{"id":972,"date":"2019-12-06T18:06:53","date_gmt":"2019-12-06T16:06:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/marxistworkersparty.org.za\/?page_id=972"},"modified":"2020-04-23T11:44:03","modified_gmt":"2020-04-23T09:44:03","slug":"trade-unions-and-the-udf","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/?page_id=972","title":{"rendered":"Trade Unions and the UDF"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Originally appeared in Inqaba No. 11 (August-September 1983)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Paul Storey<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The editorial in this issue of Inqaba<\/em> calls on the organised workers in the independent unions to\ngo into the United Democratic Front \u2013 to build it, transform it, and lead it on\na clear program against apartheid and capitalist rule. This position needs\nfurther explanation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the present\ntime, the policy of a number of major unions, most notably the Fosatu unions,\nis to remain outside the UDF and instead mount their ‘own’ campaign against the\nnew constitution, the Koornhof Bills, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much discussion\non this question has already taken place in all the democratic unions, and will\ncontinue to take place. What is at issue is more than just the UDF \u2013 it is the\nwhole question of the political tasks of the working class, and how the workers\nshould organise to lead the liberation struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is extremely\nimportant to resolve the problem clearly as soon as possible, and reach a\ncommon position through frank discussion throughout the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Already\npolitical differences are posing a serious stumbling-block in the way of the\nunity of the trade unions in a new national federation. Fundamental differences\nof strategy, which put the mass organisations at odds with each other, will\nalso seriously weaken any<\/strong> political\ncampaign against the regime, and allow the cunning enemies of the working class\nto exploit divisions in our ranks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The developments\ntaking place in the SA Allied Workers Union, on the one hand, and in Fosatu’s\nMetal and Allied Workers Union, on the other hand, illustrate both the present\ndifferences in policy among the unions \u2013 and\nthe way forward to resolving these differences in an effective unity. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saawu is\nstrongly for<\/strong> participation in the\nUDF; Mawu is against<\/strong> it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the fighting\nranks of Saawu and Mawu share a common interest in the struggle and have a\ncommon basic outlook on the vital importance of workers not limiting<\/strong> themselves to the field of economic struggles, but\ntaking the lead in all<\/strong> the struggles\naffecting the life of the whole working class and all oppressed people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saawu, indeed,\nhas inspired working people all over South Africa by its heroic leadership of\nthe mass resistance in the Eastern Cape against the Ciskei puppet state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To survive the\nmurderous repression against it, Saawu leaders have increasingly stressed the\nneed to solidify their estimated 65,000 members into real industrial\norganisations, firmly entrenched on the shop-floor. Fusion into national\nindustrial unions, joined together in one national federation, is an urgent\nnecessity. The whole logic of development is towards unity on these lines with Fosatu\nunions, the GWU, and the other key unions now involved in unity talks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other\nhand, the rise of Mawu as a well-organised force of some 40,000 of the toughest\nand most militant industrial workers, has been a big factor impelling Fosatu\ntowards taking up political issues facing the working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an interview\nwith Fosatu Worker News<\/em> (October,\n1983), Transvaal secretary Moses Mayekiso has said of Mawu:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

‘It is no longer just a union,’ he said, ‘It is a movement of workers.’ <\/p>

He said the union was not only involved in ‘bread and butter’ issues but was involved in the broader struggle for ‘liberation’.<\/p>

‘It is impossible to separate the two in South Africa when dealing with the oppressed voiceless masses,’ Brother Mayekiso concluded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Mawu has\nresolved to “join other union groupings in their fight against the influx\ncontrol and pass laws, and the demolition of shacks in black residential\nareas.” (Sowetan<\/em>, 13 September,\n1983.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question is\nwhether this fight, together with the fight against Botha’s constitution and\nagainst the state generally, should be carried on only<\/strong> together with “other union groupings”. Or should the Fosatu unions, GWU, etc.,\nmake a conscious turn towards active participation in the United Democratic\nFront? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Advances<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tremendous\nadvances achieved in trade union organisation over the past ten years have\nalready begun to transform the consciousness of the black working class. Never\nbefore in our history has there been such a sense of their own strength on the\npart of the organised workers, and this has trickled through to the unorganised\nand to the class as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Workers’\nawareness of their potential power as a class to combat and overcome their\nenemies is the ground from which political class-consciousness sprouts and\nmatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratic\nshop-floor organisation; workers’ self-management of the unions at all levels;\nthe experience of strikes and other forms of struggle initiated and directed by\nthe workers themselves; the drawing of tens-of-thousands more workers into the\nunions every year \u2013 all this has set up a momentum, leading workers on to\nhigher levels of organisation, to a more general understanding of their\nproblems and their tasks as a class, and to a greater readiness to tackle the political nub<\/strong> of their oppression and\nexploitation: the capitalist state<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What a contrast\nnow with the early 1970s, when the first seedlings of the new democratic\nunionism among African workers had to be so cautiously tended! At that time,\nworkers usually had to be convinced that it was actually possible to mount any\nform of organisation and struggle, because this was at the tail end of the\nterrible dark period of reaction of the 1960s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The situation in\nNatal, after the Durban strike movement, was somewhat different, but nevertheless\nthis was generally the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But as the\nworkers took-up, at first in a very limited and modest way, organisation and\nstruggle against the bosses, so they gained confidence \u2013 and that confidence\nimpressed itself on their fellow-workers, who said: \u2018Well, if they can do it,\nwe can do it too.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the movement\nexpanded, until now there are literally hundreds of thousands of unorganised\nworkers ready to be drawn into the trade unions. Remarkably, despite all the difficulties\nof industrial struggle during the recession, the momentum has hardly flagged.\nThat is proof of the immense reserves of power, pent-up in the working class,\nready to be channelled, if a correct approach to organisation, unity, strategy\nand tactics is followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Inqaba<\/em> put forward<\/a> (October, 1981) that the independent unions should set as a target one million workers organised<\/strong> this was seen as too ambitious by many of the union leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Undoubtedly the\nunions’ resources are limited, and there are difficulties in consolidating the\nshop-floor foundations of the unions while they are undergoing rapid growth.\nBut the example of Mawu has provided an answer to this general problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A report in Saspu Focus<\/em> (June, 1983) gives this\naccount of the explosive growth of Mawu:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Metal and Allied Workers Union almost doubled in size to 35,000 in 1982 with most of the growth occurring on the East Rand. At the time there was only one organiser to handle these workers. With some 27 strikes in the first four months of 1982 it is easy to realise the situation was impossible to handle.<\/p>

Mawu’s treatment of the situation placed a number of interesting items on the labour movement agenda.<\/p>

To cope with the organisational load Mawu’s organiser decided to shift some of the responsibility for organising factories onto the shop stewards of already organised factories.<\/p>

A Shop Stewards Council was established to bring all the shop stewards together to discuss the state of organisation in their region and to work out ways of extending and consolidating their organisation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Now, at the\nannual general meeting of Mawu in the Transvaal, the union secretary has said\nthat, “by organising all the big steel producers, Mawu should have a\nmembership of about 100,000 by 1984.” (Fosatu\nWorker News<\/em>, October.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is true that\na union like Mawu has advantages in organising in a heavy industrial sector of\nlarge firms with a mass workforce. But wouldn’t many of the problems now facing\nall<\/strong> the smaller and general unions\nbe overcome, and opportunities for massive and<\/strong>\nstable growth on the Mawu lines be opened-up generally, once the unions fused together into single national industrial unions\nwithin a single national federation?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is vital to\nrecognise that the period<\/strong> has\nchanged. The growth of the independent unions to 300,000 and more means a qualitative change<\/strong> \u2013 in the outlook of\nthe organised workers, in the outlook of the unorganised, and in the role thrust upon the workers’ organisations by the general\nupheaval in society.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there are\nserious problems in stabilising rapidly-growing unions, these problems pale in comparison with the crisis which would open up\nif the unions fail to rise rapidly to their full potential in the next period.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

South Africa is\nentering the first stage of a drawn-out pre-revolutionary situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For all the\nmonstrous, racist, anti-democratic and anti-worker features of Botha’s new\n‘reform’ constitution, it is a sign of the system coming apart at the seams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling class\nis in disarray, and the sense of this fact among the masses is the main reason\nfor the tremendous enthusiastic response to the launching of the UDF \u2013 far\ngreater than either the government or even the organisers of the UDF themselves\nexpected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high poll\nand unexpected size of the ‘Yes’ vote in the white referendum is not at all a\nsign of faith in any quarters<\/strong> that\nthis constitution will be workable or will lead to a solution of any of the\nproblems facing society. Rather the whites voted ‘Yes’ mainly to avoid a\nparalysing crisis of government and state at what they know to be a critical\ntime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At precisely this time, the most militant and\nfar-sighted organised black workers and their leaders are recognising that it\nis their task to lead the struggle to transform society.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the\ningredients are beginning to come together for a thorough transformation of the mass movement<\/strong>; to lift it to a higher stage;\nto mobilise the whole of the oppressed people consciously under workers’\nleadership along a revolutionary road.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is what\ngives the current dispute over the attitude of the unions to the UDF a vital\nsignificance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Healthy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The suspicion\ntowards the UDF, most notable in the ranks of Fosatu unions, is itself a healthy<\/strong> and progressive<\/strong> sign \u2013 a sign of rapid advances in class-consciousness\nwhich are taking place. This has come from the very fact of genuine,\nshop-floor, democratic organisation, created by the workers’ own efforts and\nextending to every level of most of these unions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To an extent\nwithout parallel in South Africa in the past, workers know and feel that they\nhave authentic class organisations of\ntheir own<\/strong>, which they themselves independently\ncontrol<\/strong>. It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of this advance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking at Mawu’s\nannual general meeting in the Transvaal, Brother Mayekiso, for example, said\nthat the union supported the FOSATU stand on the UDF and other political\norganisations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“We believe\nthat workers as a class should fight their own problems. As the enemy is only\none \u2013 capitalism \u2013 and all other things like influx control are merely\nappendages,” he said. (Fosatu Worker\nNews<\/em>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This position\nfar outstrips the public standpoint of the UDF, which confines itself to\nabstract principles of democracy and fails to link the democratic and social\ndemands in any clear way to the need for workers’ power and the overthrow of\ncapitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, as our report from the UDF conference<\/a> clearly shows, the mass of supporters<\/strong> of the UDF (overwhelmingly working class), want<\/strong> working class leadership of the struggle, want<\/strong> power to pass into the hands of the working class, want<\/strong> a program for a thorough-going democratic revolution in which the means of production are taken into public ownership under workers’ control and management, thus clearing the way to a socialist solution of all society’s problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their dilemma is how to organise for that, how to\nfight for that, in and through the UDF.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our difference\nwith the present policy of Mawu and other Fosatu unions, as well as the GWU, is\nthat it leaves these workers stranded<\/strong>\nin the UDF, under essentially middle class leadership, and fails to direct the\norganised forces of the working class effectively towards the transformation of the entire mass movement\non proletarian lines.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This difference\nreflects the fact, we believe, that the militant workers in these unions have\nnot yet thought through to a conclusion the strategic problems<\/strong> facing the working class in the coming\nrevolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They have not\nbeen helped in this by the arguments of the union intellectuals, but on the\ncontrary, unfortunately, seriously hindered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same\ntime, however, the unions which have<\/strong>\ngone into the UDF have, on the whole, not<\/strong>\nprepared their ranks politically or organisationally to fight there for the\nleadership of the movement, and have been far too willing to attach themselves uncritically\nto a mainly middle class leadership, to an amorphous and unrepresentative\nstructure, and to an abstract democratic program of class-compromise which will\ndangerously hamstring the working class movement on the political plane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recognition\nof these dangers caused worker leaders in Fosatu to hold back from the UDF. In\nJuly, Fosatu President, Chris Dlamini told Fosatu\nWorker News<\/em>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am convinced that the worker movement cannot be pushed to link up with non-worker organisations because they might hinder or misdirect its programme of action.<\/p>

Workers at this stage are enslaved by the economy and the challenge facing them and their unions is to make the economy their slave.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He recounted\nwhat he had recently seen on a union visit to Zimbabwe:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the time in Zimbabwe, I noticed that although some people were liberated workers were not.<\/p>

While there I visited a factory where we were shown round by a black general manager who kept on telling us about the good relations there were between the workers and management since they had taken over. <\/p>

Well, I sneaked off and talked to one ordinary worker who painted a very different picture of what was happening in the factory.<\/p>

The worker said they did not have a union inside the factory, wages were low and conditions were bad…<\/p>

It seems to me that the people in Zimbabwe were taken-up with the popular struggle but failed to organise themselves into a worker organisation, like a union, which would have then liberated them as workers in their workplaces.<\/p>

Now they are faced with the problem of starting from scratch \u2013 having to organise themselves into a union to fight the bosses in the factory.<\/p>

Worker liberation can only be achieved by a strong, well-organised worker movement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Brother\nDlamini’s argument is a powerful one, and it goes very far along the road which\nInqaba<\/em> has also tried to point-out \u2013 but it does not go far enough. It does not\ntake the problem fully to its logical conclusion.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Certainly,\nwithout powerful trade unions under democratic workers’ control, without an\nindependent class policy in the unions, workers are defenceless. But trade\nunion strength alone is not enough to liberate the working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The liberation\nof the working class depends not only on workers’ organisation in the\nworkplace, not only on “fighting the bosses in the factory” \u2013 but on workers’ organisation to drive the\nbosses out of the workplaces and out of their mastery of society.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bosses’\npower rests on two pillars. On the one hand, it rests on private ownership of the means of production<\/strong>. Unless the workers’\nmovement succeeds in putting an end to the bosses’ ownership, it will not<\/strong> be possible for workers and their\nunions to “make the economy their slave”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other\nhand, the bosses’ power \u2013 and the defence of bosses’ ownership \u2013 depends on the\nstate, which, as Engels put it, is essentially \u2018armed bodies of men\u2019 and their\nappendages like the courts, prisons, etc., organised to protect the ruling\nclass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The workers\ncannot be liberated only “as workers in their workplaces”, but through the conquest of state power by\nthe working class<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trotsky wrote\nabout this in a letter to a French syndicalist (a trade unionist who believed\nthat trade union organisation would be sufficient for the liberation of the\nworkers), in August 1920:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For we have to topple the bourgeoisie and tear the state apparatus from its hands. The bourgeoisie in the form of its state rests on the army. Only an open insurrection where the proletariat collides face to face with the army, inflicting cruel blows on its counter-revolutionary elements and winning over its better part, only such an open insurrection of the proletariat is capable of making it the master of the situation in the country.<\/p>

But for the insurrection energetic and concentrated preparatory work is essential: agitational, organisational and technical.<\/p>

It is necessary, day in and day out, to expose the crimes and villainy of the bourgeoisie in every area of social life: international politics, colonial atrocities, the domestic despotism of the capitalist oligarchy, the rascality of the bourgeois press; all this must form the material for a really revolutionary exposure, together with all the consequent revolutionary conclusions. These topics are too broad for a trade union and its tasks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Without<\/strong> powerful trade\nunions the workers in South Africa could win neither economic nor political\npower. But with<\/strong> the strong\nshop-floor, regional and national organisations of the workers that have\nalready been built, the workers can enter vigorously into the political field\nand give the lead to the whole oppressed people in the struggle for power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The workers have\nto be consciously organised<\/strong> in the\npolitical struggle \u2013 in working class\norganisations under their own control<\/strong> \u2013 but the trade union form of\norganisation is not adequate<\/strong> for\nthat. The central question already confronting the mass<\/strong> of working people \u2013 confronting the millions who are\nunorganised as well as the hundreds-of-thousands organised \u2013 is the overthrow of the apartheid regime.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is\nnot that the people are “taken up with the popular struggle”, but\nthat the popular struggle is not yet mobilised round, and led by, the organised\nworkers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no way\nthat the trade unions can be regarded by the mass of the working people to be a\nsubstitute for a political organisation<\/strong>\nfor the purpose of leading the revolutionary struggle for power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is the\nstruggle of the youth. There is the struggle in the communities. There is the\nstruggle against demolitions and removals. There are the bus boycotts and the\nstruggles over rents. There is the need for a united nation-wide movement to\ncripple the new constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any organisation\nwhich is capable of coming forward as the political leadership of the\nrevolutionary movement has to give the lead in all aspects of that struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trade unions as\nsuch cannot do that \u2013 and in a very real sense Saawu has gone beyond, has been forced<\/strong> by the situation in the Eastern\nCape to go beyond \u2013 the capacities of a trade union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer, of\ncourse, is not to turn the unions’ backs on politics, imagining that the\n‘economic struggle’ can live a life of its own. The majority of activists in Fosatu\nunions, as in Saawu and other unions, already reject that idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem\nboils down to this: how to carry the already\nexisting<\/strong> organised strength of workers (on the shop-floor and at every level)\nonto the field of political struggle<\/strong>\n\u2013 to take the lead<\/strong> in the ‘popular\nmovement’, to show the way forward<\/strong>,\nto mobilise the youth<\/strong> and the entire\nworking class in the communities, and to weld them together around the hard\ncore of organised labour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we look to\nthe future, isn’t it clear that only two possible alternatives present\nthemselves? One would be the creation of a\nmass revolutionary workers’ party<\/strong> arising directly out of the unions. The\nother would be the conscious turn by\norganised workers to the ANC banner<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem\nneeds to be worked out as clearly as possible in advance, so that a consistent\napproach to organisation, strategy and tactics can be followed by the workers’\nmovement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many trade union\nactivists, realising the power of the workers that is still just beginning to\nrise-up, are already straining in the direction of political action by their\norganisations. In response to this pressure, Fosatu, for instance, launched its\nown campaign on the constitution. This is also the reason why some worker\nleaders are often saying now that their organisations are no longer ‘just’\ntrade unions, but \u2018a movement of workers\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That expression,\n‘a movement<\/strong> of workers’, shows the\ncorrect direction of development, but it\ndoes not answer the problem we have posed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this\nconnection, it is useful to look back at the speech given at the Fosatu\nCongress in April 1982, by its General Secretary, Joe Foster. In it he set out\nsome ideas on the relation of the unions to political struggle, and these have\nexerted a considerable influence on the discussion among workers ever since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time, we\nconfined comment to what was the most significant advance<\/strong>, namely the clear recognition that unions could not be non-political,\nand that a definite \u2018working-class politics\u2019 and \u2018working-class movement\u2019 had\nto come and was coming into being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also argued,\nhowever, that the correct course would be for the organised workers to build\nthe ANC, under their own democratic control, as the vehicle for their struggle\nfor political power. (See Inqaba,<\/em> No. 6<\/em>, May 1982.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately,\nBrother Foster did not develop his points to any clear conclusion in relation\neither to a workers’ party<\/strong> or to the\nANC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason<\/strong> for this was not<\/strong> any necessary caution there might\nhave been about speaking openly in South Africa on revolutionary issues. There\nwas an actual, inherent ambiguity<\/strong> in\nhis position, which has been carried into practice in the Fosatu policy towards\nthe UDF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(In the\nfollowing passages, the page references are to the text in the SA Labour Bulletin<\/em>, July 1982.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brother Foster’s\nstarting point is sound:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have no intention of becoming self-satisfied trade unionists incapable of giving political direction to the workers’ struggle. (p.68)<\/p>

If we were to think in terms of our members only, we would have a very limited political role. If, however, we are thinking more widely of the working class then we have to examine very much more carefully what our political role is. (p.69)<\/p>

The working class have experienced a birth of fire in South Africa and they constitute the major objective political force opposed to the state and capital. There is no significant (black) petty-bourgeoisie or landed class with an economic base in our society. (p.74)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

“In the\neconomy,” he continues, “capital and labour are the major forces yet politically the struggle is waged elsewhere<\/strong>.”\n(p.74 \u2013 our emphasis.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, why is this\nthe case? If (as is true) the working class constitutes “the major\nobjective political force” opposed to the state and the ruling class, and\nif the political struggle is nevertheless waged “elsewhere”, then\nthis must surely mean that the political force of the working class has not\nbeen mobilised as it should be, and that the political struggle has been\nsuffering from limits imposed on it by the insignificant<\/strong>\nblack petty-bourgeoisie which has “no … economic base in our\nsociety.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But is this the\nlogic which Brother Foster develops and carries into his conclusions?\nUnfortunately not!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead he looks\nfor the reason<\/strong> for the political\nstruggle being waged “elsewhere” in something built into<\/strong> the “South African context” \u2013 namely the\nracist oppression of the black people. This leads him to accept<\/strong> the limits imposed on the mass political struggle in the\npast by the black petty-bourgeoisie. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surely, because\nracist oppression is founded on the capitalist\nsystem<\/strong> and the exploitation of the black working class, the racial system\nwould not<\/strong> be a sound reason for the\npolitical struggle being waged “elsewhere” \u2013 it would rather be the\nmost powerful reason for the organised black workers to take in their own hands\nthe leadership of the entire<\/strong>\nstruggle of the oppressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As this has not yet<\/strong> taken place, despite the\n“birth of fire” and explosive growth of the working class, it must<\/strong> be because the working class has\nhitherto lacked the strength of independent organisation and the political\nleadership of its own needed to rouse it and direct its forces to its political\ntasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unchallenged\npetty-bourgeois leadership of the political mass movement has been the result<\/strong> of this lack of workers’\nleadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of\nposing the problem clearly in this way, however, Brother Foster takes his\nargument up a cul de sac<\/em>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since<\/strong> “the major\npolitical task of the oppressed peoples has always been to attack that\noppressive and racist regime”, therefore<\/strong>\n“what has developed in South Africa is a very powerful tradition of\npopular or populist politics” in which “a great alliance of all\nclasses [all!??<\/em>] is both necessary\nand a clear political strategy.” (p.71)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this\npurpose, and for the “mass mobilisation [which] is essential” (p.71),\nthere is the ANC. “Various political and economic interests gather\ntogether in the popular front in the tradition of the ANC and the Congress\nAlliance.” (p.76.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, hold it a\nminute! Haven’t we agreed that the ‘masses’ are overwhelmingly the working class masses?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Brother\nFoster ends up accepting \u2013 if we connect-up logically all the threads of his\nargument \u2013 is a most peculiar division\nof labour<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the one hand,\nhe says, there must be a political mass movement against the state, under the\nCongress banner, not led by the organised workers but, in the sacrosanct\n“tradition”, by a petty-bourgeois\nleadership<\/strong> as in the past, reflecting a “great alliance of all\nclasses”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, on the\nother hand, there must be a trade union and “workers’ movement” with\nits \u2018own\u2019 “workers’ politics”, which is to be kept somehow distinct,\n“even whilst they [workers] are part of the wider popular struggle.”\n(p.77)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is enough\nto crack the brain! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What could it\npossibly mean in practice?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What would be the task left to the workers’ political\nmovement, if it does NOT take up the LEADERSHIP of the mass struggle to overthrow\nthe state? <\/strong>The conclusion is inescapable: only the\npolitical tasks which flow immediately and directly from the limited economic\nstruggles of workers!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is an\napproach which Lenin furiously attacked as ‘economism’ when it was put forward\nin the Russian workers’ movement some eighty years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is an approach which would condemn the workers of\nSouth Africa to continued subordination politically under the petty-bourgeois\ndemocrats, in the UDF and Congress movement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not<\/strong> the approach towards which Fosatu’s\nown ranks are now groping \u2013 even while under the influence of arguments such as\nthose which Brother Foster put forward. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Party?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As if sensing\nthis implication in his position and recoiling from it, Brother Foster provided\nat least some hints<\/strong> in his speech\nthat a “workers’ movement” could or might be taken to mean a workers’ party<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The hint was\nenough to produce a loud protest from leaders of the SA Communist Party (see,\ne.g., ‘Toussaint’ in African Communist<\/em>\nNo. 93), to the effect that it would be criminal to set up “a new\n‘workers’ movement’ in competition with or alongside the still living Communist\nParty.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only is the\nCP “still living” \u2013 apparently it has long fulfilled the need of SA\nworkers for their own working class political organisation! On another\noccasion, we will take space to show that this claim, quite frankly, doesn’t\nhold water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there is a serious reason why it will not be\npossible to solve the revolutionary-strategic problems now confronting the SA\nworking class by attempting to move directly towards the creation of a mass\nworkers’ party on the basis of the trade unions.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly the\nworking class needs a party of its own in South Africa, as everywhere else. But\nwe are experiencing the need for this in a revolutionary period in which the\nworking class has to mobilise and organise itself to overthrow the state. No\nother force will do it. Therefore, any workers’ party that is viable<\/strong> for the needs of the class would\nhave to be<\/strong> a mass<\/strong> party with a revolutionary\nprogram<\/strong>. It would have to be capable of drawing the oppressed people in\ntheir millions behind it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How is such a\nthing to be created? It cannot be sucked out of the thumb, as the silly\nsectarian grouplets imagine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It must be built\nupon the organised foundations already laid by the workers in the factories,\nmines, docks, plantations, offices, shops, etc. But how is this to be done?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How is it to\nattract the necessary mass following<\/strong>\nof the millions<\/strong> of unorganised\nworkers, the youth, the women, the unemployed, the people in the reserves? The\ncombined forces of all of these are essential if the state is to be defeated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the\nformation of a united trade union federation \u2013 so urgently needed by the working class<\/strong> \u2013 is lagging dreadfully as\na result of all sorts of secondary obstacles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How long would\nit take to even begin the formation of a mass workers’ party by this route?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the advanced\ncapitalist countries the emergence of workers’ parties in the 19th Century was\nvery complicated, was affected by many temporary setbacks, took a number of\ndifferent forms, and was only consolidated over a long period of struggle, in\nthe course of which the working class differentiated itself from the petty-bourgeois\ndemocrats who had held sway over the mass movement in the bourgeois-democratic\nrevolutions of that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That was, let us\nremember, the period of the forward movement of capitalism, not its death\nagony; a sustained period of capitalist development, with long intervals, often\ndecades between revolutionary explosions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In South Africa\ntoday, revolution is knocking at the door. We are living in a period in which\nthe intolerable burdens of capitalism, of an international economic system in\ncrisis, combine with a racist state system rotting on its feet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The working\npeople are compelled to make a proletarian\nrevolution<\/strong> in order to carry out even the democratic tasks. The mass<\/strong> of the working class will see no\nchoice but to take what appears the shortest route \u2013 the route which seems\nleast strewn with difficulties and uncertainties \u2013 towards the building of a\nrevolutionary organisation for that purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the years\nimmediately ahead, millions<\/strong> of black\nworking people will take to the road of struggle. They will want above all to\nunite their forces under one banner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this\npurpose, they will seize hold of the main political vehicle already existing,\nwith the deepest roots in the traditions of mass resistance \u2013 the ANC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone who\nimagines that the attractive power of the UDF comes from the ‘400\norganisations’ affiliated to it, is failing to look beneath the surface of events.\nThe support for the UDF \u2013 of the millions of working people who are not yet activists<\/strong>, but will later become so \u2013 this\nsupport comes from the fact that everyone knows that the UDF is a forerunner of\nthe future emergence once again of the ANC at the head of the mass movement\ninside South Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because this will be a movement of millions of previously\nunorganised and previously passive working people, it will break like a wave\nover the heads of the previously organised trade union workers. Even they will\nbe drawn, despite their doubts about middle class leadership of Congress, towards\nthe ANC banner.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is essential\nto prepare the most advanced, organised and conscious workers for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only viable\nstrategy for taking forward the working class political movement to the\nachievement of its tasks; the only viable strategy for the presently organised workers<\/strong> to fight for and win leadership<\/strong> of the entire mass movement\n\u2013 is to consciously go into the UDF, build it, transform it and lead it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The arguments of\nGWU General Secretary, Dave Lewis (Work\nin Progress<\/em>, No. 29), against entry into the UDF collapse<\/strong> when tested against this approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He wants the\nunions to stay out of the UDF, while at the same time “supporting”\nthe UDF, having “joint campaigns” with it, and encouraging trade\nunion members individually<\/strong> “to\njoin the UDF”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This will give\nus the worst of all possible worlds!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now and in the\npast, Brother Lewis has done a service to the movement by spelling out ideas\nand arguments, so that the level of discussion can be raised, problem areas\nconfronted, and mistakes put right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the\ninterview, he makes a number of correct points about the multi-class character\nof the UDF, its leadership, and the bulk of the ‘activist’ organisations\naffiliated to it; about the deficiencies of its program of action from the\nworkers’ point of view; about the inequalities of representation within it,\nloaded against the workers, and the lack of democratic accountability of the\nleadership to the rank-and-file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would at\nleast have had the merit of consistency if Brother Lewis, on these grounds, had\nurged workers to stay out of the UDF and instead work consciously towards the\nformation by the unions of an independent party of labour. For reasons given\nabove, however, such a conclusion would nevertheless be mistaken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Brother\nLewis does not proceed down that track. Much of his argument, in fact, tends\ntowards a non-political conception of the trade unions’ tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For one thing, unions will inevitably be organisations that incorporate a great diversity of political views and affiliations. We’ll have in our ranks members with militant political views, and we’ll have in our ranks members with fairly conservative political views. We’ll also have within our ranks a great many members who have few political views at all, people who have joined the organisation purely to fight their bosses. With a certain degree of tension now and again, these diverse views can all be contained within an organisation, because they are all held by workers.  (p.13)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, this is\nan entirely static conception, which seems oblivious of the earthquake<\/strong> that is beginning in the\nmovement of the South African working class, and the rapid changes<\/strong> of consciousness and political outlook that workers have\nundergone and will continue to undergo through struggle. (Is the thinking among\nthe GWU leaders perhaps weighed down by the effects of the SATS defeat?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, there must<\/strong> be political struggle in<\/strong> the unions, to convince all<\/strong> workers of the correctness of\nrevolutionary ideas \u2013 not to drive out ‘conservative’ workers, or other\ntendencies, but through free and democratic debate to win the willing support\nof the entire membership to the ideas and policies which alone can liberate the\nclass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brother Lewis\nsays, “Union leaders don’t claim to represent the views of the working\nclass. They represent the views of their members.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trade union\nleaders are bound by the internal democracy of their organisations to uphold\nthe interests of their members in the way the majority dictates. But take the\npoint any further, and it becomes a sheer cop-out from political responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trade union\nleaders can represent their members’<\/strong>\ninterests in the final analysis only<\/strong>\nby representing the interests of the working\nclass<\/strong>. The point of leadership is to help, encourage and persuade the\nmembers to clearly understand their interests as a class<\/strong> in the fullest sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, would\nBrother Lewis argue, for example, that British trade unions should not be\naffiliated to the Labour Party because included in their ranks are workers who\nsupport the Tories, Liberals and SDP? Most surely he would not \u2013 for that would\nplace him in very embarrassing political company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourthly, all\nthe noble concern for the “great diversity of political<\/strong> views and affiliations” among workers in the union,\nseems suddenly to vanish when it comes to the highly political decision of the\nunion leaders to “encourage our members to join the UDF”, support it,\nand wage joint campaigns!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the crux of\nthe argument must be that the UDF is not a workers’ organisation, but is\nmulti-class. Therefore what?<\/strong>\nApparently you can support it without a qualm, even encourage your members to\ngo into it individually \u2013 the only thing you can’t do is affiliate<\/strong> to it!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You refuse to do\nthe one thing which would put the organised workers in a position to change<\/strong> the UDF and bring it under their\ncontrol!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The workers are\nsent in defenceless, disarmed, without organisation \u2013 into the arms of the \u2018multi-class\u2019\ncommunity grouplets and petty-bourgeois democrats from whom, by washing its\nhands of the UDF at the level of ‘affiliation’, the union imagines it can\nmaintain its independence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

‘Independence’<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin tirelessly\nexplained when arguing against the Mensheviks in Russia (who also claimed to be\nfor the ‘independence’ of the workers’ organisations) that the only way to preserve the independence of the workers’ organisations\nwas to establish the organised workers’ leadership over the entire revolutionary\nmovement<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The strength,\nclarity and vigour of the organised workers can win people of all oppressed and\nexploited classes \u2013 including, for example, the small traders \u2013 to the side of\nthe working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\ncharacterises the middle class in all its various sections is that it has no\nindependent basis in society. It therefore has an inherent tendency to\nvacillate between the conflicting pressures of the two powerful classes in\nsociety: the bourgeoisie and the working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In South Africa\nthe black middle class sympathises with the working class, while at the same\ntime clinging to its meagre privileges and tenuous ‘freedom’ from wage-labour.\nIt is itself exploited and oppressed by the capitalist system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marxism has long\npointed out that petty-bourgeois politicians who compromise with capitalism are\nnot representing<\/strong> the interests of\nthe middle class, but politically\nexploiting it<\/strong>. The liberation of the majority of the middle class depends\non the capitalist system being overthrown \u2013 and if the working class is held\nback from achieving this in a revolution, the oppressed middle class becomes\nitself a helpless victim of savage capitalist counter-revolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason\nthe support of the middle class must be won not through compromising with\ncapitalism, but in an open tug-of-war against the capitalist class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is possible,\nright and necessary for the working class, in its program, to put forward\nspecific demands to cater for the practical needs of various sections of the\nmiddle class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only\ncondition must be that the program of struggle against the big bourgeoisie must\nnot be watered down in any way, and this means no compromise whatsoever with\nthe liberal capitalists. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The possibility\nof a revolutionary workers’ government making ample specific concessions to the\nmiddle class, without opening dangers of counter-revolution, depends on two\nthings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It depends,\nfirstly, on the complete conquest of the state power, and the smashing of the\ncapitalist state machine. It depends, secondly, on the revolutionary overthrow\nof capitalism being carried through completely in the main branches of the\neconomy, so that the commanding heights of economic and political power pass unreservedly\ninto workers’ hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Trotsky was\nwriting on the problem of the German revolution in the 1930s, he answered those\nwho said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt’s wrong to talk about a working class revolution because\nactually 95% of the people are interested in revolution, and consequently it’s\nreally a people’s <\/em>revolution.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trotsky explained that the worker revolutionaries should say to\nthose who put forward that point of view:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course 95% of the population, if not 98%, is exploited by finance capital. But this exploitation is organised hierarchically: there are exploiters, there are sub-exploiters, sub-sub-exploiters, etc. Only thanks to this hierarchy do the exploiters keep in subjection the majority of the nation. In order that the nation should indeed be able to reconstruct itself around a new class core, it must be reconstructed ideologically, and this can be achieved only if the proletariat does not dissolve itself into the \u2018people\u2019, into the ‘nation’, but on the contrary develops a programme of its proletarian revolution and compels the petty bourgeoisie to choose between two regimes. The slogan of the people’s revolution lulls the broad masses of workers, reconciles them to the bourgeois-hierarchical structure of the \u2018people\u2019, and so retards their liberation.” (The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany, Penguin edition, p.62.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The point is not\naltered by the character of the struggle in South Africa, in which the\noverthrow of the racist regime is the first point on the political agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is correct\nthat there should be a \u2018popular alliance\u2019 in this struggle \u2013 but a terrific amount\nof confusion is usually buried under the use of this term. The question is,\nwhat is the character<\/strong> of the popular\nalliance to be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When centred\nround the organised workers, and driven forward by the workers’ strength and\nclarity of purpose, the ‘popular alliance’ would resemble the relationship\nbetween a magnet and iron filings. That is as it should be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npetty-bourgeois politicians, however, like to present the ‘popular alliance’ as\nsome sort of compromise arrangement between different ‘class interests’ in\nwhich none tries to assert predominance! Such an alliance would resemble a collection\nof potatoes in one sack \u2013 and, while the proletarian ‘potatoes’ would be the\nmost numerous, as we all know it is the few petty-bourgeois ‘potatoes’ which\nfind their way to the positions of real influence on top.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover,\nbecause the petty-bourgeoisie can maintain no independent standpoint from the\nmain classes in society, the result is that whenever the organised power of the\nworking class is not asserted, it is the\ninfluence of the liberal bourgeoisie (openly or behind the scenes) which\nbecomes paramount. This ends up crippling the mass movement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inqaba<\/em> is preparing material on the struggle in the 1950s<\/a>, to show how these problems laid the basis for the defeats at that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trade union\nleaders who abdicate the responsibility of organising<\/strong>\nthe intervention of the advanced workers into the UDF \u2013 and later into the ANC\nitself \u2013 only prepare the way for future crippling, division and demoralisation\nof the entire movement. Can there be any doubt that that would bring a catastrophe\non the unions themselves?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We believe that\nthe urgent task of unifying the trade unions should be approached without\npolitical preconditions by the leaders of the democratic unions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless,\nbecause the policy of abstention from the UDF is not a coherent strategy for\nthe workers’ movement, it is likely even in the short-run to bring disarray and\nconfusion into the attempts to form a united federation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Demands<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a passage\nwhich is pleasantly inconsistent with the rest of his conclusions, and gives us\nhope, Dave Lewis says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point of this digression is not to say that workers should never co-operate, never work together with organisations of non-workers, or organisations in which non-workers are also members. We would expect this of our members. But we would not be surprised, and nobody else should be surprised, if when our members do work in this way, they insist on carrying into these organisations the culture and demands of the working class, and the culture and demands of a working class organisation. (p.15)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That is exactly what should take place!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an\nunderstanding which the leaders of Saawu, Gawu and other unions in the UDF need\nto take on board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The present\nartificial structure of the UDF, undemocratically weighted against workers’\norganisations, must be deliberately challenged and changed. We are not arguing\nfor trade union leaders simply to go into the UDF to ‘represent’ their members\non their own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point is\nthat the workers in the factory committees, shop stewards committees, branches,\njoint councils, etc., should discuss and organise<\/strong>\ntheir intervention into the UDF; should discuss independently<\/strong> their own demands and policies, to be fought for\nwithin the UDF; should strictly mandate their delegates, and so on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judging by the\ninterview in Work in Progress<\/em>, the\nGWU leaders themselves have not learned the necessary lessons either from the\nexperience of the meat strike or from their more recent experience in the\nDisorderly Bills Action Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you send one\nor a few individuals along, to ‘represent’ a mass workers’ organisation in a\nplace where petty-bourgeois ‘representatives’ are swarming, of course it will\nbe a disaster! It would be surprising if any worker put through that experience\nwasn’t turned off politics for life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tactic must\nbe to constantly overwhelm the petty-bourgeois with numbers, in meetings of\nthis kind, to let them feel the hot breath of the workers and never forget it,\nand make them respond to workers’ initiative and demands. Is it so difficult to\norganise this? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a need\nfor a clear program of national action<\/strong>\non the part of the UDF, aimed particularly to mobilise the forces of the\nunorganised working class, which only the already organised workers would be\nable to carry forward successfully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But to get such\na program of action, the workers’\norganisations<\/strong> will have to work it out, including demands of all the\noppressed, but putting workers’ demands to the forefront \u2013 and then see to it that the UDF wholeheartedly adopts the campaign.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dave Lewis is\nabsolutely right to say that “the workers don’t understand what programme\nof action is envisaged by the UDF.” Talk for no clear purpose is \u201canathema\nto an organised worker\u201d. Without active involvement of the organised workers in\ndeciding, organising and directing an action campaign, the UDF itself will be\nenfeebled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course there\nwill be ‘big’ problems and loud objections to workers’ demands to change the\ninitial ‘structures’ and give class-content to the ‘principles’ of the UDF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brother Lewis\nspeaks about the UDF’s present structure as though it is carved in stone. But\nwho can doubt the capacity of an organised workers’ movement which (in a\npolice-state) has learned to deal with such powers as Frame, SEIFSA, the\nChamber of Mines, etc., to overcome any petty-bourgeois resistance within the\nUDF \u2013 once the workers set their minds\nclearly to the task. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Conception<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If organised\nworkers are to transform the UDF, it will be necessary to have a clear\nconception of the tasks of the coming revolution, and the tactics appropriate\nto them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the workers’\nmovement in Russia, the errors of ‘economism’ and Menshevism were bound-up with\nthe false idea of separate revolutionary ‘stages’. Those who thought it was not\nthe task of the Russian working class to lead the struggle to overthrow the\nTsarist dictatorship and carry the revolution through, naturally wished to\nconfine the workers’ movement to limited aims within the framework of capitalism<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Politically,\nthey were content to allow the working class to serve as pack-horses for the\nliberals, petty-bourgeois democrats and intellectuals. If it hadn’t been for\nthe strength of the Bolsheviks and the clear policy for workers’ power which Lenin\nand Trotsky put forward in the revolution, the ‘two-stage’ leaders would have\ncaused the terrible, bloody defeat of the revolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essentially the\nsame applies to South Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the August\n1983 issue of the \u2018liberal and radical\u2019 journal Reality<\/em>, Steven Friedman uses these words in describing FOSATU’s\npresent policy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It argues that alliances between black workers and other strata of black society have inevitably<\/strong> become dominated by elite groups to the disadvantage of workers. Because workers suffer from educational disadvantages and a lack of time which are not shared by the black \u2018elite\u2019 it is inevitable<\/strong>, they argue, that the elite will come to dominate the alliance and that its priorities will then become those of the elite. (Our emphasis.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What gross\ncontempt for the power and capacities of organised workers! If this report is\ntrue, then it must reflect the attitude of some intellectuals<\/strong> within Fosatu \u2013 but\nit cannot be the attitude of the worker militants in Fosatu.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Friedman goes on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind this is also a fear that any black nationalist government which came to power would tend to rule in the interests of the black elite \u2013 unless an independent worker movement existed, articulating specific worker interests which would then be in a position to influence the policy of that Government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Here we have the\ntwo-stage idea stated in all its baldness! How, one may ask, is a ‘black\nnationalist government’ going to come to power unless it is carried to power by\nthe working class? And this would mean that the working class allowed itself to\nbe led in the revolutionary struggle by a petty-bourgeois elite leadership!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The task of the\nindependent worker movement is not<\/strong>\nto be in a position merely<\/strong> to\n“influence” some future government, but to so organise and struggle\nthat government and state power passes into its own hands<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We refuse to\nbelieve that the argument reported by Friedman genuinely reflects the views of\nthe fighting ranks of Fosatu and the other democratic unions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there\nhave been several disturbing indications recently from both GWU and Fosatu,\nwhich imply that the workers ought to distinguish, for political purposes<\/strong>, between ‘good’ bosses and ‘bad’ bosses \u2013 whereas\nin fact the entire<\/strong> capitalist class,\nand indeed particularly<\/strong> the ‘liberal’\nbig capitalists<\/strong> are the most\nformidable, subtle and dangerous enemies of all the fundamental interests of\nthe working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Precisely when\nthe liberal capitalists parade as opponents of the racist regime, they need to\nbe exposed to the workers as the chief beneficiaries of exploitation and oppression,\nfor the protection of whose property every<\/strong>\ncapitalist state primarily exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PFP spokesmen,\nfor example, declare vigorous support for the SA military-machine, and for all\nthe core components of the state<\/strong>,\nnot as some reluctant ‘compromise’ to get white votes, but because the bourgeois class they represent depends on this repressive\napparatus to maintain its power over the working class<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heartsore though\nthey may be about the brutal ‘excesses’ of repression, this is the only state\nthey have got. They cannot saw-off the limb of the tree on which they sit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Fosatu\nlaunched its ‘own’ campaign against the new constitution just before the white\nreferendum, thousands of workers responded eagerly, wearing the ‘One man one\nvote’ stickers to work. Excellent!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But a grave\nmisjudgement lies behind the idea of Fosatu leaders to make it a point of the campaign\nto question the bosses whether they supported a ‘Yes’ vote. Consider the\nimplication \u2013 the political lesson<\/strong>\nwhich this establishes in the minds of workers. That the bosses who favoured a \u2018No\u2019\nmay be considered to be on the workers’ side?!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oppenheimer, for\nexample \u2013 the most ruthless and cunning, as well as the most powerful of the\nbig boss class \u2013 tactically changed sides not long before the referendum for\nthe precise purpose of pulling the wool over the workers’ eyes. Having\npreviously indicated support for the permanence of the Bantustans and the\nsincerity of Botha’s ‘reforms’, Oppenheimer piously switched to supporting ‘on\nbalance’ the ‘No’ campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can he have been\nmuch displeased by the thrust of Fosatu’s pre-referendum campaign? Still more\ndelighted must have been those middle class democrats in the UDF who want to\nhold the workers to a compromise with the so-called ‘progressive’ capitalists.\nAnd these are the very leaders from whose political influence the policy of\nabstention from the UDF is supposed to save the workers! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For all the\nbosses, whether to support a ‘Yes’ or a `No’ was a purely tactical decision, calculated from their capitalist class\nstandpoint<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Workers’ tactics\nin the struggle always involve difficulties \u2013 and mistakes happen, especially\nwhen an underlying revolutionary conception is lacking or is not clear. But\nmistakes, once recognised, can be avoided in future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main point\nof political campaigns among workers should be to show \u2013 not any fundamental\ndifference between ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ capitalists and ‘reactionary’\ncapitalists \u2013 but the reactionary heart of the entire bourgeoisie which ties it\ninseparably to the state power; to the forces of ‘law and order’; to the splitting-up\nof South Africa on \u2018federal\u2019 or \u2018confederal\u2019 lines; to the holding down of\nworkers’ power and the impoverishment and exploitation of working people for\nthe sake of profit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through such an\napproach alone can revolutionary class-consciousness become generalised in the\nproletariat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Program<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, and\nmost important of all, a clear political program must be fought for, in and\nthrough the UDF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Freedom Charter still provides a good basis for a workers’ program. The present UDF leaders have put forward, not the Freedom Charter itself, but a filleted version of abstract ‘principles’ drawn from it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Workers ought to insist at least on the Freedom Charter as a starting-point, emphasising, together with the democratic demands, the specific social demands contained there, and stressing the nationalisation of the mines, banks and monopolies as an immediate<\/strong> task of a revolutionary government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main thing lacking in the Freedom Charter is any explanation that these demands can be carried out only with the conquest of state-power by the working class. This point the organised workers would be well placed to hammer home in the UDF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we can reach\na common stand-point on these issues of strategy and tactics in the trade\nunions over the next few months, then much of the ground will have been laid\nfor big advances of the workers’ movement towards power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a9 Transcribed from the original by the Marxist Workers Party (2019).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Originally appeared in Inqaba No. 11 (August-September 1983) by Paul Storey The editorial in this issue of Inqaba calls on the organised workers in the […]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":960,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-972","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"acf":[],"_hostinger_reach_plugin_has_subscription_block":false,"_hostinger_reach_plugin_is_elementor":false,"brizy_media":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=972"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/972\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1283,"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/972\/revisions\/1283"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/960"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

The interview with the Johannesburg shop steward (read here<\/a>), sums up the feeling of thousands of the most militant organised workers that bodies such as the UDF and the National Forum do not really belong to the working class; that their leadership is mainly middle class in character and is not democratically controlled by the working class; that, for all their sincerity, they cannot truly and completely express or consistently fight for the demands of working people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n