Selective application of revolutionary phrases is counter-revolutionary: Response to Irvin Jim's "lecture"
In the cause of the forward march of the struggles of our people into our socialist future no amount of the siren songs of the enemy of our revolution will stop our revolutionary alliance. The workers of our country must occupy our forefront trenches of our revolution and ensure that the ANC gets an overwhelming mandate in the forthcoming elections.
I refer myself to the political input delivered by Irvin Jim during the occasion of the memorial lecture, dedicated to one of the most illustrious revolutionary leader of our national liberation movement and the late General Secretary of our vanguard Party Cde Joe Slovo, at the Queenstown Local of Cosatu in the Eastern Cape over the past weekend.
History has proven that in the midst of a revolutionary situation, the enemy has the propensity to distort our revolutionary theory to defeat our very same revolutionary struggles. Our late stalwart and the revolutionary leader of our party Cde Lawrance Phokanoka would always say that a revolution is the highest form of class struggle. He would always warn us of a revolution at the peril of being led by the unled.
I am duty bound in this instance to borrow again the wisdom of the leader of the world's working class movement Vladimir Lenin, that selective application of revolutionary phrases is counter revolutionary, that we must fight it so that in the future we will not say of us the bitter truth that a revolutionary phrase about a revolutionary war ruined the revolution.
It is the political responsibility of the leadership of our revolutionary alliance to transmit the correct theoretical application about our national democratic revolution to the masses of our people. As Slovo states in his seminal work ‘The South African Working Class and the National Democratic Revolution', ‘Without revolutionary theory, there can be no real revolutionary movement'.
A trade union movement is a great school for the working class. It is by its character and origin a mass democratic organisation which its immediate political task is to awaken the class consciousness of the workers. It is a school of baptism that makes the workers to acquire the first experience of their organised struggles at the shop floor level.
It will always be counter-revolutionary to agitate the working class into its traditions of struggles, of singing its songs and slogans, and making repeated calls for the establishment of a socialist republic without a proper theoretical grasp of both the subjective and objective factors of our concrete material conditions.
In the current phase of our transition for the radical transformation of our socio economic terrain, the working class is still the most vital component of our national liberation struggles headed by the ANC, partly the reason why the working class must comprehend the nature and the mass character of the ANC as a national liberation movement.
A trade union cannot assume political leadership of the working class. The Communist Party is the political vanguard of the working class. It does not just represent the working class in the economic struggles but equally in its relations to all classes in society.
The late General Secretary of the SACP Cde Moses Mabhida would state that:
"Our party relationship with the ANC is based on mutual trust, reciprocity, comradeship in the battle and common struggles for national liberation. Our unity of aims and methods of struggles are a rare instance of positive alignment between the forces of class and liberation".
Our revered revolutionary leader, the late President of our liberation movement Cde Oliver Tambo would express the following profound theoretical formulation about our revolutionary alliance:
"The relationship between the ANC and SACP is not an accident of history, nor is it a natural and inevitable development. Our alliance is the living organism that has grown out of the common struggles. We have built it out of our separate and common experiences.
Our revolutionary alliance has been fertilized by blood of countless heroes and heroines, many of them unnamed and unsung. It has been reinforced by a common determination to destroy the enemy and by our shared belief in the certainty of our victory.
Today the ANC and the SACP have a common objectives in the eradication of the oppressive and exploitative system that prevails in our country, the seizure of power, and the exercise of our right to self-determination by all people of South Africa.
We share the strategic perspectives of the task that lies ahead".
It is precisely from this point of view that we repeat ourselves that repeated calls of the slogan for the establishment of a socialist republic without correct analysis of the class balance of forces and a proper theoretical grasp of both the objective and subjective factors of our concrete material circumstances is the highest form of an infantile disorder and has a propensity to a counter-revolution.
I have however come to appreciate the complexities of our Marxist-Leninist scientific revolutionary theory. We have come to realise that if not properly assimilated it has the danger to cause constipation.
There is growing dangerous phenomenon in our country that to be more revolutionary, you must throw insults at the leadership of our revolutionary alliance and undermine the very heart of our fundamental principle of democratic centralism and inner party discipline.
Our revolutionary movement has on many occasions, cleansed itself from the bile of the bladder of the enemy of our revolution in the cause of the struggles of our people against imperialism and colonialism. We will defeat it today and tomorrow.
Even if it can take its trumpet high and sing and dance our own songs and slogans, wearing our revolutionary paraphernalia, we will defeat it. Our revolutionary scientific theory has always exposed us to the work of the enemy of our revolution.
Our theory has taught us that the enemy of our revolution does not necessarily die. Instead of dying, the enemy will always change its form and character. It will always change its colour like a moving chameleon. Our role is to defend our fortress, our movement is the fortress of our people and our people are the fortress of our revolutionary alliance.
History will tell why Irvin Jim has chosen to vulgarise this most profound contribution by our late leader of our party for selfish and opportunistic interests. We have always repeated that selective use of revolutionary phrasing is an expression of ultra-leftism and is therefore counter-revolutionary.
I am convinced that the bones of our revered revolutionary leader Cde Slovo, would have reverberated from the grave upon hearing such a web of distortions about one of his finest theoretical interventions he ever contributed in the cause of the struggles of our people against national oppression and exploitation.
The thesis by our leader Cde Slovo, on the South African working class and our national democratic revolution presents a deeper theoretical glimpse on the theory and the character of the South African revolution. It defines the interrelationship between the national and class struggles in our specific South African conditions of a Colonialism of a Special Type (CST).
The crisis of capitalism is making the working class to resolve the socio-economic contradictions which are not of their own making, partly the reason why imperialism and neo-colonial forces will manipulate the very same character of the trade union movement as a seedbed for counter revolution.
International monopoly capital is determined to undermine the rich history of the struggles of the working class movement across the world and more particularly in the former colonies and semi colonies. Southern Africa is the only remaining region in the whole world where former liberation movements who led common struggles of our people in the former colonies and semi-colonies are still in power.
Our big five, MPLA in Angola, Swapo in Namibia, ZANU PF in Zimbabwe, Frelimo in Mozambique and the ANC in South Africa are still in the forefront of our struggles to improve the socio-economic conditions of our people.
Our liberation movement is still consistent with the traditions and discipline of our struggle to liberate our people from the bondage of our historical past, the very same logic that counter-revolution will leave no stone unturned to agitate the trade union movement in our region to undermine the unity and cohesion of our national liberation movement. Instead of investing to improve the living conditions of our people the enemy will rather use billions of dollars to erode the influence of our liberation movement in the region.
The manifesto of the Communist party states that Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working class parties; they have no interest separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole; and they do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletariat movement.
The manifesto goes on to state that communist are distinguished from other working class parties by this only:
- In the national struggles of the proletariat of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independent of nationality.
- In the various stages of development which the struggles of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The leader of the Russian revolution and our world's working class movement Cde Vladimir Lenin would say the following about the inseparable nature of the democratic revolution and socialist revolution:
During the struggles for the achievements of the aims of the democratic revolution, the proletariat has learned to organise itself, to discover its class interest and educate itself about the very process of the struggle.
All this is part of our undeniable historical process. Our party has been and continues to be an important participant in this historical process.
Our socialist revolution is not a single act, it is one battle on one front, but a whole epoch of class conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts, i.e. on all questions of economics and politics, battles that can only end on the expropriation of the bourgeoisie.
It would be a radical mistake to think that the struggle for democracy was capable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding, overshadowing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practice full democracy, the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggles for democracy.
The position the bourgeoisie holds as a class in capitalist society inevitably leads to its inconsistency in a democratic revolution. The very position the proletariat holds as a class compels it to be consistently democratic.
The bourgeoisie looks backward in fear of democratic progress which threatens to strengthen the proletariat. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains, but with the aid of democratism it has the whole world to win.
The proletariat will always strive to load the democratic revolution not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletariat democratism, for the revolution to be carried to its conclusion.
In his ‘Left wing communism, an infantile disorder', Vladimir Lenin continues and says the following
And first of all the question arises: how is the discipline of the revolutionary party of the proletariat maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced?
Firstly, by the class consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its perseverance, self-sacrifice and heroism.
Secondly, by its ability to link itself, to keep in close touch with, and to a certain extent, if you like, to merge itself with the broadest masses of the toilers - primarily with the proletarian, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses.
Thirdly, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard and of its political strategy and tactics, provided that the broadest masses have been convinced by their own experiences that they are correct.
Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party that is really capable of being a party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved.
Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end in phrase mongering and grimacing. On the other hand, these conditions cannot arise all at once.
They are created only by prolonged effort and hard won experience. Their creation is facilitated by correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.
Therefore it is correct to say again that repeated calls for the slogan of the establishment of a socialist republic without the proper theoretical grasp of both the subjective and objective factors of our concrete material circumstances is tantamount to counter-revolution.
Contrary to the vulgar of theoretical distortions and manipulations by Irvin Jim to attack the leadership of our national liberation movement in general and the General Secretary of our Communist Party Cde Blade Nzimande in particular, in his most profound and rich theoretical thesis on the working class and our national democratic revolution, Cde Slovo says the following in his opening statement:
Increased tempo of struggle in our country in the last few years has stimulated a great deal of theoretical debate and political discussion among those in the very front line of the upsurge. Workers in the factories, youth in the townships, mass and underground activists, radical intellectuals, cadres of Umkhonto we Sizwe, militants at all levels are seeking answers to the pressing strategic, tactical and organisational questions of the day. Increasing numbers of our people understand the essence of Lenin's political maxim: Without revolutionary theory, there can be no real revolutionary movement.
These discussions and debates keep coming back, in one way or another, to certain fundamentals: class struggle and national struggle, the question of stages of struggle, inter-class alliances, and the role of our working class in the liberation front. Many of these debates are between people who share common starting points; a belief that national domination is linked to capitalism and an acceptance of the goal of a socialist South Africa. But there is not always clarity on the most effective tactical road towards this goal.
A tendency, loosely described as ‘workerism', denies that the main content of the immediate conflict is national liberation which it regards as a diversion from the class struggle. Even if it admits the relevance of national domination in the exploitative processes, ‘workerism' insists on a perspective of an immediate struggle for socialism.
A transitional stage of struggle, involving inter-class alliances, is alleged to lead to an abandonment of socialist perspectives and to a surrender of working class leadership. The economic struggles between workers and bosses at the point of production (which inevitably spill over into the broader political arena) is claimed to be the ‘class struggle'. This is sometimes coupled with a view that the trade union movement is the main political representative of the working class.
A more sophisticated version of the left-workerist position has recently surfaced among union-linked academics. This version concedes the need for inter-class alliances but puts forward a view of working class political organisation more appropriate to a trade union than a revolutionary political vanguard.
At the other end of this debate there are views which tend to erect a Chinese wall between the struggle for national liberation and social emancipation. Our struggle is seen as ‘bourgeois-democratic' in character so that the immediate agenda should not go beyond the objective of a kind of ‘de-raced' capitalism.
According to this view there will be time enough after apartheid is destroyed to then turn our attention to the struggle for socialism. Hence there should be little talk of our ultimate socialist objectives. The working class should not insist on the inclusion of radical social measures as part of the immediate agenda because that would risk frightening away potential allies against apartheid.
On the question of class struggle and national struggle, contrary to the distortions of Irvin Jim, Cde Slovo says the following in his thesis:
The South African Communist Party, in its 1984 constitution, declares that its aim is to lead the working class towards the strategic goal of establishing a socialist republic ‘and the more immediate aim of winning the objectives of the national democratic revolution which is inseparably linked to it'. The constitution describes the main content of the national democratic revolution as
‘...the national liberation of the African people in particular, and the black people in general, the destruction of the economic and political power of the racist ruling class, and the establishment of one united state of people's power in which the working class will be the dominant force and which will move uninterruptedly towards social emancipation and the total abolition of exploitation of man by man'.
The national democratic revolution - the present stage of struggle in our country is a revolution of the whole oppressed people. This does not mean that the oppressed ‘people' can be regarded as a single or homogeneous entity. The main revolutionary camp in the immediate struggle is made up of different classes and strata (overwhelmingly black) which suffer varying forms and degrees of national oppression and economic exploitation. The camp of those who benefit from, and support, national domination is also divided into classes.
Some ‘learned theorists' are continuously warning workers against talk of a ‘revolution of the whole oppressed people', accusing those who use such formulations of being ‘populists' rather than revolutionaries. Let us hear Lenin on this question since he was also in the habit of using the same words to describe the upsurge in Russia:
‘Yes, the people's revolution. Social Democracy ... demands that this word shall not be used to cover up failure to understand class antagonisms within the people ... However, it does not divide the "people" into "classes" so that the advanced class becomes locked up within itself ... the advanced class ... should fight with all the greater energy and enthusiasm for the cause of the whole people, at the head of the whole people' (Selected Works, Volume 1, p.503).
Of course, the long-term interests of the diverse classes and strata of the revolutionary camp do not necessarily coincide. They do not have the same consistency and commitment even to the immediate objectives of the democratic revolution. It is obviously from within the ranks of the black middle and upper strata that the enemy will look for sources of collaboration. We will return to this question.
But, in general, it remains true that our National Democratic Revolution expresses the broad objective interests not only of the working class but also of most of the other classes within the nationally-dominated majority, including the black petit- bourgeoisie and significant strata of the emergent black bourgeoisie. This reality provides the foundation for a struggle which aims to mobilise to its side all the oppressed classes and strata as participants in the national liberation alliance.
We believe that the working class is both an indispensable part and the leading force of such a liberation alliance. But its relations with other classes and strata cannot be conditional on the acceptance by them of socialist aims. The historic programme which has evolved to express the common immediate aspirations of all the classes of the oppressed people is the Freedom Charter. This document is not, in itself, a programme for socialism, even though (as we argue later) it can provide a basis for uninterrupted advance to a socialist future".
On the question of the Black Middle Strata and the Emerging Black Bourgeoisie, contrary to the distortions by Irvin Jim, Cde Slovo says the following:
We have said that the national democratic revolution expresses the broad objective interests of the working class and most of the other classes which make up the nationally-dominated minority. We will return to the special position of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the bantustans and in the townships, whose very existence depends upon collaboration with race domination.
Our approach to the multi-class content of the present phase of our struggle has received a great deal of attention from some of our 'left' critics. But because they have distorted our approach by knocking down skittles which they themselves have put up, we need to devote a few words to the obvious.
It is obvious that the black capitalist class favours capitalism and that it will do its best to influence the post-apartheid society in this direction.
It is obvious that the black middle and upper classes who take part in a broad liberation alliance will jostle for hegemony and attempt to represent their interests as the interests of all Africans.
It is obvious that (like their counterparts in every part of the world) the black middle and upper strata, who find themselves on the side of the people's struggle, are often inconsistent and vacillating. They are usually the enemy's softest targets for achieving a reformist, rather than a revolutionary, outcome.
All this is pretty obvious. But it is equally obvious that if the working class and its vanguard and mass organisations were to get locked up with themselves, the greatest harm would be done to the cause of both national liberation and social emancipation. By rejecting class alliances and going it alone, the working class would in fact be surrendering the leadership of the national struggle to the upper and middle strata. This would become the shortest route towards a sell-out reformist solution and a purely capitalist post-apartheid South Africa under the hegemony of a bourgeois-dominated black national movement. Along this path, 'class purity' will surely lead to class suicide and 'socialist'- sounding slogans will actually hold back the achievement of socialism.
The black middle and upper strata constitute a relatively significant political force, particularly in community struggles. Whether we like it or not they will participate and, often, take a leading part in such struggles. They are usually among the most vocal articulators of demands and (as we have experienced with black consciousness) they are sometimes the pioneers of new variants of purely nationalist ideology.
The question, therefore, is not whether they are participants in the struggle. The real question is whether the working class, by refusing to establish a common trench, helps push them right into the enemy's lap. On the other hand, by engaging with them on common minimum platforms, the working class is able to forge a stronger opposition and also to neutralise some of the negative potential of the middle class.
On the question of the different stages of struggle, contrary to the distortions by Irvin Jim, Cde Slovo says the following:
The concept of stages in struggle is not an unusual one for any political activist. Those engaged in revolutionary practice, whether in a trade union or in a political party, do not require a seminar to be convinced that struggle goes through stages. Even the most localised struggles, for example the struggle for an annual wage increase in a particular industry or factory, or a struggle against high rents in a particular township, go through stages. The same applies to the overall struggle.
Our belief that the immediate content of our struggle is the national liberation of our whole people and that this process cannot ultimately be completed without social emancipation at once poses a perspective of stages in our revolution. This perspective has generated a great deal of criticism from 'leftist' circles.
We do indeed see the current stage of struggle the national democratic phase as the most direct route of advance, in our particular conditions, to a second stage, socialist development. Looking even further ahead, it is valid to describe socialism itself as a major transitional stage on the road to communism.
There is, however, both a distinction and a continuity between the national democratic and socialist revolutions; they can neither be completely telescoped nor completely compartmentalised. The vulgar Marxists are unable to understand this. They claim that our immediate emphasis on the objectives of the national democratic revolution implies that we are unnecessarily postponing or even abandoning the socialist revolution, as if the two revolutions have no connection with one another. They have a mechanical approach to the stages of our revolution, treating them simply as water-tight compartments.
It should, however, be conceded that our own formulations have sometimes been imprecise, and have invited the charge that we treat stages as compartments, as 'things-in-themselves'.
It is necessary at once to state a rather obvious proposition, namely, that it is implied in the very concept of stages that they can never be considered in isolation; they are steps in development. A stage which has no relation to a destination in itself not final and constituting a stage for yet another destination is a linguistic and logical absurdity. The concept 'stage' implies that it is at one and the same time a point of arrival and a point of departure.
The real question is how to reach a stage without blocking the route onwards to the next destination. This depends (mainly) on revolutionary practice. On balance we can justly claim that our own revolutionary practice has not departed from the 'continuity' concept of stages.
We reiterate that when we talk of stages we are talking simultaneously about distinct phases and a continuous journey. At the same time revolutionary practice demands that within each distinct stage there should be a selective concentration on those objectives which are most pertinent to its completion. This is no way detracts from the need to plant, within its womb, the seeds which will ensure a continuity towards the next stage".
On the question of working class leadership, contrary to the distortions by Irvin Jim, Cde Slovo says the following:
If the working class emerges as the dominant social force in a truly democratic post-apartheid state, the possibility is clearly opened up of a peaceful progression towards socialism. Those 'revolutionaries' who may throw up their hands in horror at the suggestion that conditions might open up the possibility of a peaceful transition towards socialism should take note of Lenin's words:
'To become a power the class-conscious workers must win the majority to their side. As long as no violence is used against the people there is no other road to power. We are not Blanquists, we do not stand for the seizure of power by a minority' (Selected Works, Vol.2, p.36).
To eventually win the majority of our people for a socialist South Africa, we must spread socialist awareness and socialist consciousness now, mainly among the workers but also among the rural poor and the middle strata. We must also ensure that the working class emerges as the politically-dominant social class in the post-apartheid state. This can only be achieved if the working class wins a place now as the leading social force in the inter-class liberation alliance.
But, it is not only to ensure a post-apartheid advance towards socialism that the role of the working class is crucial. The immediate objectives of real national liberation as envisaged by the ANC and SACP and whose goals are embodied in the Freedom Charter cannot be effectively fulfilled without the organised strength and leadership of the working class. We emphasise again that if the working class isolates itself from the alliance the result would be to dilute the content of the national democratic revolution, to hand over its direction to the other class forces and, in the long term, to hold back socialist advance.
The working class cannot play the key role by merely leading itself and sloganising about its historic mission. It must win popular acceptance on the ground as the most effective champion of the democratic aspirations of all the racially-oppressed groupings. It must work with, and provide leadership to, our youth, women, intellectuals, small traders, peasants, the rural poor and - yes - even the racially-dominated black bourgeoisie, all of whom are a necessary part of the broad front of our liberation struggle.
It is, however, sometimes alleged that an alliance will tie the hands of the working class and erode its independence. Such an outcome is certainly not inevitable.
The Vietnamese leader, Le Duan, described an alliance as a 'unity of opposites'. The classes and strata which come together in a front of struggle usually have different long-term interests and, often, even contradictory expectations from the immediate phase. The search for agreement usually leads to a minimum platform which excludes some of the positions of the participating classes or strata. It follows that an alliance can only be created if these diverse forces are prepared to enter into a compromise. And it can only survive and flourish if it is governed by a democratic relationship between the groupings which have come together.
But when a front is created the working class does not just melt into it. It does not abandon its independent class objectives or independent class organisation. On the contrary, the strengthening of workers' independent mass and vanguard structures is even more imperative in periods demanding organised relations with other class forces. This brings us directly to the organisational instruments of working class leadership".
On the question of the instruments of working class leadership, contrary to the distortions by Irvin Jim, Cde Slovo says the following:
In general, workers must be active wherever people come together in struggle, whether at national, regional or local levels. The whole mass democratic movement the UDF, youth organisations, women's organisations, civics, street committees, students, church-goers, etc., must feel the influence of workers' militancy and dedication. The majority of most of these categories are, in any case, workers who should ensure, through democratic participation, that their interests are not swamped by the other social groupings.
The independent role of the working class and the way it relates to other classes of our society, at once raises important questions connected with the character and role of three key worker-related sectors of our struggle the national movement, the trade union movement and the political party of the working class. It also raises questions about the way in which these sectors relate to one another. Let us say a few words about each of these sectors.
Trade Unions and the Working Class
A trade union is the prime mass organisation of the working class. To fulfil its purpose, it must be as broad as possible and fight to maintain its legal status. It must attempt, in the first place, to unite, on an industrial basis, all workers (at whatever level of political consciousness) who understand the elementary need to come together and defend and advance their economic conditions. It cannot demand more as a condition of membership. But because the state and its political and repressive apparatus is an instrument of the dominant economic classes, it is impossible for trade unions in any part of the world to keep out of the broader political conflict.
Especially in our country, where racist domination and capitalist exploitation are two sides of the same coin, it is even more clear that a trade union cannot stand aside from the liberation struggle. Indeed, the trade union movement is the most important mass contingent of the working class. Its organised involvement in struggle, both as an independent force and as part of the broad liberation alliance, undoubtedly reinforces the dominant role of the workers as a class. In addition, trade unions' and workers' experience of struggle in unions provide the most fertile field in which to school masses of workers in socialist understanding and political consciousness.
The very fact that the workers' economic struggle cannot be separated from the struggle against national domination has helped to blur the border-line between trade unionism and the political leadership of the working class as a whole. It is, however, vital to maintain the distinction between trade union politics and overall revolutionary leadership. A trade union cannot carry out this dual role; if it attempted to do so it would have to change its basic character and risk committing suicide as a mass legal force. In addition, the very nature and purpose of trade unionism disqualifies it from carrying out the tasks of a revolutionary vanguard.
The syndicalist notion that trade unions should act as political parties is so discredited that it has few, if any, open adherents. But, from time to time, the notion is introduced through the back door in the shape of policies which would, in practice, allocate such a role to the trade union movement.
An example of one such tendency is the premature attempt to formally incorporate the objective of socialism into trade unions and the federation to which they belong. Such a move would narrow the mass character of the trade union movement by demanding an unreal level of political consciousness from its members or affiliates as a condition for joining. It would also, incidentally, give the enemy the very excuse it needs to deal with one of its most formidable foes.
The ANC and the Working Class
The main core of the whole democratic struggle illegal and legal is the ANC which stands at the head of the liberation alliance. As head of this alliance and prime representative of all the oppressed, it welcomes within its ranks all from whatever class they come who support and are ready to fight for the aims of the Freedom Charter. It is a revolutionary nationalist organisation with popular roots. It is not, however, 'populist'. The ANC's Strategy and Tactics recognises that there are different classes among the people with different long-term aspirations.
The overwhelming majority of the people are working class. This explains why the ANC's composition and policies show a strong bias towards the working class. It also considers it proper and necessary for socialist ideology to be discussed and understood in its ranks. But, despite the fact that the ANC has an understandable bias towards the working class it does not, and clearly should not, adopt a socialist platform which the so- called Marxist Workers' Tendency (expelled from the ANC) would like it to do. If it adopted such a platform it would destroy its character as the prime representative of all the classes among the oppressed black majority.
At the same time, for reasons already outlined, its revolutionary nationalism does, of necessity, contain a social content which reflects our specific national liberation aspirations a content which will ultimately facilitate the socialist transformation but is not premised on it. Worker participation in the ANC is one of the important ways in which our working class plays its role in the democratic revolution. But, above all, the tripartite alliance, moulded in the revolutionary underground, between the ANC, the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU), and our SACP, represents a framework which expresses the political interests of our working class in the broad front of struggle.
The SACP and the Working Class
Workers' political leadership must represent the working class not just in economic struggles against the bosses but, more so, in its relation to all classes of society and to the state as an organised force. We stress again that a trade union cannot carry out this role. Only a political vanguard of the working class can do so.
A vanguard party, representing the historic aspirations of the working class, cannot (like a trade union) have a mass character. It must attract the most advanced representatives of the working class; mainly professional revolutionaries with an understanding of Marxist theory and practice, an unconditional dedication to the worker's cause, and a readiness, if need be, to sacrifice their very lives in the cause of freedom and socialism. Our SACP is such a Party.
We have made a unique contribution to the ideological and organisational strengthening of the national movement. Today our Party is described as one of the two main pillars of the liberation alliance led by the ANC. As an independent Party, we have devoted our main energies to strengthen workers' organisations, to spread socialist awareness and to provide working class political leadership.
In the cause of the forward march of the struggles of our people into our socialist future no amount of the siren songs of the enemy of our revolution will stop our revolutionary alliance. The workers of our country must occupy our forefront trenches and ensure that the ANC gets an overwhelming mandate in the forthcoming national general elections.
Phatse Justice Piitso is former Ambassador to the republic of Cuba and the former provincial secretary of the SACP. This article is written in his personal capacity.
This article first appeared in Umsebenzi Online, the online journal of the SACP.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
