Mass Organizations and the Vanguard Party: Is there a correlation? Zuko Godlimpi A response to Dominic Tweedie (Communist University VC) Introduction
It is from the above question and recent events of SRC elections that the question of the mass and vanguard organizations, I suppose, arises and discussions from the YCL discussion forum sought to qualify different views through the framework of this important question; the relationship of the vanguard party and the mass organization! This response does not set out to be an outright polemic to Dominic's intervention on the question but rather as an attempt to explore the debate in its entirety. We are to examine the ideological foundations of each concept, vanguard and mass, against the developments in history and thinking of left thinkers. Drawing comparison of SASCO and YCL from the ANC and SACP, Dominic suggests that "If we were more secure with these definitions, then I think that the problem of electoral politics could become less, and maybe go away, so that the SACP could stand appropriate candidates for elections without any taint of competing with the ANC, as if they were two competing bourgeois parties, which they are not." Although tempting, rather we leave the ANC-SACP list conferences matter aside and deal with the SACO-YCL matter. Referring to our situation, he argues that "In the case of the YCL and SASCO... is this not also the case? Why is it not possible to have some YCL candidates standing in an election, so that the popular electorate can choose them, or leave them, directly, without treating such a situation as enmity between the structures?" The above question qualifies fully the need to understand the matter of a vanguard party and its relationship to a mass organization. The Vanguard Party and the mass organization The conceptualization of the two matters, the vanguard party and the massive organization, is a profound and important intervention. The precise distinction of the two and the subsequent link draws the question of the party to the centrality of the party's role. Correctly put, the party is first and foremost a quantitative entity so long as it is a product of plural bodies in the form of a group of people. Thus, VC is correct when he asserts that " A mass is a self-defined group of people "in itself", or otherwise both "in itself" and consciously "for itself". However, in the case of the party, it does not exist "consciously "for itself"" but does exist "in itself." >From its ideological premise, the party is an advanced detachment of the working-class qualitatively and therefore is made up (supposedly) of the politically matured sections of society within the context of working-class struggles. This positions the party as an entity with a responsibility to theoretically and politically "vanguard" a certain mass ( the working-class) after it has been defined as a "mass of people for itself." the party exists not out of its own definitions but as a consequence of the "mass's" existence (the working-class). In order for the party to fulfil its role as a vanguard party, it ought to maximally utilize all available space to sell its views to the "mass" it exists to vanguard. I say this because it is not inherent that the working-class is homogenously aware of its existence as a distinct class and therefore understands the Communist Party to be its vanguard. Lenin on this question, referring to a situation in the workplace British trade unions argues that "the role of a working communist is to join the reactionary trade union, politicize and revolutionize it and create out of it a progressive trade union. This is so because the mass of the workers is found in these reactionary trade unions." It is out of a conscious working-class that the massive aspect of the party could emerge, as VC cited the Chinese Communist Party issue. So because the vanguard does not exist to vanguard itself, it ought to align itself where possible with the massive organisations that have a large portion of its membership being the working-class in order for it to sell its ideas to the "mass" it exists to vanguard. This alliance is possible because the massive organisation is in itself, as VC put it, an "embodiment of a people." for me, not a people but people because "a people" refers to a distinct group like "whites", "working-class" or "Bourgeoisie." So long as it embodies people, it includes a fair share of working people whom as "a distinct people or section" in society are to be van guarded by the Party. SASCO and the YCL- ideologically It could be very easy to enter the debate of this relationship from an obscured premise or an ideologically minimalist perspective. Dominic suggests that in this instance, SASCO occupies the position of a mass organization like the ANC and YCL as a youth wing of the Party is a vanguard. This conceptualization of SASCO distorts its character and social role and further mystifies the link between the two organizations; YCL and SASCO. Firstly, the vanguard role is not born out of a Communist tag but rather an ideological orientation founded in Marxism-Leninism. It would be scientifically flawed to suggest that a Marxist-Leninist organization, merely because it is not referred to as a communist party or its league, cannot play a vanguard role. An important event has been disregarded by Dominic in pondering with this question. The SASCO NGC preceding its 16th National Congress resolved on SASCO being Marxist-Leninist in character, thus a vanguard instrument of working-class interests in general and higher education in particular. Therefore characterizing SASCO on tactics of mobilization, in that it recruits all students without ideological prejudice, will inherently lead to an unfounded allegation as a conclusion. SASCO maintains its Strategic Orientation as that of a Marxist-Leninist student movement committed to the struggle of the working-class off-spring in the main and that of the working class for the attainment of Socialism. In essence, after the NGC declaration the difference between SASCO and the YCL has been minimized to a slight distinction. The YCL is a Marxist-Leninist youth organization that mobilizes the youth in all sectors of society, including higher education. This youthful character means that if a branch of YCL is found on campus, it ought to mobilise all youth sections at its disposal. We are to understand that in the South African context, or at least in YCL and YL, the term youth refers to all people under the age of 35. By implication, any staff member including lecturers qualifies to be members of the YCL so long as they are under the age of 35. Now to suggest that student matters could be articulated by staff members although contradictions in this sector are particularly between students and these stuff members is the worst form of ideological shallowness. On the other hand SASCO is a Marxist-Leninist student movement specializing in higher education. SASCO mobilizes and liberates students in their broadest sense in Higher Education from the problems they encounter on a daily basis, regardless of ideological affiliation. It further acknowledges the worst victims of these conditions as the off-spring of the working-class. This victimization is understood in two forms; that of an exclusive system accessed based on economic ability and that of a curriculum content structured based on the dictates of the commodity market system. This observation precipitated the 2009 Mafikeng resolution that SASCO be Marxist-Leninist not only in analysis but also in action as a vanguard of particularly working-class offspring in HE and join forces with the progressive left in fighting the system of capitalism in society. It is therefore incorrect to justify that the YCL can legitimately, particularly in ideological terms, contest the space occupied by SASCO under the pretext of fielding communist cadres into centers of power. This is because we have outlined in this piece the contradictory nature of that assertion, as both organizations play the same vanguard role. It moreover distorts the historical foundations of the PYA organic concept. We have exposed the true character of our Young Communist league as a youth vanguard, not a student organisation, even on campus. We have also demystified the idea that communist cadres in Higher Education can only be found in YCL as we have meticulously exposed that SASCO has conditioned itself to produce communist thinkers cultured in Marxism-Leninism. As opposed to utilizing YCL as an instrument to propel themselves into centers of power, neglecting their vanguard role by implication, concerned communists ought to join SASCO in HE in order to increase the dominance of Marxist-Leninist thought within the student movement and student body at large. History will show that students will lean more to these ideas after they have joined an organization without ideological considerations outside the need to promote general students interests and subsequently understand theory through political education inside the organization. This organizational clarification is applicable as well in responding to the contest of ANCYL in SRC elections. Although the ideological reasons could be debated at length, there still sticks out the organizational character. So long as our ANCYL remains a Youth formation, it is to play the same mobilization role on campuses. It must mobilize into its ranks all youth whether staff or students. These members of staff are eligible for election into positions of leadership as well. But out of this, rises a sophisticated ideological moral question. Can we suggest that staff members, because of their affiliation to YL, can be nominated in a BGM to articulate student grievances against a system they are a part of? This question I raise because no deployment policy can provide for 10 different circumstances within its rank and file so long as it is a political policy. Or are we suggesting that the ANCYL must form a student wing and thus put an end to the PYA relations? Well we cannot discover answers to mysteries alone, but questions will discover them. So let's ask questions! Communist Regards, Bangene ngoba nathi Siyabangena! This response is directed at an e-mail written by Dominic Tweedie in the YCL discussion forum replying to a discussion about YCL contesting SASCO in Unizulu! This Article is Published in this weeks SASCO Online Journal. To read the entire Journal go to http://196.36.153.57/sasco/show.php?include=pubs%2Fmoithuti%2F2010%2Fissue2.html#one -- 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] .
