PARTY OF SOUTH AFRICA
By K.A. Jordaan
(Continued from last issue. ]
The CPSA Seek the Retention of Race Categories
We have seen that, far from basing themselves on the most exploited sections of the people, as every genuine Communist party does, the CPSA stood in dread of then, fearing the "racial" consequences of their mass mobilisation. When they were organised at times then the CP simply used them as a pawn in order to negotiate from strength with the ruling class for petty reforms; and this they did with scant regard for the lives, the sacrifices and the morale of the black masses.
The attitude of the CP to the race divisions in Azania is intimately connected with their collaborationist politics and their limited democratic objectives. Their goal of a multiracial imperialist state in Azania rules out a class approach to politics completely. Instead, the CP operate purely within the assumptions of the race divisions laid down by the despotic state.
As a predominantly white organisation, the CP could have done a service to the movement if they had attempted to work among the white workers, especially the Afrikaaner workers, and helped to bring them to their working class senses. Not that whites should only organise whites and blacks organise blacks, but they were obviously more accessible to the economically less privileged white workers than the black leaders of the movement. They could have made propaganda among the white workers by showing that, because they are used by imperialism and the Afrikaaner bourgeoisie as an instrument for the oppression of the blacks, the ruling classes thereby strengthen their domination over them. The working class consciousness of the whites can be aroused by showing that, while the wages of the blacks remain low and the wages of the whites high, the latter are constantly being exposed to the threat of wage cuts by the employers who would try, by the most devious routes, to hire cheaper labour irrespective of colour. This is in fact one of the objects of so-called Border Industries. In the words of Marx, they can be taught the lesson that "Labour with a white skin cannot emancipate itself where labour with a black skin is branded." On this basis some measure of working class solidarity between white and black workers can finally be forged. But the CP preoccupation with race categories and their interest in the imperialist connection even ruled out such a narrow class approach.
The CP concern is how “men of different races (can) live and work together in harmony and peace -- to cooperate for the good of all." They seek to be all things to. all men and end up by being nothing to anybody. "All the peoples," says Fischer, ",..must be given a voice in their own affairs and in the whole of the country which © they work in and they must be taught that races can live and work together in harmony."
The CP do not even measure up to the Liberal party of South Africa that have opted for a nonracial democracy under which there will be no distinctions based on race and each is. simply regarded as. a human being, and not a member of a distinctive species. Emphasis is placed by the CP on the Freedom Charter of the Congress Alliance which foreshadows the retention of the race categories in a democratic South Africa. It says: "All people shall have equal rights to use their own language, and to develop their own folk culture and customs"; and: "All national groups shall be protected by law against insults to their race and national pride."
In the colonial world, imperialism's traditional policy is the division of the people by exploiting tribal, religious and race differences. This is part of the policy of divide and rule. Imperialism is thus able to establish its hegemony over the colonies and semicolonies on the basis of such differences.
To this day imperialism fosters such racial differences in order to thwart the movement for national unification and full independence.
In Azania imperialism and the Afrikaaner bourgeoisie had erected within the framework of an integrated society the barriers of race in order to exclude the Africans from the body politic on the grounds of their “inferiority" and the need to safeguard the cultural "supremacy" of the white race. This served as the basis for the economic superexploitation of the Africans. The creation of “Cape Coloured" and "Indian" groups, with just so much social privilege as will keep them apart from the Africans, yet not enough to close the social gulf between them and the whites, was designed to sow the seeds of race divisions among the oppressed so that the whites could maintain their supremacy. These groups were calculated to act as social buffers for a small white mi-
nority against a turbulent black majority and in this way maintain a social equilibrium. Quite obviously also, as the PAC communiqué with the ex-Coloured People's Congress ob-~ served, "the myth of white purity and superiority would have exploded if they had been incorporated in the white power structure.
Race divisions and their forcible perpetuation by the rulers are part and parcel of the proletarianisation of labour and its superexploitation on the grounds of cultural differences, artificially sponsored and forcibly maintained. At bottom, therefore, race differences are political-class conflicts. "But race," says Engels, “is itself an economic factor.“ All movements towards cultural assimilation are therefore anathema to the ruling classes, because cultural assimilation diminishes the exploitative possibilities. The rulers need to show that "inferior" groups do not have the capacity to assimilate the "higher" culture of the rulers and their supporters, and in this way try to justify the territorial and cultural segregation of the brown and black people and thus ensure their continued exploitation.
The rulers of South Africa encourage cultural parallelism by endowing each group with a special culture and exhorting them to develop along their own lines and take pride in their race and customs. It has truly been stated that "dominant races have a vested interest in the perpetuity of the cultures of weaker races."
With the rapid politicalization of the masses in Azania and the growing awareness that, despite their forcible division on racial lines, all of them share a community of interests, they are sloughing off "Colouredism," "Indianism" and. tribalism in order to form a unified national movement. For the CP and the Congress Alliance to peddle such things as "race pride" and emphasising the need to maintain race differences is the most abject capitulation to the white racialists that we can find anywhere .
The emphasis on race pride and customs that divide us is an insidious attempt by "progressive" whites in the movement to preserve their identity and prevent themselves from being swamped by a black majority. The CP therefore repeatedly refer to the position of the whites as a special group in a democratic Azania, because they are seeking a built-in bill of rights for the white minority as a form of protection against. the dangers of black majority rule~ This is not only a manifestation of racial fears, but race prejudice. ;
The CP envisage the retention of the race categories in a future Azania because their political goal excludes the abolition of the exploitative relations in which these categories are rooted. So that the CP-ANC clamour for "race harmony" and "race tolerance" is an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable interests of the exploited black masses with imperial and local capitalist interests and thereby keep the liberation movement within the bounds of the existing property relations. The emphasis on race pride is consequently calculated to undermine the growing class solidarity between the black and brown workers and to blunt the edge of the class struggle between capital and labour.
Interracial cooperation is a special technique to keep in check the pretensions of the black masses and gain security against them. On the other hand, revolutionary socialists form a unified organisation that transcends the barriers of race and that is squarely based on the most downtrodden sections. The most exploited and militant workers and poor peasants cannot have any race discrimination. How can they when they are victims of race discrimination every minute of the day? They realise that at the root of race discrimination lies economic exploitation that must be tackled in a most revolutionary way. The racial fears and animosities of other groups do not enter into their reckoning. But it is precisely when they are on the move that the class positions of the more privileged layers take on the form of racial fears and animosities. Since in some way these relatively privileged groups are already committed to the struggle, something must be done to contain the growing mass movement. So by the well-known device of transferred diagnosis, they attribute their own racialism to the militant workers, warn them not to alienate the support of well-meaning sections by going it alone, and call on them not to stir up racialism by making "unreasonable" demands and embarking on a "reck~ less" course of action.
The CP may have a difficulty which we must try to meet if they contend that, by reason of the all-pervading influence of race and racialism down the centuries, one cannot expect the feelings of race and race prejudice to evaporate into thin air on the very morrow of the revolution. No one is saying this. Indeed, the task of eliminating the haunting traditions of racialism and race feeling will continue for some time after the revolution.
What we do say is that it ill becomes a revolutionary leadership simply ‘to re-. flect passively the consciousness of the masses. The duty is to transform a race con-
sciousness into a national consciousness so that people do not look at their problems through the prism of the time-hallowed race categories. Above all, the mass of the people must develop a class consciousness that can alone undermine and finally eliminate feelings of race. ;
With the consummation of the revolution therefore the new state abolishes the statutory race categories so that all simply become members of a. single nation, without special tr:atment or special representation for any section of the nation on the grounds of physical appearance and colour difference. It is as much in the interests of the erstwhile white minority as it is in the interests of all to cooperate simply as human beings. For to perpetuate differences on such lines is to conspire to perpetuate racialism.
The establishment of such a unified nation -- so necessary for the development of the productive forces -- on the basis of complete equality does not preclude but in fact guarantees the rights of every individual to practice those customs (religion, language, etc.) he holds dear. This is an elementary principle. The continued existence of religious communities like the Jews, Moslems and Indians’ in a nonracial Azania does not contradict the principle that in relation.to the state and political representation all are treated as individuals.
If the CP are concerned over the place of a white minority in a democratic Azania and seek to retain it as a distinct group, so that, according to Fischer, it may secure a "fair share" of political and economic power, then they are holding the revolution to ransom and entrenching that very racialism among the whites which they fear in the blacks. Indeed, how can a dictatorship of workers and poor peasants embracing the majority of the nation, share power with a privileged group that moreover elects to stand aloof from that nation?
The CP may profitably reflect on the policy which the French CP followed in Algeria for a long time during the civil war. For, in the interests of the French settlers in Algeria and as a manifestation of their national chauvinism the French CP persistently called for the retention of Algeria as an inextricable part of France. This disastrous policy exacerbated the race feelings among the colons and encouraged them to make a last ditch stand, when the French CP with their professed Marxist principles should have exhorted them to cooperate with the revolutionary forces to help rid the country of French imperialism and in this way shorten the civil war.
Marx says that for a “total" revolution, as opposed to a "partial" revolution, a class must be organised that is not in but of civil society. "There must be formed a sphere of society," he continues, “which claims no traditional status but only human status...a sphere...which has a universal character because its sufferings are universal and which does not claim a particular redress because the wrong which is done it is not a particular wrong but a wrong in general."
In Azania the downtrodden blacks are outside the body politic, although their labours sustain an official or civil society in which they are not recognised. They form the backbone of "total" revolution; and on their accession to power they will not cling to their traditional status as blacks, but will simply claim human status. Liberation from their universal sufferings therefore also signifies the liberation of the whole nation. Their assumption of human status means its extension to all other groups as well. And with that the race categories so beloved by the CP are dissolved.
Birth of a New Azania -- By CP's Immaculate Conception?
There is no historical proof that the ruling classes surrender without a bitter struggle. Fischer's reference to the peaceful extension by imperialism of independence to the African states is of course illusory. What happened was that under colonial mass pressure imperialism was forced to groom a new "native" ruling class to act as the cus-— todian of her vested interests in the African country. At the same time the introduction of black majority rule under a bourgeois parliamentary system was designed to canalise the aspirations of the masses and act as the fagade for the continuing dictatorship of the imperialist interest. In this way formal political independence came to stabilise imperial rule at a higher level, and helped to preempt a revolution.
The rulers stay in power as long as they have the necessary force to defend their positions. To talk to them about legal change is useless, because the law itself is the instrument of the old order and serves to guard the existing property relations. To be sure, the law contrives to entrench the position of the dominant class by preaching against the use of violence so that the armed might of the state may use violence as its monopoly against the threat of revolution.
In this respect, the Rhodesian crisis holds important lessons which we are sure will not be lost on the dedicated revolutionaries of Southern Africa. One is that while, on the one hand, Britain warns the liberation movement in Zimbabwe to follow the constitutional path to independence, on the other hand, she is quite prepared to stand idly by when Smith seizes independence by force and rules by violence, because his regime can still guarantee, in view of the prevailing weakness of the liberation forces, the protection-of the imperial interest. For it is patently clear that imperialism does not use force against movements and regimes of the extreme right if they can keep in check the pretensions of the revolutionary forces and safeguard vested interests. The other lesson is that Britain will intervene swiftly to crush a growing liberation struggle that threatens "law and order" in Zimbabwe, and then prepare the ground very carefully for a neocolonialist solution: with a black leadership who, with the support of a middle class, carefully groomed and brainwashed, can come to "a proper understanding" with the South African regime and Portugal with the view to preserving the massive foreign interests in the African subcontinent. Which means -~ and this is the third lesson -- that a negotiated independence is no independence whatsoever.
It is the lesson of history that the most all-embracing liberation of a people can be brought about only by an armed revolution of the most sweeping kind. For no ruling class gives up of its own volition its economic and political power. That a man's property is finally worth far more than his very life is a Machiavellian dictum borne out by the struggle to the death of the dominant classes in defence of their possessions. Attempts to argue with them rationally to surrender do not help, because they are asked to give up, at their own expense, to those on whom their privileged positions depend. It is presumptuous cheek on the part of the CP to expect the South African ruling classes to respond to "reasonable requests" and to alert them to the dangers of revolution so that they would introduce reforms with the consent of the people.
The ruling classes do not listen to "reason" unless it has the support of superior force; and when they do respond peacefully, then this is only in order to avert their own downfall by introducing petty reforms in order to derail a revolution. The institution on “one man, one vote" in the various African states is a case in point.
It has been proved by history that attempts to bring about social change by methods of conciliation and moderation lead to a greater loss of blood than methods of armed revolution. The vacillations of the Spanish Republicans in the thirties resulted in the death and persecution of well-nigh half the population of Spain, and paved the way for the fascist reaction. On the other hand a decisive break with the past by the most revolutionary methods does not only lead to more permanent gains, but helps to save more lives in the long term. How many people in Azania do not die every year of hunger and overwork, persecution and police massacres? Must millions more continue to die just because a peaceful way out must be found? Such "humanitarianism" does not consider human feeling.
We are arguing about elementary matters. The imperialists, the Soviet bureaucracy and the various Social Democratic parties of Western Europe warn the people of the colonies not to use force to settle their problems and enjoin on them to attain their independence by peaceful methods. But this does not prevent them from sanctioning the use of force, if only after the event, when they give recognition to those favourably disposed governments that come to power as a result of military coups.
Whether one wants a "partial" revolution or a "total" revolution depends on the methods one invokes to achieve either. In dealing with means and ends Rosa Luxemburg: drew a distinction between the aims of the reformist and the revolutionary socialist. She writes:
',..péople who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power -- a social revolution -~ do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to: the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society, they take a stand for slight changes in the old society."
The downtrodden masses of Azania have a vested interest in the most radical break with the existing order. In the words of Marx, they are "not opposed to particular conse-~ quences but (are) totally opposed to the assumption of the...political system." They naturally take to armed struggle, because they are incessantly subjected to violence.
The assassination of Verwoerd does not alter the situation in Azania, but the masses were none the less jubilant, because they realise, in the words of Malcolm X, when he commented on President Kennedy" s assassination, that the chickens are coming home to roost.
A proposal has recently been made by the revisionists and agents of the imperialist powers that the blacks should now be given training in the administrative aspects of government (naturally by imperialist agencies) so that when the time comes they will be fully prepared to work the machinery of state in Azania. It is certainly a convenient arrangement whereby the blacks become enmeshed in the administrative machinery to serve and be subordinate to the economic and military power of imperialisn.
But the black masses of Azania will prepare themselves to handle all aspects of their own affairs not in the houses of the rich nor in academic seminars whose job is to brainwash and to confuse. They will equip themselves only in the veld and forests, the mountains and high grasslands, of their own country where a life and death struggle will teach them to organise, to learn techniques, to improvise and to produce. The use of violence as an end in itself is naturally not the answer.
It is only by changing their environment in the furnace of a revolution that Azanians can also change themselves and be fit to master their own affairs.
[The end. ]