Bantu Education” system) all resulted in low worker
productivity and skills shortages. These shortages were evident from the
1950s, and by 1971 had reached a figure of 95,655.[23]
18.2. Secondly, very low Black wages led to a very small domestic
consumer market, with only 1 out of 6 people having any disposable
income. Obviously, the bosses could have dealt with this issue by
exporting consumer goods, but they failed to do so because of their own
short-sighted policies and because of the international sanctions
campaign. As a leading spokesperson for the bosses, Raymond Parsons,
executive director of the Associated Chambers of Commerce (ASSOCOM), put
it in 1979, “[i]ncreasing Black purchasing power is the only real answer
to growth”.[24]
19. Political factors that led to the crisis (mass struggle): More
important than economic problems in plunging the racial capitalist
system into crisis was mass Black struggle. This kind of resistance was
inevitable given the brutality and injustice of racial capitalism. In
all of these struggles the Black working class and poor played an
absolutely central role.[25]
19.1. There was a large-scale Defiance Campaign in the 1950s, but this
was brought to an end in the early 1960s by the Sharpeville Massacre of
anti-pass law protesters, and the subsequent banning of legal Black
political organisations and unofficial trade unions. (Socialist
organisations had already been effectively banned since 1950 by the
Suppression of Communism Act).
19.2. The false calm created by the repression was ended in 1973, when a
massive wave of wildcat strikes gave birth to the modern Black trade
union movement. Three years later, in 1976, the June 16 shooting of
African schoolchildren protesting the introduction of Afrikaans as the
medium of instruction in schools sparked off months of rioting and
insurrectionary activity. The late 1970s and early 1980s saw the
consolidation of the Black trade union movement, with the formation of
bodies such as FOSATU (Federation of South African Trade unions) and
CUSA (Council of Unions of SA). It also saw the emergence of the first
civic associations (the Soweto Civic Association was launched in 1979,
the Port Elizabeth Black Civics Organisation was launched in 1980).
Resistance escalated following the State’s attempt in 1983 to set up
segregated Indian and Coloured “parliaments”, and to drastically raise
township rent and service charges as part of its program of local
government restructuring. The United Democratic Front (a massive
coalition of unions, civics, youth and women organisations, churches and
other bodies) was launched in 1983; a smaller, more radical National
Forum grouping was established at round about the same time. In 1985,
the main Black trade unions and federations came together to form COSATU
(the Congress of South African Trade Unions), which was the biggest
union federation in South Africa’s history. A second federation, NACTU
(National Council of Trade Unions) was formed in 1987 .
20. The response of the State to the crisis:
20.1. Because of the mass resistance, the State was forced to concede a
number of reforms (e.g.). the removal of restrictions of African trade
unions in 1979, the abolition of job reservation in 1979, the abolition
of petty apartheid (such as racial segregation of public facilities),
limited informal desegregation of the cities (i.e. turning a blind eye
to “grey areas”), and the abolition of the pass laws in 1987. These
reforms were unconditional victories for the mass struggles of the
workers and the poor.
20.2. But at the same time, the State launched a two-pronged strategy to
secure its continued rule and to try to save the system of racial
capitalism:[26]
20.2.1. On the one hand, it made token reforms such as the tri-cameral
parliament, replacing White township administrators with
pseudo-democratic Black Local Authorities, military-administered model
township development projects, and removal of the restrictions on Black
traders in the city centres . These had a clear aim of trying to secure
collaborators in the Black middle class.
20.2.2. On the other hand, it engaged in a strategy of repression and
destabilisation against mass organisations. Funds and other forms of
assistance were channelled to reactionary Black organisations such as
the “Witdoeke” who destroyed four squatter camps at Crossroads in 1986,
Ama-Afrika in the Eastern Cape, and various vigilante groups that
targeted activists. Inkatha, the reactionary and authoritarian Zulu
nationalist organisation, also benefited from this kind of help ((e.g.).
military training of 125 Inkatha activists in the Caprivi strip in 1986;
funding for Inkatha rallies). Death squads also operated (e.g.). the
murder of Matthew Goniwe and other leaders of the Cradock civic in the
Eastern Cape in 1985. This repression took an open form with the States
of emergency of 1985 and 1987, characterised by mass arrests (26,000 by
June 1987),and the crushing of activist groups like youth congresses.
21. The revolutionary potential of the 1980s:
21.1. Mass resistance had a reached a potentially revolutionary level in
the mid-1980s. In this period, a number of townships were made
“ungovernable” to the State, by means of mass rent and service charge
boycotts, mass pressure resulting in the collapse of many local
authorities, and the creation of large no-go areas for forces of the
State like police. In some areas, there was a move from
“ungovernability” to “people’s power”, as local civic and other
relatively democratic community structures began to self- administer the
townships. One of the best known cases of “people’s power” was the 1986
Alexandra uprising. At the same time, there were was a massive and
militant strike wave (e.g. the huge general strike (stayaway) of 1984
which attracted 4 million people; the 1986 mineworkers strike — the
biggest strike in South African history).
21.2. This resistance had the potential of smashing racial capitalism
and the State and building a free society. But in order for this
potential to become reality, it was vital that the masses were won to,
and acted to implement for themselves, the Anarchist idea (i.e.).
working class revolution against the State, capitalism and all forms of
oppression, and the creation of a free federation of worker and
community councils defended by a democratic workers militia.
23.3. However, the dominant political current of the 1970s was left-wing
Black nationalism. This called for on Black working class and poor
people, to form a class alliance with the “progressive” Black middle
class and capitalists in order to replace the Apartheid regime with some
sort of “peoples government” or “national democracy”. In some versions
of nationalism, it was claim that this “national democratic revolution”
was a necessary first “stage” of change that had to be completed before
socialism could (inevitably) follow. Despite its sometimes militant
rhetoric, this political stance could not, and in fact never set out to,
consistently battle in a revolutionary manner the deep roots of racism —
that is, capitalism and the State. The ANC and the other nationalist
organisations have always been pro-capitalist, even if they did
sometimes use socialist-sounding slogans or talk of socialism in the
long run their immediate aim was a capitalist society and a “people’s
government”. As Nelson Mandela stated in the late 1950s in reply to
“Africanist” criticisms that the Freedom Charter was a socialist
document and this foreign to African nationalism, the document is not “a
blue-print for a socialist State” but instead a programme that would
“open up fresh fields for the development of a prosperous non-European
bourgeois class” who would “have the opportunity to own in their own
name and right mills and factories, and trade and private enterprise
will boom and flourish as never before”.[27] Steve Biko himself
suggested in his book I Write What I Like that “We should think along
such lines as the ‘buy black’ campaign once suggested in Johannesburg
and establish our own banks for the benefit of the community”. See below
for a longer discussion of these issues.
23.4. There were also various socialist, class-conscious and libertarian
tendencies in the struggle. For example, there was a powerful socialist
“workerist” current in the trade unions, large segments of which
developed in a quasi- syndicalist direction.[28] The civic movement in
some townships developed in a distinctly anarchistic dimension: for
example the Alexandra and Cradock civics were grassroots structures
based on yard, block, street and zone committees.[29] Overall, however,
the politics of nationalism remained dominant although the contest was
often very close (e.g. in the unions).
25. By means of repression, the State was able to regain some control
over the situation. However, it could not stop the tide of mass
struggle. This continued in the latter part of the 1980s, with the
rebuilding of the United Democratic Front, the continued rise of the
Black unions, student protests etc. By the end of the 1980s, the State
had been fought to a standstill (although not defeated — there was more
of a stalemate). The ruling class was forced to enter negotiations to
replace the racially exclusive “herrenvolk” democracy with a full
bourgeois democracy. In April 1994, the first non-racial elections in
South Africa’s history were held.
26. As Anarchists we recognise that the holding of these elections, and
the constitutional changes which they represent, are a massive victory
for the Black working class and the poor. For the first time in 350
years, Black South Africans are not ruled by a racist dictatorship but
by a parliamentary system. Along with this capitalist democracy come a
whole series of rights which we never had before. We have guaranteed
freedom of speech and association. We have the right to strike and to
protest. We have some protection from racist and sexist practices. These
new political rights did not come from the benevolent hand of the racist
National Party. They were won from struggle. If they come under attack
from whatever quarter, we must use mass action to defend them.[30]
27. Although we recognise the 1994 elections represent an important
advance in the struggle in South Africa, and while we defend people’s
political rights (e.g. the vote), this does not mean that we think that
elections are the way forward to the liberation of the Black working
class and poor. We don’t. The State will always serve the bosses, will
always place “stability”, capitalism and its own power ahead of the
needs of the masses. This is why the new government continues to attack
struggles, arrest strikers, evict squatters, and says that strikers
“harm the economy”. It will not willingly address the needs of the Black
working class majority, uinstead it will defend the powerful and rich.
See position paper on class struggle for more discussion on the state.
28. The State is not some neutral tool at the disposal of voters. The
State is an organ of coercion that exists to defend the power and the
wealth the ruling class. This was why the State was built. Besides this,
the State is funded by taxes and loan capital from business, and
business by definition raises these resources by exploiting the working
class and the poor. The State will not challenge the processes of
capitalist accumulation which are so necessary for its very funding.
29. In addition, most of the top positions in the State apparatus
((e.g.). top civil servants, top military officials) are staffed by
people drawn from the ranks of the ruling class. In South Africa, this
has historically meant individuals from the ranks of big business or the
leadership of the Afrikaner nationalist establishment. However, we do
not think that it will make all that much difference if these people are
replaced by progressive Black professionals and politicians. Firstly,
the State is a large organisation, made up of many officials and built
to defend the ruling class. Changing a few faces at the top will not do
much to alter the way that the State operates in practice. Secondly, as
is well known, top State officials get huge salaries, and most of them
soon get a taste for the power and privilege that their position brings
them. This “gravy train” gives them a vested interest in not “rocking
the boat” too much.
30. Elections will not make the State accountable to the majority, or
give it a mandate to act in their interests. Real power does not lie
with the 400 people who get elected to parliament. It lies in the large
(and unelected government bureaucracy/ civil service), it lies in the
military, and it lies in the boardrooms of the companies. If an elected
government were genuinely a threat to the bosses and the rulers, they
would sabotage and undermine it through the civil service and through
their control of the media and the economy. If necessary, they would
remove it by means of the army. In all these actions, they are often
supported by other ruling classes and capitalist structures, because
these also support the power of the bosses and rulers.
31. The State is a hierarchical top-down structure, specifically
designed to concentrate power in the hands of a small exploiting
minority. It is built to be controlled by a small group, and because of
its structure involve the majority of people in decision-making. The
State can therefore never liberate the masses; at most it can only
create a help to create a new elite ruling over everybody else (e.g.).
as happened in the Russian Revolution.
32. As Anarchists, we also disagree with parliamentary democracy and
elections because we disagree with idea that 400 people, elected or
otherwise, have the right to make decisions on behalf of another 40
million. We want a society where people control their everyday lives
through grassroots worker and community councils, and not only every
five years by putting a piece of paper in a ballot box.
33. Because of the nature of the State as an organisation that
concentrates decision-making in the hands of an extremely well paid
minority, and because the new State has promised to help promote Black
business, it is clear that one of the main effects of the new political
set-up will be to create a new Black middle and upper class. This Black
elite (drawn mainly from political leaders, educated professionals and
Black business) will because of its position of wealth and power act to
defend and manage capitalism, and will in real, objective terms be the
ally of the old White ruling class. This is not to say that conflicts
will not arise between the Black and White bosses and rulers, as they
obviously will (e.g.). because of the continued racism of many White
capitalists, because of the reluctance of White capital to appoint more
Black people to management and executive positions. However, these
conflicts will be about how to run capitalism and the State, not over
whether or not to destroy these structures of oppression.
Nationalisation does not equal socialism.
33.1. All that nationalisation means is that a company is transferred
from the hands of the small elite that run the economy to the hands of
the small elite that run the State. It has got nothing to do with real
workers control of industry. In addition, the bosses (because they
control the State and the economy) are generally able to block the
nationalisation of any company that they wish to keep private. Generally
speaking, States only nationalise crisis- ridden companies, or those
that they can buy by paying compensation. Finally, any nationalised
company still has to operate inside the larger capitalist economy and
will thus be forced to operate in a similar way to private companies.
The only State assets which form a partial exception to this rule are
social services (e.g.. education), and “strategic” industries (e.g.. the
military), which the State feels are vital, but which cannot be provided
on a commercial basis or by the market because they are not profitable
enough.
33.2. However, while we recognise that nationalisation does not equal
socialism, we are opposed to schemes for the privatisation of State
assets in the current period. This is because we are opposed to the
massive job losses that privatisation of State companies almost always
entails, and because we are opposed to any attempt to run essential
social services (e.g. hospitals) on a fully commercial basis as this
will put them outside of the reach of the poor who cannot afford to pay
the price set by the market. We reject the idea that privatisation is a
route to “Black economic empowerment” because only a small elite of rich
Blacks will be able to buy up these assets, and because that elite will
obviously use their property to make profits. For us, Black economic
empowerment means the freedom of the Black working class from poverty
and from bosses of any kind.
34. We are not suggesting that there is no difference between the aims,
policies etc. of the different political parties that try to get into
Parliament. Obviously there are. Our point is that all political
parties, no matter what their aims etc. are, are forced to behave in
broadly similar ways by the nature of the State organisation.
35. For all of the reasons above, we will never participate in elections
(even to “make propaganda”) because this a totally futile strategy that
teaches people to identify with the State and to rely on so-called
“leaders” to liberate them from above. For the same reasons, we will not
work inside any parliamentary political party. It is clear that
socialism can never come through Parliament. In fact, all socialist
parties that get involved in Parliament inevitably develop in a
reformist direction. This is because their leaders who get elected to
parliament develop a vested interest in working within the system
(because of their salaries etc.), because these elected leaders tend to
get into the habit of viewing things from the perspective of the other
politicians, top civil servants etc. and because, in the rush to win a
majority in the elections, these parties make their programmes as
moderate as possible in order not to alienate possible voters (i.e..
they dump their radical programmes rather than educate the people in
socialism).
36. We also reject the argument that we must vote for progressive
parties in order to defend the gains of the transition. Our rights do
not originate in parliament. They were forced on parliament through
struggle and sacrifice and they will be defended in the same way. Only
mass struggle against the capitalists and against the State will win
gains.
37. We reject the argument that what is wrong with the South African
State in the current period is that its constitution places too many
constraints on Black political parties. (The Interim Constitution says
that any party with more than 5% of the vote must be included in a
governing coalition with majority party (this is what is meant by
“Government of National Unity”). It also protects private property).
While we recognise that many unnecessary compromises were made to the
racist National Party at the CODESA negotiations, we insist that the
nature of the State will not change just because one official document,
the Constitution, is worded differently.
38. Racism cannot be decisively defeated whilst the capitalist system
continues to exist.
38.1. As we pointed out above, racism has been central to capitalism and
the State in all phases of their development since their emergence in
the 1500s. This system is inherently racist and will always generate
racism in one form or another. Although legal Apartheid has been
defeated in South Africa, we can already see the outlines of a new
racism emerging in the form of attacks on so-called “illegal immigrants”
from other African countries. The immigrants have been blamed for
everything from unemployment to housing shortages to the crime rate.
They lack the most basic legal and democratic rights, they face
arbitrary brutality, detention, and deportation at the hands of the
police, they are super- exploited by bosses who like nothing better than
a labour force without basic worker and union rights, and they face
violent assaults by reactionary vigilantes looking for a vulnerable
target on whom to blame their own poverty and powerlessness. We defend
the immigrants, and fight for the abolition of all the racist
anti-immigrant laws. We know that it is the greedy bosses who are
responsible for the problems of unemployment, crime and poverty and not
our fellow- workers from Africa.
38.2. Although legal Apartheid is dead, Black working class and poor
people still suffer its legacy: poverty, rotten schools, landlessness,
unemployment etc. These problems will not be solved by capitalism (“the
market”) or by the State, because these forces are based on the
exploitation and domination of the masses by the ruling class. They will
always prioritise the profits and the power of the bosses and rulers
over the needs of the masses of workers and poor. Dealing with these
problems will require a massive redistribution of resources from the
ruling class to the masses. It will also need a massive reorganisation
of the economy. The means of production (mines, factories etc.) must be
controlled by the working class and the poor and used to produce for
people’s needs rather than for profit. Production must be planned from
below by worker and community councils, and goods distributed in the
basis of need, rather than ability to pay. This is Anarchism or
Stateless Socialism. See position paper on class struggle for more
discussion on capitalism.
39. If the State and capitalism have the key role in creating and
sustaining racism, it follows that the fight against racism must be a
fight against the State and capitalism. Business and government are not
part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
40. We thus disagree with Black nationalism because its strategy is to
take control of the State, because it believes that the State can
represent and implement the “will of the people”. As we showed above,
this is an incorrect idea.
41. The fact that the fight against racism must also be a fight against
capitalism and the State means that the fight against racism must be a
class struggle. Only the working class and the poor have the ability to
defeat capitalism and the State and create a free Anarchist/ Syndicalist
(stateless socialist) society (i.e.). a society based on individual
freedom, worker and community councils, production and distribution
according to need, defended by a democratic workers militia. Only in
such a society will the legacy and reality of racism and aparthied be
finally destroyed by the creation of a human community, by
redistribution and development, and by the removal of the structural
basis for racism in its all its various forms under the State and
capitalism.
42. Why is only class struggle capable of fighting capitalism and the
State and creating a free stateless socialist (anarcho-syndicalist)
society? This issue is deal with in more detail in the Position Paper on
“Class Struggle, Capitalism and the State”), but briefly put:
42.1. Only the workers and the poor have the power to fight the bosses
and rulers because their position as the creators of all social wealth
gives tehm immense power at the piont of production.
42.2. The bosses and rulers benefit from capitalism, the State and the
exploitation of the labour of the working class, working peasantry and
poor. This means, firstly, that these classes have a vestecd interest in
the current system and will thus defend it against the struggle of the
masses. Secondly, it measns that these classes are incapable of creating
a anti-authoritarian and socialistic society as they are by definition
exploiters. Only the working people can create a free society because
only they do not exploit.
42.3. This includes the Black elite — their privileges under this system
mean that they will defend capitalism and the State even though by doing
so they defend the roots of racism. The Black elite’s privileged
lifestyle shields them from the worst effects of racism (they live in
the susburbs, go to fancy schools, have lawyers, money etc). It is
rubbish to say that all Black people have a common experience that
unites them. There is a world of difference between the life of Tokyo
Sexwale and a Black farmworker: they do not share the same experience of
life just because they are both Black. The aims of the Black elite in
fighting racism are not to destroy its effects such as poverty, but just
to improve their access to the spoils of capitalism by getting more
economic and political power so that they can, in turn, exploit the
mainly Black South African working class. In objective terms this makes
the Black elite, no matter what their rhetoric, the objective allies of
the old racist White ruling class in South Africa — when push comes to
shove, they will join together against those of us at the bottom — the
working class and the poor.
43. This is another point where we disagree with Black nationalism — it
calls for an alliance of all Black classes as the basis for the struggle
against White racism. But we recognise that the Black upper class is
pro-capitalists and pro-State and cannot therefore consistently fight
racism. In fact, it is part of the enemy — the ruling class that
benefits from capitalism, the State and the super-exploitation of Black
labour. In order to make an alliance possible between Black people of
different classes, one would have to adopt a pro-capitalist, pro-State
line in order to attract the Black elite. This gives these classes an
effective veto on workers demands (because anything seen as too
threatening will scare off the elite, meaning that workers demands will
have to be scarificed in the quest for “unity”). This means that an
alliance of all classes cannot fight racism at its roots or to create a
society that will meet the needs of all its people. This capitalist
dominance will be reinforced by the education and wealth of the elite,
who will be in a position to dominate these alliances. These elite
classes will hijack any class alliance to secure their own class agenda.
In fact, this is the drive that lies behind nationalism — it is an
attempt by frsutrated Black elites under colonialism or aparthied to
build allies with the lower classes in order to strengthen their own
position and demands for a bigger slice of the capitalist cake;
meanwhile the workers are stuck with the crumbs
44. As Anarchists we oppose on principle every form of oppression (e.g.
racism) wherever it exists, no matter which class is affected. That is
why we will fight against racism in business or for that matter the
State. But this does not mean that we work with capitalist, politicians
or other ruling class enemies — they are part of the problem not the
solution. We reject all class alliances other than unity between the
oppressed peasants, poor and workers. We fight on a class struggle basis
against capitalism, the State and all oppresssion.
45. Not only is the fight against racism only possible through class
struggle, but the class struggle itself can only be succesful if it is
also a fight against racism. as a central part of the class struggle.
Class struggle does not ignore sexism, racism etc: insofar as the
majority of people who are affected by these oppressions (and who are
also affected the worst by these oppressions) are working class, insofar
as these oppressions are rooted in the capitalist system, and insofar as
the working class can only be united and mobilized on the basis of
opposing all oppression, these issues are all class issues. It is
impossible to mobilize the working class without dealing with all the
issues that affect the working class. That is to say, the class struggle
can only succeed if it is anti-racist, anti-sexist etc. We therefore
stand for the destruction of all special oppressions that divide the
working class. See below for discussion of whether white workers benefit
from racism.
46. We also stand for united, integrated, internationalist class
struggle politics. No one section of the working class can win freedom
on its own, the struggle must be united (this is where a strength lies,
and because we have common interests) and internationalist (because no
revolution can succeed in one country alone). See position paper on
anti-imperialism for discussion of internationalism. On the issue of
whether specially oppressed sections of the working class should
organise seperately, see position papers on seperate organisations for
more discussion on this point.
47. We always stand in solidarity with the struggles of the working
class and the poor, even if they fight under the banner of nationalism.
We support all progressive struggles for their own aims and for the
confidence that campaigning gives to people. We recognise that in a
struggle against racism Black nationalism is on the side of the
progressive forces and we thus defend it from attack by reactionaries.
We recognise that in the present period that this means that we often
have to fight alongside various nationalist currents who represent class
alliances. However, we not hide our politics. We will argue for class
politics, direct action, anti-statism, anti-capitalism and the need for
revolution. Where nationalists get into power, our role is not to defend
them but to organise against them on a class struggle basis as they are
now part of the system of oppression. Our role as Anarchists is to take
up the battle of ideas and we know that this is most effectively done in
struggle.
48. The argument for integrtated workers struggle and unity made above,
of course assumes that workers have common interests. Black nationalists
on the left, and white racists on the right deny this, arguing that
White working class people benefit from Black oppression. This is a key
issue, requiring a nuanced analysis. In answering this we need to
distinguish between the situation in South African and in other
countries where racism exists.
49. For South Africa, the short answer for the Apartheid era must be
“yes”. Apartheid guaranteed job security, high wages, a good pension
etc. In South Africa, which was historically a colony of white
settlement, the small White working class received massive and real
gains from the racist system because of the bosses need to strengthen
the racial capitalism.
50. These privileges were only possible as the White workers were a
small part of the working class, and because the economy was booming.
However, we recognise that White working class people were not the
primary cause of racism and Apartheid. The main blame lies at the door
of capitalism and the State. We also recognise that the high levels of
racial privilege for White workers were made possible by the fact that
they were a small minority of the working class who the bosses wanted to
buy off.
51. Now that legal Apartheid is gone, White workers must realise that no
real benefits will be derived from racism (except in unsusual
circumstances). Racial privileges in the form of job reservation etc.
have gone, and are being replaced by affirmative action, laws against
discrimination etc. Therefore, to tie their future to a racist politics
that will deliver nothing but isolation from the majority of the South
African working class is a useless recipe for failure. On the contrary,
they must stand alongside their Black class brothers and sisters if they
want to survive the capitalists assualt. With the fall of Apartheid, the
rapid erosion of racist privileges opens up the possibility of sections
of the White workers joining with Black in large numbers as reliable
allies. This is not an abstract claim: we have already seen this when
the mainly White 70,000 SASBO (SA Society of Bank Officals) union left
FEDSAL (Federation of SA Labour) to join COSATU; and in the increased
recruitment of White workers to NUMSA (National Union of Metalworkers of
South Africa), CWU (Communication Workers Union), and SAHRWU (Harbours
and Railways). None of this is inevitable, and the continuing racism of
large sections of the White working class may well mean that many will
never see beyond their prejudices in favour of their true interests, or
that progressive White workers will be under strong pressure to
disaffilaite from the non-racial unions like COSATU and its affiliates.
Unity will have to be fought for, but we stress that this can only come
on an anti-racist platform and that activist positions in the unions
should remain brioadly representative of the composition of the rank and
file.
52. We reject the economically determinist Black Consciousness argument
that White people’s racial privileges make them unable to consistently
fight racism. Even at the very height of Apartheid, a small number of
communists and democrats emerged from the White working class (e.g. Joe
Slovo; Solly Sachs; Bill Andrews). However, we do recognise that the
racial privilege made it almost certain that this group would be a
minority among Whites.
53. We reject the argument that the small number of White leaders
present in the African National Congress are responsible for the
reformist and pro-capitalist policies of that organisation. The moderate
policies of the ANC reflect the fact that it is a class alliance of
Black people (and must thus pander to the Black middle class and
business class), as well as the fact that the ANC accepts and operates
within the limits set by capitalism and the State. As for COSATU’s
reformist direction, this reflects the dominance of ANC ideology amongst
the membership, as well as the interests of the union bureaucracy. See
position paper on the unions for more on this point.
54. We also reject the Black Consciousness argument that all Black
people have the same material interests and conditions. This is patently
untrue. The interest of the Black middle class and business strata are
to take down the barriers to their own pursuit of power and profit. Even
under Apartheid, the Black middle class and businesspeople enjoyed a
better standard of living than working class and poor people, and these
class divisions have been rapidly widening since the 1980s.
55. In countries like Britain and Europe, where the white working class
forms the majority of the population, the situation is more complex.
However, we argue that these workers do not benefit from racism in their
own countries, or from imperialist exploitation in other countries,
contrary to petty bourgeois nationalists in both contexts.
56. While White workers in these countries may receive some benefits
from racism, such as slightly lower rates of unemployment, these
benefits are limited. At the same time, however, most White working
class people in these countries also receive low wages, face
unemployment, bad schools and so on. We should not make the mistake of
assuming that they are as prosperous as White workers under Apartheid.
Whites make up the majority of the poor and unemployed here.
57. These benefits are outweighed by the serious negative consequences
of racism. Racism divides and weakens working class struggles. It thus
worsens conditions for all workers. Racism is not therefore in the real
interests of the White workers in these countries. It is no accident
that the US working class, long divided and ruled by the bosses
manipulation of “race”, has the weakest traditions of worker solidarity
and union organising, and the worst welfare system of any major western
country.
58. We reject the argument that these White workers receive part of the
surplus extracted by super-exploitation from Black minorities in these
countries. This argument is absurd. Black people form a tiny minority in
these countries and in addition, face high levels of unemployment, and
thus do not generate enough surplus to “subsidise” the other 70% of the
population (the White working class). We argue that whatever benefits
White workers receive from racism is insignificant in comparison with
the gains that can be achieved through united class struggle (e.g..
unions, mass actions against welfare cuts, Anarchist revolution).
59. We reject the argument that the White working classes of the West
benefit from imperialism. See position paper on anti-imperialism.
60. At the same time, workers unity is in the direct interest of the
specially oppressed Black minorities in the West. As norted above, unity
of all classes in “the Black community” is a recipe for futility in the
fight against racism because of the compromises it requires. At the same
time, these minorities, are, at the end of the day, too isolated and
small to beat capitalism and racism on their own. They need allies from
people who do share their same basic interests, and who have an
objective interest in genuinely opposing racism — the White working
class.
61. Therefore, we fight for workers unity on anti-racist basis as an
immediate and necessary step towards the revolution in these countries.
It is in the interests of all western workers — White and Black — that
specially oppressed sections of the working class and poor are drawn
into the unions and other working class bodies, and that the unions take
up the fight against racism. The fight against racism must be a class
struggle; and the class struggle must be a fight against racism. It is
essential that the support of thw working class as a whole is won to
anti-racism. White workers are not inherently racist, as is shown by
large-scale participation in anti-racist riots such as Los Angeles
(1992) and Brixton, London (1995), and in demonstrations against the
oppression of immigrants (France 1996).
Africa
Also see poisition paper on seperate organisation.
62. The Black working class and poor will make the South African
revolution. The Black working class and poor forms by far the majority
of the South African population. It also makes up the vast bulk of the
country’s working class. As the victim of the super-exploitation on
which the South African ruling class built its wealth and power, the
Black working class and poor harbour the deepest grievances against the
bosses and rulers, as well as being strategically located at the heart
of South African capitalism. Finally, it is evident that, particularly
since the 1920s, the Black working class and poor have been the most
militant, combatitive and well-organised section of the working class.
It is quite obvious that there is no large White working class or
left-wing movement that is capable of marginalising Black concerns and
demands. Instead, although there are growing prospects for White-Black
worker unity, it is almost certain that the activist layers and most
militant workers and poor people will be drawn from the Black working
class. While their have been a number of working class fighters from the
White working class committed to an anti-racist, anti-capitalist
struggle (eg. Andrew Dunbar, the anarcho-syndicalist who helped form the
first militant Black trade union in South Africa, the Industrial Workers
of Africa in 1917; Joe Slovo and Ray Alexander of the Communist Party),
we know that the White working remains on the whole conservative.
63. We reject the argument that change in South Africa (and other
quasi-colonial situations) must take place in two- stages. This argument
is made by the South African Communist Party (SACP) as well as other
groups such as the Zimbabwean African National Union (ZAPU — ruling
party in Zimbabwe), and Sinn Fein/ Irish Republican Army (IRA) in
Ireland. According to this theory, there must first be a
“national-democratic revolution” which will do away with racism/
colonial oppression and set up a parliamentary democracy; only when this
stage is complete can there be a “pure” class struggle (uncomplicated by
issues of fighting racism and colonialism) towards a “socialist
revolution”. Also see position paper on anti-imperialism for discussion
of these issues.
64. This argument assumes that capitalism and the State can be
deracialised in meaningful way. This is patently false: capitalism and
the State are inherently racist institutions and will always generate
new forms of racism and the legacy of racism (in the South African case)
cannot be addressed under capitalism, or through the State.
65. Secondly, precisely because it incorporates exploiting classes, a
class alliance is necessarily implies an acceptance of capitalism and
the State in the medium and long-term. How else can Black capitalists be
kept in an alliance with Black workers other than to promise to preserve
capitalism and the State? The price of an alliance is thus a
renunciation of the principles of socialism; the small elites have an
effective veto on the programme of the alliance despite their ability to
provide much of value to the struggle. It is thus wrong to see a class
alliance as the first step towards socialism — it is a step backwards.
It is thus also incorrect to claim that the working class will “lead”
the class alliance — the class allliance can only survive if workers
real interests are sidelined.
66. Where movements making such arguments get into power (through a
massive struggle, or even a compromise like in South Africa), there is a
strong tendency for the beginning of the second stage to postponed
forever. This is because the leadership of these movements get a vested
interest in preserving the existing society, since, after all, it gives
them high salaries and a lot of power. As a result excuses such as “the
objective conditions are not right” are constantly found in order to say
that socialism is not on the agenda.
67. We argue that your means and your ends must be consistent. You
cannot get to socialism by means a long detour. We cannot build for a
working class revolution against the State, capitalism and all forms of
oppression to create stateless socialist society by first teaching the
people to unite with the “national” or “progressive” middle class and
capitalists, and to support the State and to aim to “humanise”
capitalism etc. We need to build tomorrow today, by spreading
revolutionary ideas in the here and now, by calling for mass actions and
by restructuring the union movement in a revolutionary direction. Local
elites are part of the problem, they are not part of the solution.
68. As Anarchists we are avowed opponents of racism. We believe that
racism must be fought through mass action. We get involved in struggles
against racism for their own aims, for the confidence that campaigning
gives people, and because we stand in solidarity with our class. We
recognise that it is in struggle that people are won to revolutionary
ideas. We always try to link daily struggles against racism to our
vision of a free society, and we argue that only a working class
revolution can finally uproot and defeat racism.
Also see papers on trade unions and on imperialism.
69. Struggle for land redistribution. Argue against the notion that land
should be redistributed through the market. Oppose compensation payments
for land that was seized under colonialism and Apartheid. Call for land
to be redistributed to working class and poor people, as opposed to rich
Black peasants, small commercial farmers, businessmen or chiefs. Argue
for land to be self-managed by collectives of working class and poor
people, including non-racist White workers.
70. Call for the upgrading of Black schools and an improved teacher:
pupil ratio. Argue for democratic teaching methods and school
administration. Oppose policies that exclude pupils who cannot pay from
education or exams. Support the struggle to correct the historic racial
imbalances that exist in tertiary education. Support equal access of all
people to higher education. Call for dismissal of old “Apartheid”
management boards of universities, but argue that we need to work out
ways of genuinely empowering workers, faculty and students rather than
just change a few faces at the top. Argue for use of intellectual
resources of universities to aid Black working class as opposed to
training managers and technocrats. See paper on student movement for
further discussion.
71. Defend affirmative action. Recognise need to deracialise the skilled
trades and professions. Fight for end to wage disparities between White
and Black workers in the same occupation. Oppose large wage gap between
artisans and semi- skilled and unskilled workers. Equal wages for white
collar and blue collar workers. Support skills upgrading of Black
workers. However, oppose attempts to use affirmative action to build
networks of political patronage or to break strikes or bash unions.
72. Call for programme of township development. Argue that development
can only proceed if undertaken in meaningful consultation with
democratic community organisations. Argue for leading role of local
communities in determining development priorities. Call for large-scale
programme of housebuilding, electrification and roadbuilding. Link this
to question of fighting unemployment. Call for upgrading of squatter
camps.
73. While recognising the limits of the penal system, defend call for
prosecution of Apartheid generals and politicians. Oppose amnesty
schemes and “golden handshake” deals for these people. But also link
issue of Apartheid and its crimes to capitalism and the bosses (rather
than just political figures).
74. Oppose all attacks on immigrants and attempts to set up tensions
between immigrant and South African people. Point out that it is the
bosses and rulers who are responsible for unemployment, housing
shortages and the crime rate. Oppose attempts to justify attacks on
immigrants on the grounds that “their” governments supported Apartheid.
Oppose deportations, detentions and police and vigilante attacks on
immigrants. Call for full legal, civil, and union rights for immigrants.
Call on unions to defend immigrant workers.
[1] Figures in this section are from A. Whiteford , (March 11–17 1994),
“The Poor Get Even Poorer” in The Weekly Mail and Guardian, p.8; L.
Schlemmer, (1996), “The Nemesis of Race: a Case for Redoubled Concern”,
in Frontiers of Freedom. South African Institute of Race Relations.
3^(rd) quarter; B. Turok, (1993), “South Africa’s Skyscraper Economy:
Growth or Development?”, in D. Hallowes (ed.), Hidden Faces:
Environment, Development, Justice: South Africa and the Global Context.
Earthlife Africa. South Africa; J. Pearce, (March 17–23, 1995), “Still a
Land of Inequality”, in Weekly Mail and Guardian.
[2] These quotes are from A. Whiteford , (March 11–17 1994), “The Poor
Get Even Poorer” in The Weekly Mail and Guardian, p.8
[3] see, for example, M. Bakunin (1867), “Federalism, socialism and
anti-theologism”, in Sam Dolgoff (ed.), (1973) Bakunin On Anarchy:
Selected Works Of The Activist Founder Of World Anarchism (Allen and
Unwin) p146; P.A. Kropotkin, (1887), “Anarchist Communism: its basis and
principles,” in P.A. Kropotkin, (1987), Anarchism and Anarchist
Communism (N. Walter (ed.), Freedom Press. London). p39; P.A. Kropotkin,
(1882), “Expropriation”, in P.A. Kropotkin, (1970), Selected Writings on
Anarchism and Revolution. (M.Miller (ed.). MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
and London, England), p194; P. Marshall (1993), Demanding the
Impossible: a History of Anarchism, chapter 20 (on Elisee Reclus).
Fontana: London; also on Erdclus: M.Fleming, 1979, The Anarchist Way to
Socialism: Elisee Reclus and Nineteenth-Century Euopean Anarchism. Crrom
Helm, London. Rowan and Littlefield, New Jersey, especially chapters 2
and 12; Rudolph Rocker, (1978) “The Nation in the Light of Modern Race
Theories”, from his book Nationalism and Culture, Croixside Press,
StillWater, Minnesota; J. Casanovas, (1995), “Slavery, the Labour
Movement and Spanish Colonialism in Cuba, 1850–1890”, in International
Review of Social History, no. 40; P. Avrich, 1984, The Haymarket
Tragedy. Princeton University Press. Princteton, N.J. [on the IWPA];
Philip S. Foner, (1974), Organised Labour and the Black Worker 1619–1973
(United States), International Pubs, New York; Piotr Arshinov, (1987),
“The Meaning of the National Question in the Maknovshchina. The Jewish
Question”, from his book History of the Makhnovist Movement 1918–21,
1987. Freedom Press, London; M. Malet (1982), Nestor Makhno in the
Russian Civil War (Macmillan Press: London); also see Anarchist
Communist Federation, “From Panther to Anarchist”, Organise! for Class
Struggle Anarchism, Magazine of the Anarchist Communist Federation.
London. no. 28, October- December 1992.
[4] This is the focus of Rudolph Rocker, (1978) “The Nation in the Light
of Modern Race Theories”, from his book Nationalism and Culture.
Croixside Press, StillWater, Minnesota. Recent social scientific
arguments that make the same point are Barrett, M., and M. McIntosh,
(1985), “Ethnocentrism and Socialist-Feminist Theory,” in Feminist
Review No. 20; Fried, M.H., (1975), “A Four Letter Word that Hurts,” in
H.Bernard (ed.), The Human Way: Readings in Anthropology, New York. pp.
38–45; C. Lewonthin and others, (1984), Not in our Genes (Pantheon
Publishers).
[5] Rocker hits the nail on the head when he argues that the real point
of racist ideas is to justify the rule of the bosses and to justify
counter-revolutionary attacks on the masses of the people, such as
Nazism and Fascism. Rocker writes that racist ideas are “rooted in the
very foundations of all spiritual, political, and social reaction: in
the attitudes of masters towards their slaves. Every class that has thus
far attained to power has felt the need of stamping their rulership with
the mark of the unalterable and the predestined ... They regard
themselves as the chosen ones and think that they recognise in
themselves externally the marks of the men of privilege ... All
advocates of the race doctrine [i.e.. racism] have been and are the
associates of and defenders of every social and political reaction,
advocates of the power principle in its most brutal form ... One
comprehends how this doctrine has found such ready acceptance in the
ranks of the great industrialists” (Rudolph Rocker, (1978) “The Nation
in the Light of Modern Race Theories”, from his book Nationalism and
Culture).
[6]
B. Magubane, (1979) The Political Economy of Race and Class in South
Africa (Monthly Review Press)
[7] Some key works which discuss these points V.L. Allen, (1992), “The
Genesis of Racism on the Mines”, in his The History of Black Mineworkers
in South Africa. The Moor Press. See also “The Origins Of Racism” in L.
Callinicos, (1980), Gold and Workers 1886–1924, Volume one of A People’s
History of South Africa, Ravan Press, Johannesburg. Chapter 17.
[8] The key works which help one to understand these arguments include
B. Magubane, (1979) The Political Economy of Race and Class in South
Africa (Monthly Review Press); L. Callinicos, (1980), Gold and Workers
1886–1924, Volume one of A People’s History Of South Africa, Ravan
Press, Johannesburg. Chapter 17; M. Legassick (1974), “South Africa:
capital accumulation and violence”, in Economy and Society vol. 3 no 3;
M. Legassick (1977), “Gold, Agriculture and Secondary Industry in South
Africa, 1885–1970” in R. Palmer and N. Parsons (ed.) The Roots of Rural
Poverty in Central and Southern Africa; M. Lacey (1981) Working for
Boroko: the Origins of a Coercive Labour System in South Africa. Ravan.
. But see also D. Posel, (1983), “Rethinking the ‘Race-Class’ Debate in
South African Historiography,” in Social Dynamics vol. 9, no. 1. pp50-66
for a useful critique of the reductionist and functionalist tendencies
in much of this literature. An implicit critique of the same points is
provided by D. Yudelman , (1983), The Emergence of Modern South Africa:
State, Capital and the Incorporation of Organised Labour on the South
African Gold Fields 1902–39. On the same point, also see C. Saunders
(1988), “Historians and Apartheid”, in J. Lonsdale (ed.), South Africa
in Question. African Studies Centre, University of Cambridge, in
association with James Currey (London) and Heinemann (Portsmouth).
[9] In addition to the works cited above, on the pre-1870s period see
also Bundy, C., (1972), “The Emergence and Decline of a South African
Peasantry,” in African Affairs no. 7 (should be read in conjunction with
Lewis, J., (1984), “The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry: a
critique and reassessment”, in Journal of Southern African Studies, vol.
11, no. 1); Ross, R., (1986), “The Origins of Capitalist Agriculture in
the Cape Colony: A Survey”, in W. Beinart, P. Delius and S. Trapido
(eds.), Putting A Plough To The Ground: Accumulation And Dispossession
In Rural South Africa, 1850- 1930. Ravan. Johannesburg; P. Delius and S.
Trapido, “Inboeksellings and Oorlams: the Creation and Transformation of
a Servile Class”, in B. Bozzoli (ed.), 1983), Town and Countryside in
the Transvaal. Ravan. Johannesburg.
[10] see C. Bundy, “Vagabond Hollanders and Runaway Englishmen” in W.
Beinart, P. Delius and S. Trapido (eds.), Putting a Plough to the
Ground: Accumulation and Dispossession in Rural South Africa, 1850–1930.
Ravan. Johannesburg.
[11] quoted in R. Ross, (1986), “The Origins Of Capitalist Agriculture
In The Cape Colony: A Survey”, in W. Beinart, P. Delius and S. Trapido
(eds.), Putting a Plough to the Ground: Accumulation and Dispossession
in Rural South Africa, 1850–1930. Ravan. Johannesburg. pp74-5.
[12] In addition to the references given in note 8, see Bundy, C.,
(1972), “The Emergence and Decline of a South African Peasantry,” in
African Affairs no. 7 (should be read in conjunction with Lewis, J.,
(1984), “The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry: A Critique
And Reassessment”, in Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 11, no.
1); Keegan, T., (1983), “The Sharecropping Economy. African Class
Formation, and the 1913 Natives’ Land Act in the Highveld Maize Belt,”
in S. Marks and R. Rathbone (eds.), Industrialisation and Social Change
in South Africa. London.; R. Turrell, Capital and Labour on the Kimberly
Diamond Fields, esp. chapter 2.; L. Callinicos, (1987), Working Life:
Factories, Townships and Popular Culture on the Rand 1886–1940, volume
two of A People’s History of South Africa, Ravan Press, Johannesburg; L.
Callinicos, .(1993), A Place in the City: the Rand on the Eve of
Apartheid, volume three of A People’s History of South Africa. Ravan.
Maskew Miller. Longman.
[13] quoted in L. Callinicos, (1980), Gold and Workers 1886–1924, Volume
one of A People’s History Of South Africa, Ravan Press, Johannesburg.
p.102.
[14] ibid.
[15] cited in F. Wilson, “Farming 1886–1966”, in Oxford History of South
Africa. p. 162.
[16] cited in L. Callinicos, (1987), Working Life: Factories, Townships
and Popular Culture on the Rand 1886–1940, volume two of A People’s
History of South Africa, Ravan Press, Johannesburg. p127.
[17] An excellent analysis of this issue is provided by M. Lacey (1981)
Working for Boroko: the Origins of a Coercive Labour System in South
Africa. Ravan. See also L. Callinicos, (1987), Working Life: Factories,
Townships and Popular Culture on the Rand 1886–1940, volume two of A
People’s History of South Africa, Ravan Press, Johannesburg. The book,
R. Morrel (ed.), (1991), White But Poor: Essays on the History of Poor
Whites in Southern Africa, 1880–1940, UNISA,. Pretoria. contains
interesting material on this issue. See especially the chapters by
Freund and Parnell.
[18]
D. Yudelman , (1983), The Emergence of Modern South Africa: State,
Capital and the Incorporation of Organised Labour on the South
African Gold Fields 1902–39 argues, correctly, that while the State
cannot simply be reduced to the instrument of capital, its
dependence on the capitalist system for funding ensures that
capitalism and the State function in a symbiotic relationship.
[19] quoted in M. Legassick (1974), “South Africa: Capital Accumulation
and Violence”, in Economy and Society vol. 3 no 3, p275.
[20] cited in J.Natrass, 1988, The South African Economy: Its Growth and
Change. Oxford University Press. Cape Town. Second edition. pp. 139–40.
[21] cited in F. Wilson, “Farming 1886–1966”, in Oxford History of South
Africa. pp 158–163.
[22] On the economic contradictions that underlay the crisis of
racial-capitalism, see Morris, M. and V. Padayachee, (1988), “State
Reform Policy in South Africa”, in Transformation v7; J.S. Saul and S.
Gelb, (1986), The Crisis in South Africa. Zed. London. (revised
edition); T.C. Moll, (1989), “’Probably the Best Laager in the World’:
The Record and Prospects of the South African Economy,” in J.D. Brewer
(ed.), Can South Africa Survive? Five Minutes to Midnight. Southern Book
Publishers. South Africa; T.C. Moll, (1991), “Did the Apartheid Economy
‘Fail’?”, in Journal of Southern African Studies. vol. 17. no. 4; T.
Kemp, (1991), “South Africa: Gold, Industrialisation and White
Supremacy”, in his Historical Patterns of Industrialisation. Longmans.
[23] cited in J.S. Saul and S. Gelb, (1986), The Crisis in South Africa.
Zed. London. (revised edition) p. 72, also see 84.
[24] cited in J.S. Saul and S. Gelb, (1986), The Crisis in South Africa.
Zed. London. (revised edition) p. 80.
[25] For an excellent discussion of the political resistance of the
1980s see Lodge, T., (1991), “Rebellion: the Turning of the Tide,” in
Lodge, T. and B. Nasson. All, Here, and Now: Black Politics in South
Africa in the 1980s. South Africa Update Series. Ford Foundation.
Foreign Policy Association. Good accounts of trade union history in this
period are provided by J. Baskin, (1991), Striking Back: A History of
COSATU. Ravan Press. Johannesburg , and S. Friedman ., (1987), Building
Tomorrow Today: African Workers in Trade Unions, 1970–84. Ravan.
Johannesburg. Also see J. Hyslop (1988), “School Student Movements and
State Education Policy: 1972–87,” in R. Cohen and W. Cobbett (eds.),
(1988), Popular Struggles in South Africa. Regency House. James Currey.
Africa World Press ; R. Lambert and E. Webster, (1988), “The Re-
emergence of Political Unionism in Contemporary South Africa?,” in R.
Cohen and W. Cobbett (eds.), (1988), Popular Struggles ...; J. Seekings
, (1988), “The Origins of Popular Mobilisation in the PWV Townships,
1980–4,” in Cohen, R. and W. Cobbett (eds.), (1988), Popular Struggles
...; Swilling, M., (1988), “The United Democratic Front and Township
Revolt,” in Cohen, R. and W. Cobbett (eds.), (1988), Popular Struggles
... ; K. Jochelson (1990), “Reform, Repression and Resistance in South
Africa: A Case Study of Alexandra Township, 1979–89,” in Journal of
Southern African Studies. vol. 16. no. 1; T. Lodge, (1981), Black
Politics in South Africa Since 1945. Ravan Press. Johannesburg; T. Lodge
, (1989), “The United Democratic Front: Leadership and Ideology,” in
J.D. Brewer (ed.), Can South Africa Survive? Five Minutes to Midnight.
Southern Book Publishers. South Africa; T. Lodge, (1989), “People’s War
or Negotiation? African National Congress Strategies in the 1980s,” in
G. Moss and I. Obery (eds.), South African Review 5. Ravan Press and
SARS; D. Macshane, Plaut M. and D. Ward, (1984), Power! Black Workers,
their Unions and the Struggle for Freedom in South Africa. South End
Press. Boston;
[26] The background to, and content of, these reforms is outlined in
Morris, M. and V. Padayachee, (1988), “State Reform Policy in South
Africa”, in Transformation v7; J.S. Saul and S. Gelb, (1986), The Crisis
in South Africa. Zed. London. (revised edition); P. Frankel , (1984),
Pretoria’s Praetorians . Cambridge University Press; D. O’Meara, (1983),
“Muldergate and the Politics of Afrikaner Nationalism,” in Work in
Progress no. 22
[27]
N. Mandela, “In our Lifetime” in Liberator, reproduced in T. Karis
and G. Carter (eds.) From Protest To Challenge: A Documentary
History Of African Politics In South Africa, vol. 3, also quoted
in P. Hudson, (1986), “The Freedom Charter And The Theory of the
National Democratic Revolution” in Transformation no.1. pp8-9. At
the Rivonia trial in 1964, Mandela said the same thing: “The ANC has
never at any period of its history advocated revoloutionary change
in the economic structure of country, nor has it, to the best of my
recollection, ever condemned capitalist society”.
[28] see J. Baskin, (1991), “Workerists and Populists” in his Striking
Back: A History of COSATU. Ravan Press. Johannesburg .
[29] see T. Lodge, (1991), “Rebellion: the Turning of the Tide,” in
Lodge, T. and B. Nasson. All, Here, and Now: Black Politics in South
Africa in the 1980s. South Africa Update Series. Ford Foundation.
Foreign Policy Association.
[30] As Rocker points out, all political rights are wrested from the
ruling class through popular struggle. See Rocker, R., (1948),
“Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism,” in F. Gross (ed.), European
Ideologies: a Survey of Twentieth Century Political Ideas. Philosophical
Library. New York.