DEBATING SOCIALIST STRATEGY

Is the SACP travelling in the right direction? A response to Kitson and Habib

The SACP's JEREMY CRONIN or the past three years, at least, with an excellent example of exactly how the SACP has been grappling we should not face up to the present criticises 'dogmatic with the crisis and subsequent situation. Habib presents an altogether fundamentalism', and argues collapse of in most of more coherent argument. In confronting that the party's ditching of the easterFn Europe. What has gone wrong? his article one is challenged, I think use­ What are the implications for us, a party concept of 'proletarian fully, to spell out more substantially the with long historical tics to the Soviet reason for the SACP's dropping of the ' is not a rightward Union? And what arc the lessons for the concept of 'the dictatorship of the prole­ lurch into electoralist struggle for socialism in our country? tariat'. '', but a This effort at theoretical assessment leftward move away from statist and self-criticism has provoked several Dogmatism critiques in the past weeks. They include conceptions of workers' power, 'Is the SACP really communist?', asks *IstheSACPreallycommunist?'byDave Dave Kitson, a former party member and towards a perspective which Kitson (WIP 73) and "The SACP's re­ . Kitson begins by out­ seeks to empower the working structuring of Communist theory; a shift lining a set of five basic marxist-lcninist to the right', by Adam Habib (Transfor­ principles: 'lhatsociely ultimately hasan class in all spheres of civil mation 14,1991) society economic basis. The history of society is I believe it is useful to look critically at the history of class struggles. The Com­ both articles. Kitson*s article provides us munist Party should lead and serve the

WIP 74 Page 25 DEBATING SOCIALIST

working class in the capitalist epoch. The • Quibble 4: Slovo attacks the concept ing that Slovo, let alone die SACP, have aim is socialism. Socialism is a period of of 'the dictatorship of die ' -1 abandoned their class approach. In the transition between and com­ will come to this later, first place, Kitson has not bothered to munism.* (p27). • Quibble 5: Slovo says that Lenin be­ read what Slovo says immediately after I have no basic problems whatsoever lieved capitalism was about to collapse in quoting Luxemburg: with this fundamental summary of core theimmediate post-October 1917period. "These words may not have been ap­ marxist principles. Unfortunately Kitson (The quotations from Lenin that Kitson propriate as policy (which is what Lux­ proves incapable of sustaining a coherent produces to the contrary are dated 1915, emburg argued for) in the special condi­ argument. Having outlined these prin­ 1921 and 1922. They do not come from tions of die phase immediately after the ciples, one expects him to assess whether the crucial 1917-19 period.); seizure of state power in October 1917. the S ACP stands by these, both in theory • Quibble 6: Slovo says Lenin did not Without a limitation on democracy and practice, in the concrete conditions address '...in any detail the nature of there was no way the revolution could of South Africa of the 1990s. established socialist civil society'. (Cor­ have defended itself in the civil war and Instead he hares off aftera petpersonal rect. All Kitson can offer to die contrary the direct intervention by the whole of is a brief quotation from State and Revo­ the capitalist world/ (Has Socialism fixation, Joe Slovo. Kitson skim reads Failed? pl4 - JS's emphasis ). one pamphlet (Slovo's Has Socialism lution, and what he imagines to be the oh- Failed), which expressly calls itself a so-daring call to arm the workers. I will In other words, Slovo absolutely an­ discussion paper and which expressly also come back to some of this in a chors the quotation in the context of class underlines that it is not official SACP moment.) struggle. Slovo adds: 'But Luxemburg's policy. And on the basis of a totally dis­ It is easy enough to reply in detail to concept of freedom is surely incontro­ torted reading of this one pamphlet Kitson each of these points, but 1 don't think it vertible once a society (obviously a so­ comes to the 'scientific' conclusion that would serve much purpose. If we are to cialist society - JC] has achieved stabil­ the SACP is no longer communist! extract anything useful from Kitson's ity.' Nowhere does Kitson consider the article, then I suggest we should use it as Well, here I too would quibble with actual practice and specific programme an example of how not to argue as a Slovo. 1 am not sure dial Luxemburg's of action of the SACP and its allies in the marxist. Letus look athisquibblenumbcr polemical remarks can remotely be de­ presentconjuncture here in South Africa. one (die sin of quoting ). scribed as a full blown and adequate Nor does Kitson ever attempt even a basic Kitson actually spends more time ar­ concept of freedom. Luxemburg here analysis of this concrete South African guing what a heresy it is to quote Luxem­ seems to assume rather too much the situation. He simply considers one text burg, than he does in examining the par­ valid but extremely limited, liberal idea and measures it up against another 'Text', ticular quotation in its own right, and in of freedom as absence of restraint I would "The Classics', which he assumes to be examining the context in which it is used , prefer to see freedom understood much some monoliUiic, more or less fixed en­ in Slovo's Has Socialism Failed?. more as empowerment of die people. tity. This is a point made in the SACP's pro­ This is dogmatism carried to its silliest gram me,and it isapointthatSlovohimself For him - has merely limits. If one wanted to reply in kind, one has made often enough. to be applied more or less mechanically. could remark that, no sooner has Kitson And applications will either be orthodox attacked Slovo for quoting the revolu­ or deviant This conception of marxism is tionary martyr Luxemburg, than he, Marxism is not monotothic dogmatic,metaphysical,unscientificand, Kitson, is quoting die right-wing histo­ But I am wandering from my prime pur­ finally, anti-marxist Kitson is thoroughly rian, Lord Acton! That's okay, presuma­ pose, which is to illustrate what scientific abstract. But the truth, Lenin (following bly because you won't find any negative socialism is not. Kitson is so excited to Plekhanov following Hegel) was fond of references to Acton in Lenin's Collected saying, 'is always concrete'. have discovered an 'heretical' quote, Works! But all of this hardly lifts the evidence of an anti-body (Luxemburg), argument out of the play-pen into which in Slovo's pamphlet tfiat he is quite inca­ Kitson's quibbles Kitson has taken it pable of understanding die point Slovo is But what is it that Kitson finds un-com- making. This is dogmatism at its purest. munist about Joe Slovo's pamphlet? Luxemburg's concept of freedom Marxism, like any science, is not a Kitson has six quibbles: Let us look at the Luxemburg quotation monolithic and closed dogma simply • Quibble 1: Slovo quotes Rosa Lux­ as it stands in Has Socialism Failed? : awaiting application. It is a body of uSe- emburg; 'Freedom only for the supporters of ory, yes, but one which needs constandy • Quibble 2: The SACP's 1989 pro­ the government, only for the members of to be tried out in practice, developed and gramme is entitled The Path to Power, one party - however numerous Uicy may revised. Of course, there are boundaries and therefore omits the word 'freedom' be - is not freedom at all. Freedom is beyond which it would be meaningless to continue calling revisions and develop­ from its title; always and exclusively freedom for the ments marxist or leninist These broad • Quibble 3: Slovo 'complains' that one who thinks differendy ... its effec­ boundaries are roughly the boundaries of there is not enough in the classical marx­ tiveness vanishes when "freedom" be­ the five basic principles oudined (but ist texts about the socialist transition comes a special privilege.' quickly forgotten) by Kitson himself. period. (In fact, Slovo does not 'com­ Against this Kitson argues that' it lacks plain',he simply notes Uiisasafact and as a class attitude, implying that freedom to Nor is marxism-leninism reducible to one underlying reason why the classics differ should be applied to everybody, personalities. Propositions are not auto­ cannot be elevated into a blue-print, as including those who think differently matically true because Lenin (or false and other brands of dogmatism because of their class*. because Luxemburg) uttered diem. Marx­ have on occasions attempted); Maybe, but this is very far from prov­ ism-leninism is a body of scientific the-

Page 26 WIP 74 CRONIN

ory. It is no more the sum of everything sonally have come to feel that nationali­ ever written by two or three historical sation is, at best, a cumbersome individuals (Marx, Engcls, Lenin), than instrument..wholesale nationalisation the science of physics is everything ever would obviously hamper the principal written (and on any topic whatsoever) by point of our economic platform - industri­ Newton and Einstein. alisation at the fastest possible rate.' (R This is not to say that Marx, Engels and Schecr and MZcidin.Gdw.an American Lenin did not make the most outstanding tragedy, p63). contribution to our understanding of his­ 's perspectives at the time were tory and class struggle. But not every­ patriotic, anti-neocolonialist. And the thing they said was complete, true, or Cuban communists tended to criticise necessarily in conformity with other things Castro's guerrilla struggle from an abstract they said and wrote at other times. left position.

Habib What practical tasks? Unfortunately, I do not have the space to Shifting closer to home, and directly re­ deal in detail with many of the misunder­ lated to his dismissal of the national standings and false attributions made by democratic struggle, the crucial weak­ Habib (a member of the Workers' Or­ ness in Habib's position is dial he is .H'WIII HfllliaSIWlBSmtiii m *i • ganisation for Socialist Action (Wosa)). unable to offer us any practical revolu­ The essence of Habib's intervention is Throughout the tionary tasks in the present that, while the SACP has moved in the Habib certainly recognises the long direction of greater democracy, tolerance two-year guerilla struggle haul character of building socialism once of other left opinions and openess (all of in , there isa working class state. Socialism is which he welcomes), it has not decisively 'a process characterised by revolutionary broken strategically with Stalinism. Habib argued that the reforms that gradually lead to social identifies our whole strategic approach control over the economy' (p75). That is, (the national democratic revolution as the revolution should be building socialism is a process, it has most direct road towards socialism in South Africa), as deeply Stalinist in char­ neither communist nor steps and stages. acter. But between now and the workers' capitalist state Habib is incapable of envisaging a The communistcall for national demo­ concrete process, that is other steps, or cratic alliances in a whole range of coun­ he chooses to ignore? stages, or phases. This means that he is tries (he mentions China in the 1920s, Or what about the Cuban Fidelista unable to develop any substantial practi­ Spain in the 1930s, Cuba in the , revolution of 1959? It certainly docs not cal revolutionary strategy and tactics. and in the 1970s) was, in his confirm the point he wants it to make. Instead, Habib relies on a big bang view, a strategic perspective serving the 'In 1959, when Fidel Castro led the vicwofthcsocialistrevoluuon: 'Workers narrow national interests of the Soviet , the official Commu­ will often act in unison with their class Union.Hwasastrategicpcrspeciiveforced nist Party, under the strict instructions of enemies against their long-term class upon various communist parties, so as not Moscow, opposed him', Habib tells us interests. But this is not to suggest that the to rock the international boat, thereby (note 9, p80). The implication is that the hegemony of the ruling class can neverbe safeguarding the building of socialism in Cuban communists were so committed to threatened. At precise moments in history, one country. the national democratic stage of struggle objective conditions weaken the ideo­ Because the SACP has failed to break that they missed the real socialist revolu­ logical, political and economic hegem­ strategically from its 'Stalinism', argues tion. ony of the ruling class and compel the proletariat to engage in die struggle for Habib, our present theoretical and stratc- It is true that, in the course of the two state power. But these moments, known gic revisions reprcscnta move.rightwards, year guerrilla struggle led by Castro's 26 as"revolulionarycriscs",ncver last long.' both politically (into 'Eurocommunism' July Movement, the (p73) (my emphases). - 'pursuing the parliamentary path to (the Partido Socialista Popular, as it was socialism'), and economically (we are then called) was at best equivocal. But I certainly agree that, partly as a result supposed to be applying Gorbachev's thispaitialfailurebythePSPwasafailurc | of objective conditions, there can be a somewhat ad hoc policies to to recognise the real national demo­ revolutionary moment, a massive accu­ South Africa!). cratic revolution going on in front of its mulation of contradictions that opens up In all of this Habib is profoundly wrong. nose. The 26 July Movement was a patri­ possibilities for the revolutionary seizure otic front embracing a diversity of forces of power. Flawed international perspective - both ideologically and in its social But Habib gives us no sense of build­ composition. At the lime, its leader Fidel ing towards these moments, or of deepen­ In the first place his international per­ Castro argued dial the revolution should spective is deeply flawed. Communist ing, in active struggle, the crisis of the be 'neither communist nor capitalist'. In . Instead, his perspective can commitmenttonational democratic revo­ 1958 he said: lutions in many countries did not result only result in passivity, relying on the simply in a series of betrayals of the 'Let me say for the record that we have sponiancism of 'die moment'. At best socialist revolution, or in missings of the no plans for the expropriation or nation­ (though Habib docs not spell this out) all boat. What about Vietnam, an example alisation of foreign investments... I per­ we need is a small vanguard that keeps

WIP 74 Page 27 DEBATING SOCIALIST STRATEGY

itself pure and poised, unsullied with in Slovo's pamphlet and in the SACP's involvements in present phases of 1989 programme is purely cosmetic and struggle, or with popular fronts or alli­ opportunistic : 'It (the concept) is not ances. There is no need to worry about mentioned in the new party programme. present smallness or ineffeclivity, after The Path to Power, although the need for all history will eventually 'compel' the workers' power to establish socialism is. working class to wage our kind of struggle. This is like wearinga transparent figleaf.' The crucial missing link is Habib's But it is precisely because workers' inability to grasp the perspectives of popular power. power and the 'dictatorship of the pro­ letariat1 are NOT synonymous that the SACPat its 7th Congress in 1989 dropped The parliamentary road the concept from its programme. - or people's power? Nor is Habib's explanation of the It is true that the S ACP has in recent years SACP's shift on this matter valid. It is not committed itself in principle to a multi­ a shift rightwards into a narrow parlia­ party democracy. And it is also true that if mentary road. In fact, the SACP's drop­ ping of the concept 'dictatorship of the there are elections for a democratic Con­ As we build a mass-based stituent Assembly or a new non-racial proletariat' is a shift leftwards. It is a National Assembly in the coming years, ANC and a relatively large shift away from a narrow, statist and the party will almost certainly contest SACP, are we trying to build bureaucratic conception of working class these elections - either independently or power. It is precisely this narrow statism in some kind of electoral pact with our electoral machines which which, it seems to me, is at the core of the allies. treat their members as voting Stalinist deviation. But is this the same as pursuing a fodder? Are we preparing It is crucial that we understand this, not 'parliamentary path' to socialism? Habib ourselves for bureaucratic for narrow polemical purposes, not so (quoting Mandel) accurately portrays that we can turn the tables on Habib and some (and I could add quite a few more) power, getting our policy accuse him of failing to wean himself flaws in a narrow parliamentary approach blue-prints and pin-stripe adequately of Stalinism. We need to break in acapitalist society (p73): the state with suits all ready? away from a narrow statism in order to its repressive and bureaucratic appara­ address one of the most crucial chal­ tuses is never neutral, the entire economic lenges of the present climate is permeated by capitalism, the converse is also absolutely true. As we build a mass-based ANC and a bourgeoisie owns and controls the com­ This approach, and it is a practical relatively large SACP, are we trying to manding heights of the media, etc. These approach that speaks directly into the build electoral machines which treat their objections toa strategy narrowly focussed struggles on the ground in our country, is members as voting fodder? on winning socialism through parliamen­ foreign to Habib. In fact, he completely Are we trying to do no more than tary elections come neither as news, nor misunderstands an SACP spokesperson as something with which I disagree. prepare ourselves for bureaucratic power, interviewed in WIP 60 who says the getting our policy blue-prints and pin­ These are arguments against a single- 'parliamentary road can never be sepa­ stripe suits all ready? And what do we track, narrow electoral approach. A so­ rated from extra-parliamentary struggle'. mean by trade union independence? Do cialist parliament all on its own, sur­ Habib doesn't even notice the reference we mean that organised workers should rounded by a capitalist economy, reac­ to extra-parliamentary struggle, and takes stay aloof from the wider struggles for tionary armed forces and the old bureauc­ this as evidence that the SACP is pursu­ political power, leaving these to the middle racy, and by a host of anti-worker ideo­ ing the 'parliamentary road'. strata, to the next generation ofanti-worke r bureaucrats? logical institutions, is a parliament that is But popular mass struggles, popular not going to last long. power, popular hegemony (that is, in­ Or are we, rather, not trying to build It is precisely for this reason that long tense mass struggle) can create the condi­ mass formations, capable of mobilising before workers' state power (whether the tions in which parliamentary elections millions of people in active struggle to breakthrough is made in elections or in (or, for that matter, an insurrection) can defeat the present regime? Are we also insurrection) wider struggles for popular become a real turning point, and in which not trying to build for the future, mass hegemony and empowerment are abso­ parliamentary (or insurrectionary) gains formations that arc able to deepen and lutely essential. These struggles need to can actually be defended. defend the longer-term process of na­ be waged in all the trenches of civil soci­ Habib cites the Chilean experience in tional democratic transformation? And ety - schools, townships, the work-place, the 1970s several times as proof of the should they deepen and defend this proc­ on the land, and in the media. These are impossibility oflhe'parliamentary road'. ess, not just from positions within the struggles that need to build the organs of Chile is no more an argument against state, but from all the trenches of civil popular power - self-defence units, town­ socialists contesting elections, than the society? And, finally, is this not the most ship committees, work-place structures, crushingoftheParisCommuneofl879is direct road toademocratic socialist South village committees, etc. a proof of the futility of insurrection. Africa? It is true that working class slate power Neither dogmatic fundamentalism,nor will, in principle, create the conditions The dictatorship of the proletariat a passive waiting for the 'revolutionary under which these popular organs and For Kitson the move away from the con­ moment' help us to answer these, the real struggles will be able to flourish. But the cept of the dictatorship of the proletariat questions of the day. •

Page 28 WIP 74