Notes from a Discussion on the ‘new UDF’

Ighsaan Schroeder

The Editorial Collective of the Khanya Journal hosted a discussion of Lehulere’s paper in the evening of 26 August 2005.

The discussion took place in the Jubilee boardroom in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, and more than

40 activists from different organizations attended. Below is a summary of the discussion.

Lehulere started by outlining what the debate was not about. He stressed that the debate was not

whether the social movements could work with understanding’, linkages and resources, and (2) there is a yearning for class struggle politics in Cosatu (and even the ANC) but the problem is a

‘strategic exhaustion’. The issue is how to overcome this exhaustion.

Lehulere questioned this characterization and argued that the construct of a corked militancy in Cosatu is necessary for the argument in favour of a Cosatu orientation. The left is not facing up to the major shift in the federation over the last 15 to 20 years. It is necessary to look at Cosatu as it really is.

Here the following are important:

Cosatu, which is different from the question of an orientation to Cosatu. The debate is: What is the orientation of the social movements, and where does Cosatu fit into this orientation?

Over the years there has been a strong current (within the non-SACP left) arguing for an orientation to Cosatu. In some cases this orientation to Cosatu is the result of being ‘more ANC than

the ANC’, while in others it is for tactical reasons. The paper is an engagement with those who place Cosatu at the heart of their strategic orientation.

Before looking at the position of the ‘old lefts’ on Cosatu, it is necessary to quickly say something about the new militants. For these comrades, Cosatu is an organization that has stood aloof from their struggles. They do not know an earlier, more militant Cosatu. Notwithstanding the fact that

the attitude of these militants to Cosatu is based on their real experience, it is necessary that this attitude to organized workers be engaged.

The argument of the ‘old left’ broadly is that Cosatu remains the biggest working class organization, it has a militant tradition and the

role of the social movements should be to act as its conscience. This latter point would be the political purpose of a united front with Cosatu. The social movements have no independent role.

According to Lehulere, Ashwin Desai argues that: (1) the movements are weak and parochial, and Cosatu can bring to them a ‘structural

 

• The changing class composition of the organization – there is now a preponderance of white-collar workers in the organization.

 

• These forces are new to Cosatu.

 

• There is an ideological gap/confusion in the federation. In fact, Cosatu has embraced key neo-liberal tenets.

 

Lehulere’s explanation for this orientation to Cosatu is that the ‘old left’ was bruised in the 1980s (by its sectarianism and consequent distance from mass organizations, including Cosatu) and is now in fear of missing the boat again. The Cosatu orientation is also the consequence of the left’s substitutionalism, of the quest to build the party. Thirdly, the turn to Cosatu is tied to the retreat of the movements since the WSSD, and the consequent demoralization that has set in. All in all, the orientation to Cosatu is an attempt to steal the masses.

The discussion after Lehulere’s presentation consisted of some questions to him and contri- butions to the debate.

Veriawa Veriawa posed a question about what the political implications were for the process of class formation (within the working class) that neo- liberalism represents.

Lehulere responded by acknowledging this to be a difficult question. The way it was answered was important for one’s theory of revolution. It

is not just a question of getting the casuals back into the factories. More importantly, what is now the class groove for the working class? Unions are important, but in what way has capital redefined

‘the point of production’? This raises questions about forms of organization. Are unions in their existing form still valid?

Weizman Hamilton’s critique of Lehulere’s paper was that it made no distinction between Cosatu leaders and Cosatu members. Lehulere’s characterization of what is taking place in Cosatu is not based on what is really happening, such as the recent strike wave. Importantly, Lehulere’s paper does not take into account the changed political situation. It was easier to organize in the 1980s given ANC illusions within the working class then.

Cosatu’s involvement in the new UDF is a response

to pressure from below but the leadership is horrified by the prospect of this kind of alliance and is

recoiling from it.

Cottle Cottle argued that Lehulere’s use of the

‘old left’ category was not useful. At any rate, the

‘old left’ as a whole had failed. The debate about whether to orientate to Cosatu is itself late, and reflects the broader crisis of the left. He felt that Lehulere had not gone far enough in his analysis of the Ashley bloc. For Cottle this tendency was really social democratic, not socialist.

Ceruti Ceruti argued that Lehulere’s characterization of the structure of work impact on Cosatu is problematic, specifically his characterization of Cosatu members as a labour aristocracy. Also, he underestimates the fighting mood within the working class – although this

should not be overestimated either. This mood has been developing over the last 10 years. While we should recognize weaknesses, workers have been ready to strike and there have been struggles around delivery issues. The revolt against Mbeki reflects

the manoeuvres of careerists but it also shows that unionists are tired of being pushed around. There

is no difference between the social movement layers and the new layers in Cosatu.

Sikwebu Sikwebu related that he had spoken

at 2 meetings recently, and that the reality of what is happening within the trade unions is not welcome. What he had pointed out in those meetings was

that 92% of Cosatu members are in permanent employment. Also, that a Numsa survey showed that

57% of the union’s members joined after 1991 (this

is after the union’s last big Engineering sector strike in 1989), and that 62% of Numsa members’ children school outside the townships. There is a material difference between Cosatu members and members of social movements. Cosatu members have more instruments with which to manage poverty. The

ANC national general council meeting’s defeat of Mbeki’s proposal for a two-tier labour market can also be viewed as a form of protectionism by permanent workers.

Sikwebu made a point to Lehulere on Cosatu’s economic shifts, that while the federation sometimes takes a more critical attitude to an export-led orientation, there is no looking back at Cosatu’s

own role in government policy. This creates more ideological confusion. Secondly to Lehulere, regarding the shift that has taken place in the unions, is the depletion of the old vanguard complete? Otherwise there can be the impression that there is absolutely nothing left in the unions, whereas there may be a need for the remaining vanguard elements in the unions to link up with the social movements.

Lehulere responded to some of the questions and comments. On the labour aristocracy thesis, this is based not on the material difference but more on the relationship between sections of the working class and how they relate. As for the strike wave, was there really one? Strikes are consistent with the reproduction of the capitalist system. Regarding what’s left in the unions, he agreed with Sikwebu that there probably still are

militants there, and these should be encouraged to link up in the way Sikwebu suggested.

Veriawa suggested that the lull in political activity is tied to the inability to take the initiative to see how to build further. Are the current strikes definitive? He does not think so. There still is

a strategic interregnum. He thinks there is a romanticisation of the Cosatu worker, although he thinks who the Cosatu worker is is a weakness in Lehulere’s paper. Lehulere is too ready to accept the social movements militant as opposed to the Brian Ashley Cosatu militant. He also agrees with Ceruti that some of the organizations that are supposed to discipline the working class (from the ruling class’s point of view) are failing. On the new UDF and pushing everyone into one general campaign, on jobs for example, this would obliterate the work of the social movements. Entrance into a front must

be conditional on taking up struggles around basic services, for example.

John Appolis commented that the critical issue

in debate is where the locus of revolutionary politics is currently. This cannot be settled abstractly, it

must be looked at concretely. We need to look at capitalist restructuring and its impact on different sections of the working class. It is communities that are occupying the front row of resistance

to neo-liberalism. Without these there would

be no revolutionary project. There is no similar development in the trade unions – there is no process of political clarification taking place there. The social

movements are thus critical to a new radical politics. It will be a long haul to revive Cosatu. The question of how this will be done must still be settled. As for the new UDF, one of the questions we have to ask in assessing it: is it attracting new initiatives?

Shaheen Khan posed the question: What is our strategic orientation? Is it the spontaneous struggles which can lead us to ideological clarity and through it a programme? If that is the case then it is clear it can be done only in the social movements, without losing sight of the developments in Cosatu but also unions independent of Cosatu.

Rob Rees argued there was a slide in Lehulere’s paper on what Cosatu is, there is no distinction between the leadership and the membership. We need to find ways to unite the working class. On the question of strikes – Samwu workers were breaking the law by essential service workers coming out on strike. One cannot therefore just say the recent round of strikes were procedural. As for the composition

of Cosatu, in the public sector for example this is contradictory. These workers are on the receiving end of ANC policies. On the strike wave – last year ’s public sector strike was the biggest, there have

been several non-racial strikes this year. These are significant developments. Social movements need to recognize this and not dismiss anything that comes from Cosatu, otherwise we will not build anything.

Richard (Bricks) Mokolo contended that Cosatu is very confused. A UDF against what or who? Cosatu leaders and members are equally problematic.

Cottle argued that spontaneous struggles are important and primary. They make the forging of a new vanguard possible. Ceruti and others who

argue like her are undermining these independent struggles of wanting to put the new, emerging layers of militants under the yoke of Congress.

Hamilton felt that Lehulere did not understand the mood that is developing within the working class and he was exaggerating what the social movements represent. The new UDF represents working class organizations coming together for more cohesion

and programmatic clarity.

Lehulere responded on the strike wave issue by arguing that the last one we had was in 1994, and that what is critical is their character. As for

orientating to spontaneous struggles, and his slogan of ‘spontaneous struggles or nothing’ the issue

we have to settle in the present period is one of orientation. The struggle for socialism takes an entire historical period. He rounded off the discussion by arguing that the significance of the ‘new UDF’ was being over-read. The reason for this was simply Cosatu’s presence in it.

Schroeder works at Khanya College.