Heinrich Bohmke argues Desai does not call for an orientation to Cosatu. Instead, Desai is calling for Cosatu to change its orientation to the social movements.
Two papers discussing the formation of the new UDF have been circulated recently; one by Naidoo and the other by Lehulere, both
of whom are well respected in South African “ultra- left” circles. I think it is fair to say that both Naidoo and Lehulere are sceptical about the value to be derived by social movements having any dealings with Cosatu. Lehulere goes a step further than scepticism and grumbles at great length about those who have had the temerity to suggest a ‘toenadering’ (drawing closer to – Ed.) with Cosatu or its members, whether on the tactical or strategic plane.
Naidoo’s scepticism is historically justified. She remembers many occasions since 1994 when Cosatu opposed and undermined various radical outcomes; insidiously, hackishly, arrogantly. I had forgotten some of these events and my bile was up in the remembering, especially the shameful way Cosatu behaved during the WSSD. Lehulere
provides Naidoo with additional details to fear social movement connection with Cosatu. He quotes a 2003 Cosatu Congress resolution noting the emergence of social movements hostile to the Alliance. This necessitates “… the immediate strengthening and consolidating of the political centre, with a view to lead the masses on the issues that have given rise to these single issue based movements”. It is presumably the same resolution in which Cosatu volunteers to “lead and mobilise mass campaigns
to avoid opportunism and undermining of Alliance organisations”. For Lehulere, Cosatu “… will act as a Trojan horse facilitating the acceptance of the ANC by the movements”.
With these facts in mind, and to change species, it is indeed hard to miss the canine snout poking out from the woolly coat of the new UDF. But where
Naidoo and Lehulere seem mainly to see some single thing to fear, something that’ll turn on them, I see many things to pity, some of which to turn, even, in those elements that make up Cosatu. We actually come to the same conclusion about whether the new UDF is worth participating in, Naidoo and
I, but this conclusion rests on a somewhat different understanding of the power and potency of Cosatu as a pro-Alliance, disciplining, political force these days. Perhaps this has to do with my living in Durban where I could not imagine likely Cosatu participants in any future joint campaign or action pulling (off) these moves, whereas I am given to understand that Jo’Burg is another scene altogether. And because, firmly outside the framework of
the new UDF, the existence of joint union / social movement actions will soon be feasible, certainly in Durban – it is worth talking through these differing understandings. Do we dare reach out to elements in Cosatu?
Of course, Naidoo does not only offer anecdotes of Cosatu’s reactionary behaviour in justifying her aversion to linking up with organised labour. For some time now, Naidoo, Ahmed Veriawa and a few others have been arguing against notions of social- citizenship and inclusion that have historically been shaped, even in the imagination of the Left, by the earning of a wage. They have noted a number of factors, including the changing nature of work, which makes this a simply inadequate response to oppression and exploitation today. Instead, a notion of social citizenship shaped by expectations of a universal right to a decommodified income needs to infuse any radical politics (Naidoo). So, besides the political discipline that Cosatu may try to impose, there is also a discursive discipline of which to be wary. This may operate from within the very howl of radical-sounding slogans. Being what they are, trade unions would be apt to push campaigns that are, at extra-rhetorical levels, still quite captive of the logic of neo-liberalism or what Naidoo calls the “constraining frameworks of … corporate governance”. It would be within this framework that capitalist work remains the ideal and normative source of social citizenship with perhaps temporary, targeted and commodified social assistance or delivery to the ‘deserving’ on the side. As such, a dalliance with unions may take us, discursively, into a field of politics and a conception of right from which we are trying to extricate ourselves. In the process “the birth of many radical subjectivities in these times, whose co-existence in many singular struggles that have a common enemy yet multiple strategies” may be aborted in favour of “the subjectivity of the
froth he works up in denouncing those individuals whom he sees as having gone soft on the dangers of dealing with Cosatu. In this regard, he announces the discovery that in recent writings of theirs, Brian Ashley and Ashwin Desai have revealed themselves to be remnants of what he terms the “Old Left”. Naturally, they are counterpoised to the “mass of active militants” whose views, if a bit unformed, are pure of soul. Among other things, the Old Left’s crime is the nostalgia they display for the glory days of a truly progressive industrial working class organisation. It is this that lies behind the Old Left’s industrial working class as the true revolutionary subject of capitalism”. attitude of ‘toenadering’ towards Cosatu. if not outright homage,
This strikes me as a fine point, well made and I agree with Naidoo that there is every sign that the new UDF will take us back into old, wage- disciplined conceptions of resistance, politics and struggle. If principles for dealing with unions are to be laid down, this seems to be a good one: that neither Alliance political – nor wage, discursive
– discipline be tolerated. But, and although this may seem far-fetched in Jo’Burg, what about involving
a Cosatu affiliate in a struggle against an electricity cut-off in a particular township? No demand flowing from market-relations informs such a
‘toenadering’[1] Is there any particular reason that the subjectivity of social-movement unionism could not co-exist in a particular singular struggle with other emergent radical ones?
The answer to this must be no. In that case, we are left with the Naidoo’s original objections to social movements having dealings with Cosatu, its affiliates and members. This is, to lift a phrase that Lehulere used for rather different argumentative purposes, the “political and psychological scars”
of the past, which there may be very good political reasons now to get over.
Turning to Lehulere’s paper, (The new Social Movements, Cosatu, and the ‘New UDF’), it is hard to know what to make of it. He is obviously sincere and earnest in his rejection of ‘toenadering’ between social movements and Cosatu and offers certain persuasive arguments as to the pitfalls of such an idea. In this regard his argument follows Naidoo’s quite closely: there are political dangers
dealing with any member of the Alliance and there are discursive dangers in becoming nostalgic about the spent radical subjectivity of the Cosatu working class militant. Whereas he is quite scathing about Cosatu ‘rank and file’, Lehulere takes an idealized, even reverential view of the radical political development and understanding of what he terms the “mass of active militants” supposedly thriving in social movements. Standard fare so far. However, what is remarkable about Lehulere’s input is the
I guess Lehulere would say his article is written in a polemical style. Well, there is polemic and then there is cantankerous self-righteousness. And when the latter is compounded by mischievously selective quotation, plain misreading and name-calling, one ends up with the bad taste of another bitter left denunciation. This is a pity, for it is a debate that should be encouraged among the “ultra-left” at this time. The issues raised by the launch of the new UDF in the context of unprecedented intra-Alliance tensions are critical, novel and, for those less dogmatically assured than Lehulere, difficult. I am sure, on reflection, Lehulere would not have wished his tone to scare away potential interlocuters.
Of the two naughty Kautskys Lehulere takes
to task, I have not read Brian Ashley’s piece. But I have read the other text, Ashwin Desai’s speech to Cosatu. I also saw a video-recording of its delivery. While there are parts of his speech that warrant critical questioning, the treatment it received from Lehulere was grossly unfair. While Desai is one of the last among us entitled to complain about a word or two being tweaked, ‘polemically’, out of context during an argument, the problem with Lehulere’s piece is that it has attempted to discredit certain important ideas through distortion. This is no good.
It starts on the first page when Lehulere speaks of “strong currents within the social movements
that are arguing for an orientation towards Cosatu”. Lest we be unsure what this entails, he continues,
“By orientation we mean the overall political direction of an organisation. This direction determines its strategies and tactics, its organisational priorities, the way it deploys its resources and its cadre and so on.”
He completes construction of the straw man he will later strike down, where he declares the aim of his paper is to “engage directly with the strategic perspectives of those, within the social movements, who are arguing for an orientation towards Cosatu as the way forward for the new social movements”. Of course, anyone arguing
for an “orientation” towards Cosatu, as defined, needs to be opposed. But with orientation as strong a word as Lehulere says it is, it is not only astonishing but surely also embarrassing that he could possibly have taken Desai to be calling for this sort of thing.
Nowhere in his speech could Desai be understood to be mooting a change in the direction of social movement politics such that its “strategies and tactics, its organisational priorities, the way
it deploys its resources and cadre” be aligned with Cosatu either politically or discursively. In fact, what any careful reader of Desai’s can
see is that he was noting the need for Cosatu to change its orientation to become more involved in already unfolding income struggles or, perhaps,
to jointly undertake an income strike. There is no basis in Desai’s speech whatsoever for the idea that any joint action has to be to the exclusion
of other on-going social movement initiatives, strategies and struggles. As for the idea that social movements would give up their political direction, organisational priorities and so on should they have dealings with Cosatu, Desai says exactly the
opposite in a paragraph Lehulere neglects to quote: “[In social movements] you will not only
find potential allies but also thousands of former members, many of whom make up the leadership of the new single issue movements in South Africa.
But in their interaction with community movements, Cosatu must bear in mind that efforts to assume control over these struggles will be warded off. Classical notions of leadership, vanguardism and organisation that informed the struggles of the
past has been transcended by these new social movements who will not be content to give up their autonomy in broad fronts, displaying ‘revolutionary discipline’ and backing down every time the President becomes piqued at what they do.”
People less acquainted with Lehulere’s reputation for intellectual rigour and who have read both Desai’s and his piece might erroneously conclude that they are dealing with a person new to logical reasoning as they read on. In purporting to relay Desai’s idea of an income strike, Lehulere says, “The argument develops and the need for linking struggles between communities and the workplace through a ‘co-ordinated huge annual income strike’ is presented. From this we find, suddenly, that the struggle has to be waged within
… the Alliance, and later within the ANC itself!” A sentence with as huge a gap in logic and fact as this one, certainly deserves an exclamation mark.
An income strike is an idea of a particular form a joint campaign might take. It is not the be – and end – all of social movement or Cosatu activity.
That it should aim to be huge or co-ordinated in no way implies that social movements are to be collapsed in the effort. Indeed, it seems more of an idea to involve Cosatu in pressing income demands, with Desai having sweetened the idea with certain wage-related benefits for workers also computed. How such a campaign is “suddenly” one that is to happen under the auspices of the Alliance and then, even within the ANC itself, seems to be an entirely private and eccentric deduction that Lehulere
draws. There is more of the same where Lehulere ascribes to Desai things he simply did not say or even infer. For example,
“Desai suddenly undergoes a conversion to the Freedom Charter, when he suddenly argues that membership of the Alliance is just fine, when he suggests that the struggle against neo-liberalism can be conducted within the framework of Congress politics.”
The problem Lehulere has understanding Desai seems to be the fixation he develops over a comment made by Desai to Cosatu in his speech. This was that they did not first have to terminate the Alliance before they could contemplate joint struggles with social movements. I say “fixated” advisedly because, unlike Lehulere, who is content to provide pop-psychological, personality-based
or even hormonal explanations for the positions his ‘adversaries’ take, I now try to avoid arguing the same way myself. But how, other than seeking an explanation in Lehulere’s personal disposition can we explain his hyperbolic description of this
comment as “one of the biggest political regressions in Social Movements since they emerged at the
end of the 1990s”?. Either fixation, or he has taken a most flattering view of Desai’s role in social movement’s in South Africa.
The comment about not needing to break
the Alliance needs to be understood in terms of where Desai was and what he was doing when he made it. He was not addressing community movements, telling them that they ought to fight within the ambit of the Alliance or frame their demands in terms of the Freedom Charter. Nor
was he addressing the Lehuleres of this world who seek the comfort of arguments framed “in overall political and philosophical frameworks”. What he was doing was delivering a speech to a diverse trade union audience, some of whom he sought
to persuade of the value of joining in action with social movements in the struggles these movements were already fighting. It was Cosatu’s orientation that was in issue. Desai rather deftly acknowledged that these struggles would be in conflict with the real terms of the Alliance, that is the accepted neo- liberal economics evinced in Gear, and that people
really fighting for decommodified notions of social citizenship may well get kicked out of the Alliance. However, for those within Cosatu willing to join with social movements in income struggles, Desai provided a rhetorical device to do – or to argue – so, without having formally first to declare a break in the Alliance. They could just as well claim that their actions were consistent with the Freedom Charter, the rhetorical and historical basis of the Alliance, while involving themselves in the actions that would come to contradict its real basis. Lehulere
is unable to appreciate that, whether Desai is a Marxist or not, he seems to understand precisely that important questions are “never resolved through discussions, through contemplation – but through action”.
Ironically, by the end of his paper, Lehulere acknowledges that fronts may well be “entered into with Cosatu before it leaves the Alliance”. His only rider is that “in all engagements with Cosatu the movements should raise the issue of the Alliance, they should call for it to be broken and for Cosatu
to become politically independent”. This conclusion somewhat undermines other rhetorical flourishes
of Lehulere’s where, for instance, he suggests that Cosatu acts as a front for the Alliance “managing the discontent of the working class”, and later that “any front that includes the ANC, its leagues and other front organisations, compromises working class independence since the ANC is a party of monopoly capital”. But, there you have it. Having vented himself, by the end of his paper Lehulere seems happy to join Desai and social movements
in fronts with Cosatu before it leaves the Alliance as long those who wish to can still call for the end of the Alliance.
Another reason that may contribute to Lehulere’s misunderstanding of what Desai is doing as opposed to just saying seems to be the victim-mentality that the broader “ultra-left” (a contradiction in terms, I know) suffers. It seems that because social movements are felt to be so weak and the discourse of social citizenship they are developing so tentative, it is almost expected that they will draw the shorter straw in any engagement with other social forces. The audacity by which someone within the “ultra-left” and a
social movement activist to boot, can even consider acting upon those other social forces is mistaken for compromise. But could it be that this is what Desai was doing? Acting on Cosatu, exploring whether there is any basis at this time of unprecedented
intra-Alliance disaffection and, yes populism, for joint action, for a new orientation from them? And then exploring terms for joint action; politely, perhaps with a bit of flattery thrown in but keen,
in advance, to disarm those within Cosatu who might sense that a break in the Alliance was either the precondition or the main aim of the
proposal. I am sure if Lehulere rereads the passage that so offended him, this alternative sense and interpretation will now leap out at him.
It is not difficult in any text to isolate inconsistencies, tensions, contradictions, elisions and so on between its different parts. Lehulere’s paper is as replete with these as any other. I will resist the temptation to pick these out because some of the contradictions are superficial, and taken within the overall sense and context of Lehulere’s
paper, it would be petty to make something of them all. The are, of course, some howlers too but no one is really interested in this form of deconstruction posing as debate. I only mention the existence of these inevitable inconsistencies because Lehulere has made much of the same in Desai’s speech. Yes, many Cosatu members are confused but also lus (desire – Ed.) for class-struggle but also strategically exhausted but also very clear on certain macro- economic issues. What Lehulere is keen to call contradiction, many readers will recognise as the complexity of the lived, felt existence they also lead. It is even harder to avoid the tensions mentioned above when delivering a speech, for spoken argument often evolves indirectly by way of all
sorts of niceties and immaterial concessions packed around harder, more hostile points.
To be fair to Lehulere, he does acknowledge that Desai makes these harder points. Was Desai not rude or ruthless enough? On the contrary it seems to me that the arguments one provides in a
speech should create space for riposte, qualification, even face-saving, not hermetically seal off all
reply. I would imagine it must be comforting to inhabit the pure and righteous realm where one’s every utterance, or more accurately, re-iteration dogmatically flows from a pre-ordained “overall political and philosophical framework”(6). And should one have to face a hostile or sceptical audience, it must be tremendously satisfying to simply let rip, leaving them in no uncertainty of how far they fall short and, of course, showing
off one’s own impressive understanding of, for example, the Paris Commune, the “State and Revolution” or the Fosatu workerists. However, this method is not usually very persuasive or effective when trying to persuade or shape the ideas of such an audience.
But why debate the class-enemy, Cosatu, at all, for this is what it appears Lehulere now regards Cosatu in its totality to be? While Lehulere and Desai are at one that not much can be expected from Cosatu’s leadership, Lehulere will have none
of Desai’s suggestion that some within the ‘rank and file’ of the union movement may, with a bit of inspiration, be up for class-struggle. According to Lehulere, a Cosatu member today is dramatically and fundamentally different to a Cosatu member fifteen years ago. The typical Cosatu member is now white-collar, upwardly mobile, much older, skilled and possessing higher qualifications than
in the past. The typical Cosatu member is “drifting into the position of a labour aristocrat”, “held down by middle age and a mortgage, career prospects in government and business”; in short, uninterested
in, if not hostile to, genuine class-struggle.
While there is no denying the strength of these tendencies among significant portions of the
‘rank and file’, Lehulere is far too categorical and sweeping in his writing-off of organised workers.
I think Desai can be forgiven for thinking that it is still worth throwing a few pebbles into the minds of the ‘rank and file’ or otherwise to have social movements reach out to some of them with ideas for joint-struggles. He may even be forgiven for taking the view that a residual commitment to socialism might be found amongst some in these quarters, notwithstanding the Cosatu leaderships’ appalling right-ward drift. There is some academic support for this notion too. A respected intellectual
had the following to say about the Cosatu rank and file and their still existing impulses of socialism as late as 2003:
“The rightward shift in Cosatu policy has, of course, not proceeded unchallenged. The major hindrance has been pressure exerted by the membership. Whenever the federation draws its base into discussion on economic strategy, the old impulses of socialism within the base come to the surface again, and this makes it difficult for the tendencies towards Right-Keynesianism and neo- liberalism to assert themselves in an unhindered fashion” (Lehulere; 2003, pg 41).[3]
It was probably not this paper that Lehulere had in mind when he spoke of “the ghosts of the past” haunting intellectuals in the present.
It is now time to investigate the allegation that Desai’s piece represents the thinking of the Old Left, overcome by the ghosts of the past. Lehulere creates a timeline from the mid-1980s to the present along which he positions the validity and usefulness
of Desai’s ideas somewhere near the beginning of that timeline when the industrial working class militant and her organisation still held genuine revolutionary potential. Desai is captive of ideas, strategies and tactics appropriate to an
understanding of Cosatu then, Lehulere contends. These he seeks to impose on social movements now at the other end of that timeline. Desai also,
nostalgically, believes some Cosatu members may involve themselves in class-struggle now when that time has long past. Lehulere, on the other hand, has come, at least since 2003, to see the light about the absence of any “impulses of socialism” within Cosatu. In fact Cosatu has retreated into an increasingly monolithic Alliance which creatively and insidiously manages the entrenching of neo- liberalism in South Africa. In fact, if allowed to, it will act as a Trojan horse facilitating acceptance of the ANC among social movements . Instead, any impulses of socialism now reside in the “mass of active militants” in social movements, to whom Lehulere ascribes developed positions and radical subjectivities which Desai disses badly in his
‘toenadering’ with Cosatu.
Another way of drawing a timeline is to imagine its starting point in 1999 when new social movements first became a force in South African politics and when the Alliance seemed a monolithic entity advancing a neo-liberal politics in South Africa in an impenetrable front. This timeline
ends with massive ructions in the Alliance on the one hand and, on the other, the realisation that, although carrying enormous potential, actually- existing social movements have also shown, to quote Naidoo, “widespread acceptance of and, indeed, faith in representative democracy and the state to deliver with the right to work framing these demands” . Now, up until 2002, Desai expressed ideas in two books, numerous articles, speeches
and debates that were similarly upbeat about the politics and subjectivity expressed by social movement activists as Lehulere’s now are. He was also similarly scathing about working with a trade union movement involved in an Alliance with the ANC as Lehulere is now.
If indeed one wished to cast about the labels of Old and New Lefts, one way to do so would be to adopt Lehulere’s timeline. Since, with one or two minor exceptions, Desai’s paper does not actually operate from within a 1980s orientation, this timeline has limited applicability. Another timeline to use in understanding Old and New would be the one I have proposed. In terms
of this shorter one, far greater flexibility and responsiveness to events is required from activists than within the longer time-frame proposed by Lehulere. The difference between being Old and New is 5 years not twenty. In fact, in terms of my time-line, Lehulere appears to be Old Left, to be
in a position Desai and a number of other activists and writers were years ago. Instead of Desai being haunted by the ghosts of the past, could it be that he is anticipating the spectres of the future: a post- transition landscape with a ruined Alliance still
prominent circled by brave and inventive but by no means always radical multitudes.
Moving away from Old and New, it seems to me, there are two tasks for the “ultra-left”. Firstly we need to urgently take stock of what is happening within the Alliance, fracturing as it
is on a daily basis. Even to speak of the ANC as if it is a house undivided was proper two years ago but right now it simplifies an enormously
complex situation. This situation not only provides significant opportunities for social movements to deflect the serious attacks under which they have been labouring since 2002 but also to advance.
One among other ways of advancing would be to seek to attract to their politics and ideas persons whose capacity to be disciplined by the idea of
the Alliance is dramatically fading. Lehulere, unfortunately, quite casually dispenses with these developments – the Zuma affair – as yet more shameful and unprincipled conduct by Cosatu. For him the leadership in Cosatu are doing nothing more than “using Cosatu and its proud name [?]
in internal squabbles within the ruling class” . There is certainly an element of truth in this and Lehulere’s call for vigilance in being sucked into
an intra-ruling class shambles is correct. But this is not the whole story, There are also the unreasoning outpourings of support for Zuma by thousands
of persons who have nothing personally to gain by his ascension to power, to explain. Is there not something deeper at play? I think there is and we should not make the mistake of crediting only actions that have motives provided by social reality as real. Subjective forces vested in the unconscious, group and desire have at times as much explanatory power as objective one’s vested in consciousness, class and interest. Lehulere speaks eloquently of
the “chaotic energy of spontaneous struggle … [t]esting the limits of bourgeois power in ways
that established movements are shy of doing”. It is all going to end in tears if it stays with Zuma but there are good reasons to believe that some of this chaotic mass-psychological energy is wrapped up in support not so much for the individual as for the symbolic Zuma.
It is safe to say that the way things have unfolded in this country after apartheid was defeated are a bitter disappointment to many. Their expectations of liberation have been circumscribed by a range of impediments. There is the law which allows retrenchments, sanctions evictions, upholds the rights of the landed and has been seen to clamp down heavy-handedly and selectively on those who militate for change. There are tales told by government of economic constraints. There is the lack of education,
qualification and usefulness to the labour-market that determines who makes it and who does not. What one may have sacrificed in the struggle counts for little; a jumped-up, Model-C bureaucrat can and will lecture you on patriotism, patience and cost-recovery. Then there is the ferociously autocratic discipline that the leadership of the ANC itself uses against persons who question the
direction in which they are taking the ship of state. Many of the disappointed have survival strategies which are strictly illegal, they are used to being taken for granted, know what it means to have to ingratiate themselves with the rich, with bosses
for small-change and understand only too keenly that the truly great crimes never get prosecuted. Of course, Jacob Zuma the individual may simply be
a venal, corrupt, spendthrift who cares little for the poor and even less for the Left. But it is not hard
to see how the symbolic Zuma could mobilise and unleash these previously repressed resentments, angers and even resistances to a world people know should have turned out differently. We should not overstate the case and be wary of rank populism. It is not pretty nor does it does come wrapped in the “overall political and philosophical frameworks” the left might expect, but it is nonetheless a mood to be taken as seriously as
more classical signs of a nascent will-to-struggle.
Second, the “ultra-left” must cease its rather breathless positing of the new social movements as a new socialist vanguard (for if he were to drop his coyness, this is what Lehulere’s ‘mass
of active militants’ really are for him). This is a view from which many who have been involved
in building these movements have been distancing themselves for some time now, especially as they move into what Veriawa has described as a “post- transition politics” where the focus is no longer on contesting or making a spectacle of a revolution betrayed. For, while the new radical subjectivities of which Naidoo speaks have certainly emerged during many social movement struggles, they
are, unfortunately, far and few between and don’t particularly seem to be suited to protest politics. Thank goodness actually. In any event, social movement participants and militants can
be as captive of conservative ideas and notions of struggle as trade unionists. Male chauvinisms that would shock a Cardinal abound, so do desires for upward mobility that would put a middle-aged, mortgaged Cosatu shopsteward to shame. People may be free from Alliance discipline in social movements but not the discursive discipline of the nation, the constitution and the job.
In point of fact, the social movement of which
Naidoo speaks in her paper, the one in Clare
Estate, is marching next week, amongst other things, to demand that the ANC put a councillor in other than the one they now have when local government elections arrive. They also want jobs. They have generally warm and accommodating views on the World Bank but the very opposite
for “Indians”. In a video by Aoibheann O’Sullivan especially prized for the fact that it can be read as both celebrating and critiquing the Clare Estate movement, their leaders are seen threatening to hand over any marcher who ‘misbehaves’ to the police. Does one wash one’s hands? No. Anyone who took to the phenomenon of this particular social movement the unforgiving tools of class- analysis would miss the fact that notwithstanding these problems, desires are circulating in Clare Estate that have the potential to spark very powerful resistances, linkages and discourses. But one makes a serious mistake if one believes that the “mass of active militants” in these struggles have the sort of experiences of oppression
and exploitation that will guarantee a stable, “principled”, intelligent and radical response to things. For all the problems that a consciousness shaped by point of production struggles brought, there was a certain homogeneity to it that made
for organisation-building and cadre-development. The same goes for community-struggles under apartheid where the nature and immediacy of the enemy produced the same stabilising effects on the identity of the ‘revolutionary subject’.
The consciousness produced by point of reproduction struggles nowadays is wildly, beautifully, depressingly different. Since there
is nothing pristine about them, one need not be overly precious about the fronts they may form. I sometimes feel the deficiencies, for lack of a better word, that I see in them stem from an insistence
on seeing them as a sort of proto-vanguard.
My languages have become inadequate and it’s clear that new theoretical tools may be required. The notion of “subjectivity” is one such tool I recommend we all start grappling with. Whatever the case, a radical rethinking of actually existing social-movements as the agent, vehicle, promise and pretence of revolutionary struggle in South Africa is called for. To cast them as a vanguard
or to see them as a constituency is no good. They hold enormous potential, but if they are not honestly evaluated, from within and without,
this potential may, as has been the case in some areas, be destroyed. The Old Left glorification
of them, tinged with desperation, credulity and paternalism, will no longer do.
In closing, let me say that it is great to see a debate of some substance taking place within
South Africa’s “ultra-left” again and I look forward to any and all comments and criticisms from those of you out there.
Böhmke is active in social movements in Kwazulu- Natal.
[1] To the extent that the social movement is not already captive of such a discipline itself in the manner it has autonomously conceptualised and pursued its struggle, notwithstanding its rhetoric. Now is not the place, but many of the participants in social movements I have canvassed in other research evince a politics that is, when looked at closely, almost as badly rooted in old notions of social citizenship as a trade unionist’s.
[2] Part of Lehulere’s problem is his apparent inability to theorise stages in a political relationship between the poles of hostility on the one hand and complete intimacy or capitulation on the other.
This is suggested by his association of the word /toenaadering/
with smooching; indicative of an already advanced relationship. While
/toenanaadering/ certainly suggests a growing intimacy, it is better translated as détente, which signifies a reversible process moving from a point of wary, casual co-operation to his ‘smooching’
[3] “The Road to the Right: Cosatu Economic Policy in the Post- Apartheid Period”, in /Rethinking the Labour Movement in the
‘New South Africa’/, eds Bramble, T and Barchiesi, F, Ashgate
Publishers.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.