The speech by Joe Foster, General Secretary of FOSATU, made at their Congress in April 1982, and endorsed by that Congress as FOSATU policy, became and remains today in 2014 a manifesto for workerism.
The Party took its time. This critique by "Toussaint" was published more than a year later. _____ A Trade Union is Not a Political Party A Critique of the Speech: 'Where FOSATU Stands' "Toussaint", African Communist, Second Quarter, 1983 "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e. the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation etc." Lenin: What is to be done? Every serious trade union organisation, sooner or later, has to face the challenge of passing beyond the limits of pure trade union affairs - that is, the regulation of relations between workers and employers - and moving on to political action. Every serious trade union, sooner or later finds that its union claims are being resisted not by the employers alone, but by the combination of bosses and state; the state intervenes in the struggle to contain the union by means of law or direct police intervention and suppression, and by the oppression, bribery or corruption of the union leadership. If the union is to achieve its aims - or in some situations if the union is even to survive - it inevitably has to turn its attention to political action to protect or advance 'the interests of its members and the gains previously won by union action. Nowhere is the impulse towards political action by trade unions more compelling than in a repressive police state like South Africa, where even 'pure' trade unionism hangs constantly on the edge of illegality. Police intervention in every union or even local factory dispute is routine, and so is the use of brutality and terrorism against union leaders and militants. The systematic racial oppression of the political system overflows into systematic political persecution of the black workers' trade unions. South Africa's black workers have always therefore gravitated easily towards politically involved trade unionism. The Western European concept of some sort of idealised 'non-political' trade unionism has never gained much credence or support. There have, certainly, been many trade union attempts to maintain a precarious legality within the police state by denying any political aspirations or connection. But such attempts are invariably short-lived. At the first real clash of economic interests between workers and boss, there is direct police-state intervention; and the union must either retire from the struggle and lose credibility amongst its members, or broaden the struggle to take on the bosses' state. Political struggle is thus at the centre of all serious black unionism in South Africa. It is this broader aspect of political action by trade unions which forms the main thrust of the keynote speech to the April 1982 FOSATU conference, made by its general secretary Joe Foster. FOSATU (the Federation of South African Trade Unions) was then only three years old. It had achieved some considerable success both in terms of members organised, unions affiliated and shop and industrial struggles successfully waged. But already the limitations of purely union organisation and activity had forced themselves to the forefront: "Has our organisational activity developed workers' leadership that can give guidance and direction to all workers? (My emphasis T.) ... 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." There is nothing in the speech to indicate why a trade union federation should be concerned to give leadership to all workers, or think beyond the confining limits of its own members to the wider working class beyond; 0' even why a political role should assume such importance in its thinking One might assume that this derives from some of FOSATU's experience Perhaps so. But certainly in Foster's own speech it appears as a statement of belief and faith, rather than a distillation from experience. The point might appear to be a quibble. But in this case, I think not. Foster's whole, speech, as I shall attempt to point out, is a statement of faith, of belief rather than of concrete lessons drawn from concrete experience. Though it addresses itself to vitally important issues, it seems to me to be flawed by a fatal weakness; it disregards the real experiences of the working class and pins its argument instead on an unquestioning faith, founded, it would seem, in some unstated 'theory' - or perhaps dogma. Central Issue Yet without doubt this matter of the relationship between trade union and political activity is one of the central issues for the South African working class; and so too is the even more complex matter of the relationship between working class politics and the broad, inter-class popular political struggle led by the South African liberation movement. Political theorists and thinkers of differing views have put forward trenchant and profoundly argued theses on such topics, not just in the recent period but for over sixty years of growth in South African working class numbers and political experience. Deep splits and schisms in the working class ranks have formed on such issues; organisations have been built to prosper or founder on one or other view translated into actual political practice. No serious discussion of the matter then can leave all this historical experience out of consideration, ignore it altogether, and reopen the debate anew as though it is now being aired from the beginning and for the first time. Yet Foster does just that. His analysis is one which places before FOSATU a clean slate, on which they may write anything at all without any suspicion of what has been written by others, and without any need to consider it. His only reference to any past experience of working class political movements whatsoever are to some from the advanced industrial countries of Europe; there the workers' movements he sees as many sided combinations of trade unions, political parties, co-operatives and publishing houses -"powerful social forces in these societies", but where the guiding reins of society nevertheless remain in the hands of hostile elements like Reagan and Thatcher. As for the experience of the socialist countries, great achievements of real benefit to the workers have been recorded, he states, but "there is still need for workers to control their own destiny", as evidenced by Solidarnosc in Poland. But from South African history apparently nothing. "Worker activities such as strikes and protests do not in themselves mean that a working class movement or working class politics exist . .. In South Africa we cannot talk of a working class movement as we have defined it above (from Western Europe T). Whilst there is undoubtedly a large and growing working class, its power is only a potential power since as yet it has no definite social identity of itself as a class." Clearly then the questions that have to be asked are many. If there is no workers' movement yet, after over sixty years of trade unionism of one sort or another, why not? What tangible change in the conditions of life would such a movement offer the working class other than "a social identity of itself?" How can such a movement now be built when it has never previously been done? And what will its relationship be to the broad national liberation and political movements within the country which already exist and already represent some - if not all - of the interests of workers? It is not part of my critique of Foster's speech to complain that he does not provide definitive answers to these questions; they are difficult enough to give any analyst of the South African scene a great deal to ponder over and deter answers. My critique rests rather on the fact that these questions are not asked at all. They are simply brushed aside. Foster says: "It is not possible in a paper such as this to deal fully with all the developments in South Africa's history that have led to the non, existence of a workers' movement". True enough. But the historical fact is that at least one organisation - the Communist Party - has existed for over sixty years; it claims to be a political expression of the working class; it has -or had at one time or another - those other attributes of a "movement" - co-operatives, publishing organisations and closely linked trade union connections. But Foster ignores these facts entirely, without even a passing reference or consideration. He is less cavalier in his treatment of the most significant and flourishing political movement in the country - the African National Congress, which carries the present political aspirations of the majority of the black working class as well as other classes of oppressed South Africans. His explanation for this phenomenon is in sharp contrast with his "clean slate" view of the working class movement. His theme runs thus: South Africa's history has been one of "great repression, and the major ideological instrument for this oppression has been racism ... " Consequently, the main task of the people has been to attack the repressive regime; and accordingly there has grown up a tradition of "popular or populist" politics, of which the ANC is the foremost example; it "...rose to be one of the great liberation movements in Africa." There were admittedly also unions, and "occasions when workers resisted by strike action, protest and organisation. Yet this by itself cannot constitute a working class movement. While the unions were often prominent they were always small and weakly organised ... They could not provide an organisational base for a working class movement as we have defined it above ... The effective political role of progressive unions and of worker activity was to provide a crucial part of any popular struggle and that was to give it its 'Worker Voice.' The progressive trade unions became part of the popular struggle against oppression. They did not and probably could not have provided the base for working class organisation. " But yet the activities of these same unions have been" ...very important in creating the conditions that led to the emergence, in the last ten to fifteen years, of the present progressive trade unions." History is More Complex On the face of it, there is some factual basis for this analysis. But history teaches something different, more complex and - for the thesis on workers' political movements - more important than this. The whole of South African trade union history shows that, in real life, the problem was not that trade unions failed to provide the base from which political organisation and activity could develop; but rather that political movements - in particular Communism - provided the basis for trade union organisation. The history of South African trade unionism is only partly a history of spontaneous banding together of workers in one or several work-places; mainly, it is a history of organisational drives deliberately undertaken by dedicated political activists, acting in response to policy decisions by political movements, especially from the Communist Party. Certainly many of their union structures were weak and poorly organised. But nonetheless, these were the pioneers who laid the base for future organisations, and often too for popular mass political struggles. It is impossible to comprehend the upsurge of militant popular national struggles without taking account of the formative and trail-blazing actions; for example, the black miners in their 1946 strike, organised and led by union and Communists together, sowed a new wave of mass militancy which included the final boycotting of Smuts' 'toy telephone', the Native Representative Council. Or for example the pass burning campaigns organised by Congress, Communists and the ICU in an earlier age; or the great popular strikes of the 1960's [sic] and the first such - the May Day [1950] strike called jointly by the Council of Non-European Trade Unions and the Communist Party. History needs to be studied as it happened; not in the abstract. And if it is, it reveals a picture vastly different from Foster's exposition of it. It would show, for instance, that it is false to claim that the mere numerical growth of the working class in the 1950's gave the 'popular' movement need to "include the workers ... and as a result SACTU became an important element in the Congress Alliance." On the contrary, the growing militancy and political awareness of the working class forced other classes in the so-called 'populist' - properly the 'national liberation' -movement to recognise it as a leading force and to adopt ever more socialist-inclined policies as a consequence of it. But why dispute these points? Foster's main point is one that cannot be disputed; that the workers need to find a basis for broadening out from simple trade unionism, to political organisation. Agreed. Yet I believe that it is necessary to dispute false arguments even when argued in a good cause; failure to do so will lead in the end to wrong policies and wrong decisions on how to proceed. Omission of all consideration of the experience of earlier times, and the omission of all reference to the rich experience of the Communist Party does in fact lead Foster, in my view, to many false conclusions - most important the conclusion that FOSATU itself provides the only starting point and base from which to build a new workers' movement. In fact, the South African working class has passed well beyond the starting point. It has formed political parties and widely based community organisations of many different types, ranging from residents' associations to peasants' leagues, from youth and students' bodies to national liberation movements. It has formulated detailed programmes, operated constitutions, debated tactics, established codes of membership behaviour, and so on. Nothing that is now proposed by Foster has not in fact been done before. It may, of course, be argued that the results of all those past activities are disappointing, or that the lines followed in both policy and organisation were misconceived. But if so, that must be said; the reasons for it must be analysed and absorbed, or the same results will flow again from any new attempt. The claim that FOSATU can now, without reference to the rich experience of the past, produce the definitive working class movement which will have none of the disabilities of those earlier attempts remains - however one dresses it up in rhetoric - not a sound political guide but an article of faith. The accumulated experience of the working class - both of our own country and many others - has been distilled into a body of political knowledge and understanding we call Marxism-Leninism. The growth of the South African working class in numbers and in militancy has been marked by a growth also in political consciousness, and thus a growth in the seriousness with which working class politicians treat Marxism-Leninism. Lt is, of course, understandable that those speaking in public, in the midst of South African police hostility to anything that smacks of Marxism, will use caution in choosing their words. But the contributions of Marxist thinkers and writers to a uniquely working class view of South Africa and its problems cannot be dismissed because of a legal need for caution. Theoretical Basis On what theory then is Foster's faith based? There are three main strands to his theoretical exposition. Strand one: In South Africa capitalist production massively dominates all other forms of production. There are no great agricultural landlords, "and no significant peasantry or collective agriculture". Almost all the working population depend upon wage labour in industry or agriculture. There is no significant petty bourgeoisie or landed class with a solid economic base. Hence, "In the economy capital and labour are the major forces", and face each other across the battle frontiers. Second strand: The ANC - the major force now challenging the South African state - arose as a populist movement against oppression when capital was still not fully developed, and could thus hide itself behind the front of race oppression. Its popular appeal at home and its wide acceptance abroad limit its effectiveness; it has to advance its popularity by claiming credit for all forms of internal resistance, with a tendency to "...encourage undirected opportunistic activity." It has to retain links with both West and East by apparent neutrality in the Great Power struggle, and "...certainly could not appear to offer a serious socialist alternative ... " This "must seriously affect its relationship to workers." Third strand: "Most unions and their leadership lack confidence" to act as a real workers' leadership. "They see their role as part of a wider struggle, but are unclear on what is required for the worker struggle... Energy is spent establishing unity across a wide front. Such a position is clearly a great strategic error." Popular mass movements aiming at the overthrow of the regime cannot deal with the particular problems of workers. "It is therefore essential that workers must strive to build their own powerful and effective organisation even whilst they are part of the wider political struggle ... and ensure that the popular movement is not hijacked by elements who will in the end have no option but to turn against their worker supporters." What sort of a theoretical basis does all this provide for the working class - which is after all the whole point and purpose of Foster's address? At its best it can only be found simplistic and imprecise. In it, it is true, there are echoes of Marxist and national liberationist theory, but strangely watered down, perhaps even weakened or distorted beyond recognition. Consider, for example, the simplistic way in which the presence in South Africa of some million rural subsistence or below-subsistence farmers are dismissed in the casual phrase - "no significant peasantry"; and contrast it with the much deeper and richer analysis of the rural population and their place in the political development of South Africa made in either the Freedom Charter or the Communist Party's programme. Foster's simplistic approach is not criticised here because it is inadequate, but because it is wrong; and being wrong it provides a wrong basis for the political programme which flows from it. That is a programme of simple confrontation between workers and "capital" from which the remaining sectors of South African society, probably numerically the majority of the population, are excluded. They are left like superfluous actors, unheard and unseen in the wings of a great drama, which is to be completed without any call ever being made upon them. Or consider again the explanation of ANC "populism", which it is said makes it incapable of offering a serious socialist alternative: namely, that the search for support amongst all classes at home and both power blocs abroad produces opportunism. That there are such pressures within the mass movement cannot be denied; but such a simple explanation is not just a partial truth; it is a profound distortion. It ignores the reality of a strong and constantly growing working class influence in the ANC, which has given rise to socialist-inclined policies as witnessed by the Freedom Charter's provisions on land and monopoly industries, and even more strongly by the 1969 policy Strategy and Tactics. It underplays, almost to the point of extinction, the continuing existence of national oppression, which provides a fertile soil for continuing -perhaps even growing national consciousness and national unity. On this thoroughly misleading presentation, the contribution of the national struggle to the class struggle is ignored, and a new prop added to the simple we-against-them, worker-against-capital concept in Foster's thesis. What is new in Foster's thesis, then, is not its general starting point that the special needs of the working class can best be met by an independent organisation of that class -for that has been the common credo of the politically conscious workers since the first working-class political body emerged in this country near the beginning of the century. What is new - or perhaps not so much new as deviant - is that Foster presents this conclusion not from the background of real South Africa, but from an imaginary one which reveals no trace of any existing workers' political movement, no trace of any significant class forces other than wage labourers and capitalists, and no appreciation that the great national liberation movement is more than an irrelevancy. It is a thesis much favoured by some left socialist theorists in Western Europe, themselves totally foreign to the reality of South African conditions, however deeply steeped they may be in Marxist-sounding dogmas. It has not been taken up with any fervour in South Africa until now, for in the highly politically charged atmosphere of South Africa, bitter experiences of setbacks and defeats by the regime have dealt harshly with dogmas taken over unthinkingly from the armchairs of Europe. . What Sort of Workers' Movement? I cannot end this critique without paying some attention to Foster's concept of the organisation that workers need "to exercise their independent political role". There can be little doubt that Foster is right in his contention that "...workers must strive to build their own powerful and effective organisation." But there is a chasm between this simple truth and his next conclusion; which is that the South African workers must therefore now seek to build their own, new organisation. This is a leap without any run-up or take-off; no serious thinker about South Africa's future can accept it without question. The questions crowd in. What sort of movement? With what programme and purpose? Why separate from all other existing workers' movements? How related to the main movement of today, the national movement led by the ANC? And so on and so forth. And the peculiarly South African question: is a movement fostered by a black trade union movement to be a black workers' movement, or just a workers' movement? To most of this there is little answer. The main vital questions remain unasked by him, and thus unanswered. In place of these central questions of why, and what for, he proceeds directly to the question that can only follow behind: how? Or what he describes as concrete tasks and challenges." "What is crucial in organisation is the quality of that organisation - the quality that gives it its overall direction and capability... Three factors ... affect the quality of worker organisation - the structure of organisational strength and decision making; the location of organisational strength, and the political qualities of its leadership structure. " Maybe. On the 'structure of organisational strength', he says that FOSATU has been built on the factory floor, its shop stewards participating in a democratic process of decision making and struggle. "FOSATU's role is to link industrial unions into a tight federation"; its task in the years ahead must be "... to consolidate and develop factory organisation." It must seek to locate its organisational strength strategically "in the major industries... to be a national presence ...which should be able to dominate industrial areas. By doing this we create the major means whereby worker organisation can play a significant if not dominant role in the communities that surround these industrial areas." As for quality of leadership: "We are not talking about leadership in the sense that it is usually discussed - which is in terms of individuals and great men ... What we are interested in is the elected representatives of workers and the officials they appoint ..." And so on, though the precise sense is not very clear. We are told for, instance, that "... workers' leadership is related to your job and therefore your wage and therefore your ability to survive ...The most appropriate comparison is with the guerrilla fighter". Etc, etc. The precise meaning as I say is obscure. But the thinking behind it emerges quite clearly. It is all of a piece with what has gone before. It is the belief that the trade union organisations and trade union struggles can suffice for all the needs of the working class; that in the unions and through union struggles the working class will achieve unity, it will learn politics, it will acquire the skills needed to take over the guiding reins of society, manage the whole of industry and society, and reconstruct it on a new socialist base. It is a belief that socialist consciousness can develop spontaneously from the union experience. and that the affairs of society and state can be best managed from the 'grass roots' democracy of the shop floor. Political theorists would probably describe this type of ideology as "syndicalism." The label itself is of no importance. What is important is to establish whether it is well founded and therefore valid for the South African working class and for FOSATU. But we are back looking at Foster's clean slate. There is no evidence, no reference to the experience of others, no historical precedents. Only the speaker's belief. Faith. But history is not a clean slate. There is a vast accumulation of experience by the working class of our own country and others over the decades since capitalism first emerged full blown on the social scene. South African workers dare not ignore it, in order instead to follow some passionate article of faith, held as tenaciously - without proof or verification - as any religious dogma. Our accumulated experience tells us that the trade unions alone, the workers' struggle alone will not of itself, pass beyond the limits of economic struggle against the employers. To pass beyond that limit, there is need for a clear socialist theory, which understands the nature and the course of development of capitalist society, and which can thus point the way in which socialism can be reached, and the steps that have to be taken to get there. Socialist theory and ideology we have in plenty, bequeathed to us by great thinkers of the past like Marx, Engels and Lenin and many others, added to daily by profound thinkers in many countries including our own who have constantly enriched our fund of knowledge out of new experiences of our own times. All this cannot be discovered instinctively, grasped from the air by even the most militant worker. It has to be learnt through study; and it has to be applied deliberately by conscious decision making - not hoped for as a miraculous consequence of spontaneous action of revolt or resistance. It is for this reason that Marxists have always understood that there are limitations to the trade union role in changing society - limits beyond which it cannot advance without the aid and co-operation of a detachment armed with an advanced theory and with a dedication and discipline which will enable it to impart consciousness to the class - a detachment called a political party. Foster seems to sidestep this issue by somewhat unclear references to a "workers' movement" and "worker leadership". But it cannot be sidestepped without seriously misleading the workers, and FOSATU itself. To claim in the face of historical facts that "...there has not been and is not a working class movement in South Africa" is false. There has been and is. There has been and is a political party of the working class. To attempt to form a new movement without first setting the record straight must lead to confusion, perhaps disaster. The Communist Party, it is true, keeps a low profile in the public eye in South Africa, as it must. It is an organisation working underground and hunted, not in the open where publicity could be gained. But the existence and achievements of the Communist Party are well known to everybody. Its members today are in the front line of struggle. Dare FOSATU ignore this? And dare it ignore either the confusion and division it will sow in the ranks of the working class if it sets up a new "workers' movement" in competition with or alongside the stilI living Communist Party? And dare it ignore the disruptive and divisive effect its "workers' movement" may have on the premier force in the country, the African National Congress, if the relations between its "workers' movement" and its "worker leadership" on the one hand and the national liberation movement on the other is not defined and clarified? Perhaps Foster's address is only a first step in the clarification of his own and FOSATU's ideas. If I have been harsh in my critique of those ideas, it is because they deal with a serious and important matter - perhaps the most important theoretical and practical matter before the South African workers today. And just because of the serious nature of the matter, Foster, FOSATU and everyone else in the working class ranks must expect to be judged by the seriousness with which they tackle it. -- -- 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] . --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "YCLSA Discussion Forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
