I'm no particularly fan of George Orwell's fictional writings, especially Animal Farm, which I never really liked even at school where I first read it. Methinks Orwell was at his strongest in non-fiction writings. I'm surprised when many people today make such a big deal about T.S. Elliot's rejection of the manuscript of Animal Farm while he was still working as a director for publishing at Faber and Faber. I'd have done the same; perhaps in retrospect, for commercial reasons, I may now think twice.
I would not have followed Elliot's reasoning, but taking things in their context I understand him. It was after all 1944, Britain was an ally of the Soviet Union against Hitler's Germany. Elliot acknowledged the good writing and what he called the "fundamental integrity" of the manuscript, even if he said its viewpoint was a caricature of Stalin's authoritarian government, calling non convincingly Trotskyite. At one point he wrote; "After all, your pigs are far more intelligent than the other animals, and therefore the best qualified to run the farm - in fact there couldn't have been an Animal Farm at all without them: so that what was needed (someone might argue) was not more communism but more public-spirited pigs."
The Secretary of the SACP, Blade Nzimande, would beg to differ; he thinks what's needed is more communists. He and his clique loathe ‘public-spirited pigs'; only their terms are more uncouth, calling them counter-revolutionary, snakes, cockroaches and all. Generally the ANC and its alliance partners regard as blasphemy any people who dare criticize the Party. Worse still is the SACP with its antipathy towards dialogue.
Dr. Nzimande recently wrote in their online journal, Umsebenzi; "The electoral victory [of the ANC] was also a massive failure of collaboration by sections of the elite, almost wholly supported by all of mainstream media, including the public broadcaster, to use the 'rooi gevaar', the 'two-thirds gevaar', and the 'threat to the constitution gevaar' to try and dislodge the ANC electorally." He further says "In many ways these election results are an expression of the growing class cleavage in wider society between the haves (including now a small black group of tycoons as represented by Cope) and the have-nots."
This has been a rather dubious practise of the SACP under the helm of Nzimande, to throw allegations of populist tendencies in an attempt to posture itself as the movement of the people-something strongly disregarded by its membership toll. If we take Dr. Nzimande in his word there are now more than 600 000 [Cope membership] black tycoons in South Africa (disregarding those inside their alliance).
This is probably why he says "a deeper reflection on the ideological and class struggles on the electoral terrain also brings out into the open the extent of collusion by these elites against the ANC. Their main plank was that our constitution was under threat from an ANC government." Where is this deeper reflection; why doesn't Dr. Nzimande share it with us? This habit of pointing to unsubstantiated things through straw-mat thinking is what is most disappointing about the SACP, and the reason why, with all its populist howling, it is stagnant as the party.
To be clear, Dr. Nzimade and his clique are followers of the intellectual come-down Marxian doctrine in historical terms is called Vulgar Marxist Conspiracy Theory, which sees hidden motives of greed and lust for material gain behind every scene of history and social life. They misuse the categories Marx explained as influences of history, like profit motive and class interests. Where Marx's materialist interpretation of history points to the corrupting tendencies of these categories as an influencing factor in social systems, they exaggerate it into calling them a motive of history. With all their specious sympathy for the poor, and burning sense for correcting the wrongs of our society, their kind of radical collective is founded on a profound misunderstanding, hence their action always end up being destructive and reactive.
Marx was clear about the fact that factors influence history in a way that render humans puppets, irresistibly pulled by economic wires he called the "kingdom of necessity" at this stage of history. And he looked to a day when the puppets will destroy this system to attain a "kingdom of freedom", what the vulgar Marxist pervert into Stalinism. We could argue the differences of what Marx called the "kingdom of freedom" against its perversions that saw the establishment of many communist states until the cows come home. I'm certain, for those with eyes to see, the tragic short-comings are clear from the history of communist states.
What I detest in the misuse of Marxism by the likes of Dr. Nzimande is their neglect of crucial imperatives of individual freedom. Marx loved real freedom, as can be determined in his writings; "The kingdom of freedom actually begins when drudgery, enforced by hardships and external purposes, ends, it thus lies, quite naturally beyond the sphere of proper material production." Marx detested material bondage and was always about emancipating all of us, bourgeoisie and working class together, from it. Those who emphasise the materialist side of Marxism tend to adopt tendencies of dictatorship in their hollowed Leninist-Stalinist practises that has not Marx's spirit of freedom and democracy. This can be noticed within the SACP and COSATU also, where the leaders seem to have entrenched themselves to be kings for life.
As for the threats to the constitution, respect for the judiciary and other state organs, Dr. Nzimade insinuates that they are a figment of COPE's imagination. You just need to consider the views of those outside the fence of the Tripartite Alliance (TA) to see how ridiculous this sounds. For instance, everyone outside the realm of president Zuma's vested interests thinks there was something shabby in a way his corruption case was dropped. For one, Justice Seagroatt, whose verdict Mpshe plagiarised in giving reasons for dropping the case, recently wrote:
"What Mpshe seems to have taken as the justification for his decision was not a material aspect of the trial procedure but a decision made by some branch of the investigative process as to when and where Jacob Zuma should be charged on the basis of political considerations. That is an entirely different scenario. Many might argue that motivation in relation to timing of a charge is very different from manipulation of the evidence available ... It is very strongly arguable that [Mpshe] should have let the trial process begin before a judge, leaving the aspect which seems to have dominated his proper role as the prosecutor (the old adage being a ‘prosecutors' job is to prosecute) to be determined by the judge with the N.D.P.P. being entirely candid (as he should be) as to the conduct of the investigative and prosecuting agencies."
I suppose to Dr. Nzimande this is just further example of an agenda of the elites. He reminds me of the guy who was driving the wrong way on Highway, and when his wife phone to caution him against the maniac he answered; "It's not only one, they are all driving the wrong way." Only they have the correct interpretation of history.
More public-spirited pigs are not what the TA wants as the bishop emeritus Tutu will testify. The TA is more comfortable with sanitised nostalgia and unquestioning and unrelenting loyalty. To them wilful spirits must be damned, as in the Animal Farm [Stalinist state]. What Dr. Nzimande and his clique do not understand is that in all ages there'll always be people who see beyond even the populist propaganda into following the dictates of their conscience, even if it means going against the voice of the mob. The Russian saying cautions when it says where an earthenware pot collides with an iron one it is the earthenware that will always crack, size is not the issue here but the material. Nothing can defeat iron values of true principles and truth.
Dr. Nzimande ends by saying; "we must refuse to be cowed down by neo-liberal ideological blackmail about what is to be done about this crisis. We believe that the only sustainable solutions that can effectively deal with the current capitalist crisis are leftist solutions, not more of the same liberal dogma whose failures are the direct cause of the current crisis. At no stage in the history of our democracy have we needed a developmental state, buttressed by popular power, than at this point in time." All well and good, but what does he actually mean by these high sounding words, ‘developmental sate', ‘popular power', and all?
There are things we know for certain; like capitalists will leave with their capital if it does not serve them with profit. Changing laws does not stop them; at best it just delays them in their tracks. Indeed the present crisis is demonstrating that liberal dogmas have serious short-comings, like the communist failed doctrines. This is time for creative innovation not of importing fleas from the failed and failing dogmas; couching them in modern parlance will not help. You may, for instance, call for ‘a revolutionary dictatorship of the majority' for popular appeal. It might sound grand on paper but what does is mean in reality?
We are all for a comprehensive social insurance for our poor, who are the majority, but going as far as establishing what in communist circles is called a dictatorship of the workers and the poor is going too far.
With dictatorship individual freedom and innovation tends to flee first (read capital also), then manufactures close, raw materials incur better value on the black market, banks cease to support industrial enterprises, and economy gets dislocated. Following it are energy supplies, transport and communication becoming unreliable. Popular opinion, even against reason predominates, and civilian administration collapses. From there workers call for higher pay and permanent employment against sound business principles; consumers demand protection against interests of big business and economic sense; then insubordination in general becomes common (who wants to take orders when they are in dictatorial power) particularly in garrisons and police stations. In short, everything becomes out of control before you know it.
The message of Animal Farm is in exposing the hypocrisy of the oppressed turning oppressors, wearing the dethroned master's slave-driving habits. What Orwell was trying to tell us is that, when it comes to these things, the boot is always on the other foot. You cannot fault his clear thinking, plain writing, moral clarity, speaking truth to power, and so forth. He warns us against the corrupting effect of politics, public life and also the misuse of language and all. Hopefully now that he's a minister of education Dr. Nzimande will keep Orwell in mind when he speaks or write about these things.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
