Re: SA's "revolution" Re: Dialogue from Black-Left

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Russell Grinker <grinker@xxxxxxxxxx> 03/07/00 07:14AM >>>
Some alternative repsonses to Charles' points...

>CB: You haven't proven that it didn't have to be like this , or worse as in
the other situations listed above wherein imperialism visite horrific wars
on the revolutions that expropriated the expropriators, and those were in
situations where a socialist military bloc still existed and could give
military aid.
>

RG:  Obviously one could never "prove" it. The point is the leadership's
capitulation to new realism after 1990 and its line that there was no other
alternative but compromise.  No even vaguely radical mass alternative was
ever tried. One would hardly argue that because there were dangers in a more
radical social experiment it should not have been tried.

**************

CB: Since in all the other historical cases where "it" was "tried" millions of 
people
in countries such as the Soviet Union, Korea, Viet Nam, Angola, Mozambique, et 
al.
were murdered by the minions of imperialism, it would be necessary for you to 
prove,
i.e. demonstrate very convincingly in advance, that there would be some very 
powerful
reason why millions of Black , working class South Africans would not be 
slaughtered
in declaring that the ANC was taking South Africa along a socialist road today.
Whatever you want to term it, the ANC had to make a DECISION on the likely 
outcome of
embarking on the road that you vaguely outline.

And unlike those other former colonies that suffered horrendous wars, South 
Africa
would have the added handicap of an internal , settler colonializing army and
population. This meant that the proletariat, whom I presume you are saying 
would be
the key class in such a bold socialist thrust, would be predominantly on the 
side of
imperialism, because most of the proletariat are white workers in South Africa 
, no ?
And most of them are racists, no ? This creates an enormous problem of working 
class
unity,not to mention that the majority of the military is white racists, no ?

***********


The high level of
international goodwill (real or fake, it was substantial) allowed a lot of
room to manoeuvre in terms of social experimentation and radical
developmental alternatives.

***************

CB: You seem to be out of touch with the international situation in which the 
Soviet
Union has fallen and neo-liberal globalism is roaringly successful, and has not 
the
least bit of goodwill toward neo-socialist experiments.

************




 Although we had a massively mobilised
population with a relatively high level of political consciousness, this was
not just allowed to run down, but deliberately shut down by the leaderhsip.
At the minimum the they could have utilised this political mobilisation for
social development in the rural areas - people were just itching to get
involved.  Instead this movement was seen as a danger to the new order and
closed down as quickly as possible.  There was clearly also a problem of
weak leadership from more radical/left wing elements who were particularly
influencial amongs the youth.  These elements couldn't really pose a
political alternative when the leadership came along with its compromise
position.  The radical youth and younger workers, the locomotive of the
movement throughout the '80s, had no other option in mind than to carry on
with a military struggle  - this clearly wasn't realistic so they were at a
loss.

*****************

CB: You seem to be under the dillusion that you can sneak a little socialism in 
on
imperialism. Perhaps you have forgotten Nicaragua, or Grenada ?  You don't seem 
to
understand that the executives of imperialism know exactly what you say above 
and take
specific steps to prevent it, up to and including, assassinations (Chris Hani),
contras, death squads, blockades.

**************




>*************
>CB: Surely, at one time S. Africa was colonialism. When did it make a
transition ?

Arguably when an indigenous (mainly Afrikaner) bourgeoisie developed from
the '50s onwards on the back of apartheid super-exploitation.

***********

CB: Oh, you mean a transition to fascism.

************


>Extremely uneven combined capitalist development is colonialism. Where
would there be this in the extreme without colonialism ? South African
whites are the remains of a colonial settler population. Seems extraordinary
to deny this.

Why?  Times change.  Is there any reason that a white settler colonial
regime should not transform itself into a bourgeoisie in its own right?

************
CB: Sure, an imperialist bourgeoisie , with neo-colonies in Southern Africa , 
and a
neo-paleo-setup in their main territory.  You seem to think that their being a
bourgeoisie conflicts with them being colonialists.  All the settler 
colonialists
around the world were bourgeoisie.

*****************



 The
peculiar apartheid experiment wa sprecisely the mechanism which allowed
this. SA capital today exports capital to other parts of the world and shows
all the signs of being imperialist in its own right.

*************
CB: Imperialists and settler colonialists, both.

**********



>CB: Surely you are not saying that the ANC government is a
>colonialist regime ?

No, rather a minor imperialist one with a nascent black capitalist class

************

CB: Imperialist ? Where are the neo-colonies of the South African government ?

**********



given a share of the spoils in order to ensure a long term stable
replacement for an oppressive system which had become disfunctional from the
point of view of the white ruling class. Given the radical mass base whose
self-activity laid the basis for the eventual deal by the ANC's leadership,
ANC rhetoric will continue to sound contradictory for some time to keep a
significant chunk of its electorate on board. It is this rhetoric which must
appear confusing for many external observers.


************

CB: I don't trust your loyalty to and concern for the best interests of  the 
masses of
South Africans more than the ANC.


CB