💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › warren-mcgregor-our-history-of-struggle.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:47:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Our History of Struggle Author: Warren McGregor Date: December 9, 2014 Language: en Topics: workers struggle, populism, 1980s, history, South Africa, syndicalism Source: Retrieved on 5th August 2021 from http://anarkismo.net/article/27690 Notes: Compiled by Warren McGregor (TAAC, ZACF). Workshop contributors: Lucky, Pitso, Bongani, Siyabulela, Nonzukiso, Nonzwakazi, Mzwandile
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: Today the terms “populism” and “workerism” are
widely thrown about in South African political circles. Often, these
terms and others (“syndicalism,” “ultra-left,” “counter-revolutionary,”
“anti-majoritarian” …) have no meaning: they are just labels used to
silence critics. SA Communist Party (SACP) leaders do this often. But in
the 1980s, “populism” and “workerism” referred to two rival positions
battling for the soul of the militant unions.
These debates, thirty years on, remain very relevant: let us revisit
them, and learn. Today’s radical National Union of Metalworkers of SA
(NUMSA) was part of the “workerist” camp, while its key rival, the
National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) was identified with “populism.” The
early battles over the direction of the Congress of SA Trade Unions
(COSATU) still echo today, although there is no longer a clear
“workerist” camp.
The 1980s “populists” were basically supporters of a brand of African
National Congress (ANC) politics.
They aimed at a “popular front” of all oppressed classes and strata in
the black population – including black capitalists and homeland leaders
– plus white anti-apartheid democrats. Their programme was basically
“nationalist,” which meant the whole “nation” was to unite across class
lines and express its will through a nation-state. The anti-apartheid
movement represented (they argued) a multi-class, non-racial “new
nation” in the making.
This nation and the class alliance it represented, “populists” said, had
to be led by a political party, the ANC. Through the ANC the “new
nation” would take state power, rule South Africa and uproot apartheid
and its legacy.
So, in the 1980s “populism” basically meant uniting as many forces
opposed to apartheid as possible (and in particular, oppressed black
people as a whole) under ANC leadership.
And since the “national” or “popular” and “democratic” alliance had to
include ALL classes, it could NOT take a revolutionary anti-capitalist
position, since this would keep out capitalists. Anti-capitalists in the
“populist” camp – notably the SACP – argued that the aims of this
“national democratic” struggle were basically to overthrow apartheid,
not capitalism. “Socialism” would only come after the ANC-led “national
democratic” struggle was underway. To make “socialism” an immediate
demand would split the nation.
For “populists” in the trade union movement (especially in NUM and
around key figures like Cyril Ramaphosa and Jay Naidoo) this meant
giving the ANC the reigns of struggle and making unions part of the
ANC’s camp. This meant unions would support the ANC taking state power
as a political party.
Simply, “populism” supported what we now have: an ANC-led Tripartite
Alliance, in which COSATU is a junior partner. COSATU’s role is to aid
the ANC’s “national democratic revolution” (NDR) by providing money,
leaders and votes.
One problem is that alliances like this are used to control unions:
since NDR is a multi-class, capitalist project, COSATU ends up
supporting a capitalist, statist ANC in the name of “revolution.”
Through the alliance, the working class is married to the ruling class
of capitalists and politicians which oppresses and exploits it. So, the
Alliance benefits the elite much more than the working class.
Nationalist politicians claim to represent the whole society, but
society is divided by classes. The ruling class (the political and
economic elite) are at war with the working class. Cyril Ramaphosa,
billionaire, ANC deputy president and co-owner of Lonmin, the site of
the 2012 Marikana Massacre, is evidence that the black elite have
nothing in common with the working class, black or white. It is
difficult to see how, in such conditions, the legacy of apartheid can be
uprooted without some sort of radical bottom-up “socialism” (anarchism)
being created.
Second, many COSATU leaders get rewarded for being in the Alliance and
are co-opted into the ruling class – meaning they are turned against the
workers. Ramaphosa, a former NUM leader, is a good example – but he is
only part of a larger process that corrupts and weakens unions. This
process leads to certain COSATU leaders doing the dirty work of the ANC
and the ruling class that runs it.
“Populism” is basically in favour of the state – the problem is that all
states serve the ruling class. To think the state can be used for the
masses is an illusion.
“Populism” also serves the politicians. It aims to attract as many
people as possible so that it can to get its political party into state
power, most times via elections. To this purpose, populists regularly
hijack working class struggles and swallow the movements of the masses
on their road to power. “Populism” uses militant rhetoric, but,
ultimately, is an elitist project.
Coupled with the tendency of “populism” to corrupt unions, populism has
a strongly anti-democratic tendency: working class movements get
corrupted, misled and used. This is surely clear after more than 20
years of the Tripartite Alliance in SA.
“Workerism” in the 1980s meant a left-wing current centred on a bloc of
trade unions, mainly in and coming from the Federation of South African
Trade Unions (FOSATU). Formed in 1979, FOSATU was the key union
federation before COSATU and included the Metal and Allied Workers Union
(MAWU), which would later make up the core of NUMSA.
“Workerists” like FOSATU’s Moses Mayekiso and Joe Foster were critical
of alliances with black elites and tended to anti-capitalist positions.
“Workerism” opposed “populism,” predicting – correctly – that the ANC
would turn on the working class once in state power. It stressed that
nationalists always attacked the working class after Independence,
pointing to Robert Mugabe’s repression of unions in the early 1980s in
Zimbabwe.
The ANC’s “populist” style was also criticised by “workerists” for
undermining democratic mass organising. While FOSATU built mass
structures, factory by factory, based on meetings and mandated
shopstewards, “populists” relied on unaccountable leaders who announced
campaigns and expected the masses to follow. This made the “workerists”
wary of working with movements influenced by “populists.”
“Workerists” were not entirely united on giving an alternative to
“populism,” but generally wanted some sort of “socialism” after
apartheid fell. “Workerism” stressed ordinary people must have a real
say: they criticised the top-down, dictatorial Marxist regimes of Russia
and China.
“Workerists” insisted that unions not be allied to nationalists like the
ANC, or Marxists like the SACP. “Workerism” depended on workers acting
through the unions and saw no reason for a political party to direct the
struggles of workers and their communities. It emphasised the importance
of independent BUT political unions: these should have their OWN
political direction, not decided by outside parties.
Democratic, worker-controlled unions should also provide leadership to
other working class sectors, like township movements. “Workerists”
sought to intervene in neighbourhoods through union “locals” in
townships and by promoting democratic models of community organising.
They could be said to have favoured a working class “united front” –
against the ANC’s “popular front.” The new nation, they argued, would be
non-racial and working class-controlled.
There were some similarities between “workerism” and syndicalism
(anarchist trade unionism), but a core weakness of “workerism” was the
lack of a clear enough approach of change – or outline of a future
society – as compared to the ANC’s concrete “NDR” project.
“Populists” seem to have been better organised, winning ground against
“workerists.” While “workerists” had a big impact in areas like
Alexandra, “populists” captured the political space in many townships.
Some “workerists” even came to take pro-ANC positions. The drift
continued in the 1990s and Mayekiso (for example) became a close ally of
the neo-liberal ANC President Thabo Mbeki.
COSATU’s founding congress in 1985 was heavily shaped by FOSATU. Its
political resolutions were quite “workerist”: worker-controlled unions
and unions to play a political role independent of ALL parties. But
arguments between “workerists” and “populists” were not over – just
postponed.
By 1987, “populism” was in the ascendance. By 1990, COSATU was openly
allied to the ANC. Only in 2014 has a major COSATU union, NUMSA, finally
made moves to pull out of the Tripartite Alliance.