Cde Morgan,
 
In politics, not everything is seen and touched. There are lot of
behind the scene that happens without us seeing.
 
In my understanding, the green paper is fine with the limitations that
all papers have. However, Cde Trevor openly spoke about the cowardice of
private business to deal with labour and definitely that did not sit
well with Cosatu and its affiliates.
 
Secondly, in the office of planning is Trevor and Joel (Peter Mayibuye)
who openly supported Cde Mbeki's third term which still are in the minds
of some of our leaders. The green paper was developed by the two
comrades and suspicion will always be with those who supported the
current leadership on trust of those who supported the other list in
Polokwane.
 
Lastly, without raising a racial debate, Trevor is a man of colour who
was reinstated by investors after he resigned in solidarity with then
President Mbeki's recalling. This behavior is still fresh in the minds
of some of our comrades.
 
So Cosatu has taken advantage to also frustrate Cde Trevor who
instructed private businesses to "frustrate" the workers. The lambasting
of the green paper, in my view, has nothing to do with the contents or
rather the purpose of the paper but a political way of making Cde Trevor
feel the hit of labour.
 
I must clearly state that it is correct for Cosatu to engage any policy
paper that seek to shape the operations of government. However, to
dismiss the paper, as it did, Cosatu missed a point of engaging the
paper broadly. With Trevor or anyone else at the helm, government needs
to restructure its planning. Cosatu should come up with better ways of
planning (integrated) that is not similar to that proposed by the green
paper.
 
All those who soberly read the paper realized that it is not about an
individual but about integrated service delivery planning. Cde Trevor
will one day vacate that office, but integrated planning will still be
the nerve centre of the Presidency.
 
The role of Cosatu, its affiliates and other progressive organisations
is to develop the paper to resembles what Polokwane mandated leaders to
do. Dismissing the paper will not produce better results for society. 
 
I fully support the extention of the closing date for submissions to
the paper. Maybe the SACP will provide clear challenges that the paper
may have and seek to correct such. The SACP as a vanguard movement will
correctly apply its tools of analysis in order to close the gaps in
planning while protecting the plight of the working class in benefiting
from the NDR.
 
lets engage!!

>>> morgan phaahla <[email protected]> 09/10/2009 15:44 >>>

Comrades, without agreeing with anyone of you, I read the Green Paper
several times trying find the bone of contention for cde Trevor Manuel
to be singled out in such a manner that was uncomradely for a person
elected to serve in the ANC-led government.
 
Let's rather point out the issues than relying on the perceptions
created by the tone of the speech and/or interpretations of the
responsibility and powers accorded to the minister of national planning.
The questions that need to be answered before other cadres get involved
in what both of you are now, is:
 
1. What is the problem with the Green Paper? 
2. Would the same problem exists had the minister of national planning
be cde Ebrahim Patel?
 
I'm raising these questions to make sure that we do not debate
personalities but a process by which the planning will be done to
achieve high level service delivery to better the lives of ordinary
people.
 
Let's engage maqabane!
 
I remain
Morgan Phaahla 

"Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology."
- Joe Slovo

--- On Fri, 10/9/09, sabelo gina <[email protected]> wrote:



From: sabelo gina <[email protected]>
Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: National Plan [CU758]
To: [email protected]
Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 8:38 AM

Comrade Dominic,
 
I am ok with your analysi
s of the Green Paper, however I am deeply
disturbed by your anger against the General Secretary of Cosatu and that
of Nehawu. Please stop being angry!
 
If you care to know, you must read the resolution that was sponsored by
Numsa which in the main raised similar things that you are raising.
 
Please do not pretend that individuals do not leave imprints, the Numsa
submission is clearly and justifiable worried about the frame of
reference that the Minister draws, please get his speech that he
delivered on the launch.
 
Cedric Gina.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Dominic Tweedie
<[email protected] (
http://us.mc502.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
)> wrote:



 (
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D4UK2kWf5ik/Ss3DBrpazZI/AAAAAAAABcE/tkCSGo9ubF4/s1600-h/GDR3.png
) 
[CU for Friday, 9 October 2009]


What’s wrong with the Green Paper (linked below) on National Strategic
Planning?


It is a discussion document. The SACP has called for more time to
discuss it. COSATU’s General Secretary has lambasted it. NEHAWU has
lambasted it. But they have not made clear what is wrong with central
planning. NEHAWU wrote (on Tuesday) that: 


“It is a known fact that the need for a high level planning and the
planning commission and other modalities towards the establishment of
the developmental state were agreed upon at the Alliancesummit in
October 2008.



“NEHAWU therefore believes that it is only proper that the Green Paper
should be considered in the impending Alliancesummit and that this
should take place prior to further processes in parliament and
government.”


Our concern in this series is with the
pre-SACP-Special-National-Congress debates. The Green Paper has to be
taken in this series. It is directly relevant to the SACP discussions.
It is taken as the eighth out of ten, where the remaining two places are
reserved for the SACP’s announced discussion documents on: “Industrial
Strategy and Rural Development”, and on “The State and the Future of
Local and Provincial Government”, (which should be sufficient to
conclude the series, when they come out).


We must discuss this Green Paper, and we must discuss it on its merits.
Its greatest merit is that it makes a strong case for regular planning
on three “time horizons”: 1-year Programmes of Action, 5-year Medium
Term “Frameworks” corresponding to a maximum term of office between
elections; and Long-Term, plus/minus 15-year, “Visions”. It makes this
case in common-sense or bourgeois-bureaucratic terms, but given that
limitation, yet it does not compromise with neo-liberalism. The
necessity for planning has become orthodoxy. 


For those of us who have been banging the planning drum for many years
past, this is a moment of deep joy. 


The Green Paper is not itself a plan, but it commits the Minister to
produce the first plan within a year from now. It lays down the process
by which the planning will be done – centrally, of course, but
transparently, and not secretly or pre-emptively.


The major de-merit of the Green Paper from a communist point of view is
shown by its frequent mention of something resembling an imaginary table
of weaknesses and problems. In this list you find women, children, the
disabled and the old, and those with low “social status”- meaning the
working class. Race, gender and lack of education are mentioned, but
never “class”, or the “working class”. Instead, where race is mentioned
you get more (balancing?) remarks about low “social status”, as if being
working class is a disability or a disease that needs to be palliated,
treated or cured.


The class struggle may be the engine of history, the Green Paper seems
to imply, but it can’t be considered in plans. The plans imagined in the
Green Paper will be curative courses of treatment for ills. If this
remains unchanged, the strategic plans produced by the process described
are bound to fall far short of what is necessary. 


The historical meas
ure of change and of progress is the rate of class
formation. The basis of Chinese revolutionary planning success in the
last sixty years, for example, has been their constant attention to
class formation. (Even their few, now-long-past failures were a
consequence of the same, correct, focus).


None of the goods, whether public or private that the planning process
is designed to maximise will be secure unless there is a steady and
eventually overwhelming growth of the working class. By treating the
working class as a “social status” problem, the Green Paper has the
whole matter upside down, and will fail, if it does not get corrected. 


Without any positive class orientation, the planning process as
outlined in the Green Paper will default back to conservative bourgeois
utilitarianism. The determination towards planning that the Green Paper
represents is a great leap forward, but it will come to nothing if the
planning process is not infused with revolutionary class-consciousness.
This is a job for the communists, and we must get to work on it.


The objections of NEHAWU and of COSATU have not up to now revealed any
matters of substance that could be a cause for conflict, but only
matters of protocol. There is a great deal inside the Green Paper, too,
about protocol and government etiquette. Whether these things are really
crucial will become apparent, provided transparency is observed, and
will be capable of correction. 


We as the CommunistUniversityhave always dwelt in the public realm,
where “a cat may look at a King”. So long as planning is a public
process, and the communists are not lazy, then we should be able to get
a result, with or without any elaborate prior protocols and laid-down
pecking orders.


While this series has been going on it has been debated, and there has
been feedback, including one full-dress Economic Policy planning
document for South Africaby Xoli Dlabantu (linked). Contributions that
are conceived and executed at this bold scale make one extremely proud
to be involved with this rolling-mass-university we call the CU. 


Many, many thanks Cde Xoli.


[Graphic: Symbol of the former German Democratic Republic, a good
friend to South Africa, founded 60 years ago this week]


Click on these links:


SA Government Green Paper on National Strategic Planning (
http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/Green+Paper+on+National+Strategic+Planning,+2009
)(14354 words)


National Integrated Development Strategy, Xoli Dlabantu (
http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/National+Integrated+Development+Strategy,+Xoli+Dlabantu
)(3799 words)




-- 
Blog at: http://domza.blogspot.com/
Communist University web site at:
http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/
Subscribe for free e-mail updates at:
http://groups.google.com/group/Communist-University/ 
Library of documents (CU "CD") at: http://cu.domza.net/
[email protected] (
http://us.mc502.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
)





This message and any attachments relating to official business of the
Mpumalanga Provincial Government (MPG) is proprietary to the MPG and
intended for the original addressee only.
The message may contain information that is confidential and subject to
legal privilege. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual send
er.

If you receive this message in error, please notify the original sender
immediately and destroy the original message. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that you
must not disseminate, copy, use, distribute, or take any action in
connection therewith.

The MPG cannot insure that the integrity of this communication has been
maintained, nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception and /
or interference. The MPG is not liable whatsoever for loss or damage
resulting from the opening of this message and / or attachments and / or
the use of the information contained in this message and / or
attachments.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this 
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at 
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, 
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You 
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put 
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this 
address (repeat): [email protected] .
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to