Stereotyped writing, distortions, subjectivism and sectarianism: The case of EFF's Floyd Shivambu
In his piece titled ‘Oppose stereotyped Party writing' (8 February 1942, also see Selected works of Mao Tse-Tung, Vol. III, pp. 53-68), Mao Tse-Tung discusses the ways subjectivism and sectarianism use what he calls stereotyped Party writing as their instrument of propaganda or form of expression. He does this by way of exposing where the evils of this stereotyped writing lie, and through eight major indictments. All the indictments are interesting, but the first and the eighth refer, for now; they are basically sufficient for us to start (this is the first instalment) addressing the malady we want to address.
Mao writes:
"The first indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it fills endless pages with empty verbiage. Some of our comrades love to write long articles with no substance, very much like the "footbindings of a slattern, long as well as smelly". Why must they write such long and empty articles? There can be only one explanation; they are determined the masses shall not read them. Because the articles are long and empty, the masses shake their heads at the very sight of them. How can they be expected to read them? Such writings are good for nothing except to bluff the naive, among whom they spread bad influences and foster bad habits."
Look at the other side of the coin in order to understand our point on Floyd's writing. This is best captured by Mao:
"If long and empty articles are no good, are short and empty ones any better? They are no good either. We should forbid all empty talk."
Indeed empty talk is absolutely unnecessary, regardless of the form in which it appears, long- or short-writing, speeches characteristic of those one ‘Commander-in-Thief' is fond of, and so on. This is what Mao had to further say about it in its written form:
"Articles devoid of substance are the least justifiable and the most objectionable."
The spread of stereotyped Party writing, writes Mao in the eight indictment, "would wreck the country and ruin the people".
Misreading and misunderstanding, referencing, quoting or paraphrasing writings or a part thereof that one has not directly read and thereby converting their content into distorted hearsays presented as if they are what one has read are both a part of the forces behind and in themselves constitute, especially when written, stereotyped writing.
Just listen to this.
In his opinion piece published by the Sunday Independent (6 July 2014), Floyd Shivambu, who identifies himself as "EFF political commissar and parliamentary chief whip" states that:
"South Africa is a capitalist society and in any capitalist society, the state is nothing but a committee for the management of the common affairs of the bourgeoisie".
Shivanbu doesn't acknowledge the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (1848) which, by the way, he distorts: "the state is nothing but a committee for the management of the common affairs of the bourgeoisie". Marx and Engels understood the state that they could not have emptily about it the manner in which Shivambu does.
This is what actually Marx and Engels had to say:
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie".
It must be noted that parliament, in which Shivambu serves, is part and parcel of the state, which has many branches, one of which is the government which the executive leads, another the judiciary, and so on. In his article, Shivanbu does not even distinguish between the state and the government, one a component part of the other. He conflates the two and reduces them into one.
Is everyone who serves in the state or any of its branches an activist committed in entrenching capitalist interests?
Definitely NOT.
Had it not been of the South African Receiver of Revenue (SARS), Shivambu's commander Julius Malema would still be owning his farm on a capitalist private basis in Polokwane. And thanks to national intervention bring five Limpopo provincial department under administration. They were looted. Malema wears overalls (actually personal protective equipment or PPE) inappropriately. He owed SARS R16 million in taxes, without an honest day's work in those overalls that he has now together with Shivambu hiding the essential class character in. But how much more if we can imagine has Malema appropriated for him to owe SARS R16 million?
There is no evidence that Malema has stopped participating in capitalistic engagements. The claim that the EFF has adopted the red colour because it is opposed to private ownership of the means of production cannot therefore be taken seriously. Neither should Shivambu's empty explanation of the link between the colour red and the character of the EFF.
By the way Marx and Engels were NOT opposed to private ownership, neither were they opposed to private property: "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property!". If Shivambu stops stereotyped writing and distortions, and starts reading, at least before he writes, he will appreciate that Marx and Engels, and the Communist Party, are opposed to private property in a specific social character, i.e. CAPITALIST PRIVATE PROPERTY.
By the way the opposition to capitalist private property by Communist Parties has advancing, deepening and defending the struggle for socialism as a transition to communism both of which their achievement is the overthrow of capitalism as the way forward, which is not mentioned in anyway in Shivambu's stereotyped EFF party writing. Neither was the EFF's founding based on a programme to advance the struggle for socialism and communism, which programme, as explained in Comrade Justice Piitso's piece, adjacent to which Shivabu's stereotyped writing was published, is symbolised by the red colour
Kgaogelo Kgolomodumo is an ordinary SACP member based in Sephaku, Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality, Limpopo Province.
This article first appeared in the SACP's online journal. Umsebenzi Online.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
