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

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Russell Grinker <grinker@xxxxxxxxxx> 03/07/00 01:19PM >>>
>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.

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

I didn't say anything about a socialist road.  I merely indicated that we
could have hoped for something at least a little bit more radical and
respectful of mass sentiment.  Given that there is always a danger of an
imperialist backlash, just when will it be right to push the envelope a bit?

********
CB: Patrick Bond said the ending of apartheid was not revolutionary. That was 
the
discussion.  About the only sensible interpretation of "revolutionary" in our 
exchange
was a socialist road.  Are you saying they should have made radical , Keynesian
reforms ?

If I were in a neo-colony, given the slaughter visited on the countries I listed
above, I would be thinking "we better wait until the workers in the U.S. and 
other
imperialist centers bring down those governments, because this pattern of 
colonials
being the most militant and making the revolution first is getting us 
slaughtered. The
people of Viet Nam are world historic heroes, but look what they suffered.  
Somebody
who really cared about the Black masses in South Africa would think about this,
because it would be Black people in the first place who the imperialists and S. 
A.
racists will slaughter.Somebody who doesn't care that colonially oppressed 
people have
been the cannon fodder for "the bit more radical" would be full speed ahead , 
damn the
torpedos.

**********

*********



>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 ?

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

I never said anything about a bold socialist thrust.  And no, most of the
proletariat are black workers.

***********

CB: Bolder social democratic thrust ? Mild social democratic thrust ?

What percentage of the proletariat is white ?


***********



 I have never had any illusions in the white
working class which was overwhelmingly racist and incapable of unity.
Interestingly, that has changed faster than expected and all the major
unions have a significant number of white members now.  That's not to say
that the problem of racism has disappeared.

***********

CB: Anybody planning to challenge imperialism in anyway, socialist or social
democractic, would have to take this important weakening factor into account.
**********



>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.

************
Not really - I had noticed.  Something a bit more radical and mass-based
than the penny-pinching approach of our current government would hardly
qualify as neo-socialist. There was certainly a bigger window of opportunity
for something more experimental than the leaderhsip was prepared to take.

**********

CB: The ANC leadership probably was looking at the experience with all the other
experiements over the last 70 years.  They decided not to go the hero route. 
Can't say
that I blame them when I look at the imperialist body count against the earlier
experiments with the socialist road in former colonies. Let the American 
workers stick
their neck out first and I am sure the S. African workers will follow.

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



>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 ?

This isn't Nicaragua or Grenada.  Your knowledge of the social composition
of this country and its level of development seem to indicate that you don't
know much about it at all.

*********

CB: The social composition of that country is such that if it tried a 
neo-socialist
experiement in the middle of neo-liberalism, imperialism would be likely to 
come down
on them in a way comparable to the way it came down upon Korea, Nicaragua , 
Grenada,
Angola, Viet Nam et al, regardless of differences in social composition between 
those
countries and S. Africa. The fact that South Africa is more industrialized than
Nicaragua or Grenada would mean that imperialism would likely be more harsh in 
the
crackdown.

How do you know what I know about the social composition of S. Africa ? Ford 
and GM
have had plants there for a long time.

**********


>
>>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.
>
No - the development of an indigenous, racially oppressive form of capital
accumulation - apartheid.
>
>CB: Imperialist ? Where are the neo-colonies of the South African
government ?

Since when has it been a requirement that an imperialist power should have
colonies?

**********

CB: Read _Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism_ by V.I. Lenin, on 
imperialist
countries dividing and redividing up the colonies. With the fall of 
paleo-colonialism,
the imperialist countries have established neo-colonial relations without 
occupying
settlers groups in most cases. South Africa managed to be paleo and 
neo-colonialist,
as a regional gendarme in southern Africa.

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



 I can list a number which certainly don't.  South Africa certainly
does have a number of characteristics which mark it out as a minor
imperialist power.

*********

CB: Go ahead and list them

********



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


How am I supposed to respond to this - swear on the flag?  I don't much like
your style of politics either but I had hoped that this discussion could
move beyond the personal. Meanwhile you are at liberty to pin your hopes on
the ANC.

***********

CB: Actually, there isn't much you can do , because the ANC led the struggle 
against
apartheid, and there isn't much of a chance for you to match that.

Your whole argument hinges on you having more concern for the S. African masses 
than
the ANC, the ANC betraying them etc.  So, what I am saying is not exactly 
personal,
except that you pit your personal concern for the South African people against 
that of
the ANC.

So, it is between the ANC and  who ?


CB