Role of Trade Unions in the South African Revolution A Reader, African Communist, Third Quarter 1980 Last year a dispute broke out between a small faction in SACTU and the leadership which led to the sacking of the editor of Workers' Unity and his suspension, together with four of his supporters, from the ranks of the ANC in London. This article is not concerned with the actual activities and mode of operation of the five people concerned, which is being or has been dealt with by SACTU and the ANC. What is discussed in my article, however, is the analysis of the role of the trade union movement in the South African revolutionary struggle which is put forward in a pamphlet The Workers' Movement and SACTU circulated by the five dissidents. In my view the policies set out in this pamphlet are erroneous and fun counter to the policies of the liberation movement which the five claim to be supporting but are in fact undermining. The analysis in the pamphlet represents an attempt to apply to the South African struggle a particular economistic and "workerist" approach which has frequently appeared, in different forms, in the revolutionary movement at various times and in different countries. It is thus a tendency which is deep-rooted and has great resilience and this makes it important that we should not rest content with disciplinary action, but that we should try to understand the incorrect theory which underlies the analysis. The main document in the pamphlet, the memorandum submitted to the NEC of SACTU by the then editor of Workers' Unity Petersen; begins with a question: "When it comes to our tasks at home, a strange paralysis still grips SACTU. What is the root cause of it?" (p. 17) The answer is given immediately: "I would like to submit for the consideration of the NEG that the root cause is political. We are affected by a lack of clarity about SACTU's role and future. There are deep differences of opinion within our ranks on the importance of trade union work; on the relationship between the workers' movement and the struggle of all the oppressed; on the relationship between national liberation, democracy and socialism; on SACTU's position in relation to armed struggle,"(p, 17) In short, the issue posed is the relationship between the trade union movement (or, at least, the revolutionary wing of that movement) and the revolutionary and national liberation struggle in the specific conditions in South Africa. The document approaches the question, firstly, through a discussion of the specific relationship between the economic and political struggles in South Africa, secondly, through an analysis of the relationship between the armed struggle, on the one hand, and the trade union and political struggles on the other and, thirdly, through a particular, implied, conception of the relationship of SACTU to the workers' movement. The end result of the analysis, as we shall see, is the total collapse of the entire political and armed struggle of the popular masses into the trade union movement and the abandonment of any conception of an alliance in the revolutionary struggle between the working class and the 'rural poor' together, under the appropriate conditions, with the petty bourgeoisie. The Relationship Between the Economic and Political Struggle in South Africa According to the document, SACTU's role in the struggle is determined by the specific' character of capitalist exploitation and oppression in South Africa. The starting point 'of the analysis is the contention that in South Africa the link between the economic and political struggle is 'direct and obvious'. The point is familiar to us and has long been accepted by our movement even if the precise nature of the link has not been elaborated. The point is that not only are the division of labour, wage rates, industrial organization etc structured on the basis of racial criteria but also the state tends to enter immediately into industrial conflicts involving black workers. As the document correctly states: "Every serious economic clash in South Africa confronts the black workers with the murderous state power of the enemy . . .' (p. 32) It follows from this that the fundamental economic and political demands of the people cannot be achieved on the basis of the capitalist order in South Africa. In this respect, although there are differences in formulation and emphasis, the document does not stray too far from the position of our movement as expressed, for example, in the Freedom Charter and in the Programme of Action. Thus, to quote two typical passages from the document: "National liberation and democracy cannot be secured by the black workers of South Africa on the basis of capitalism I but only through the liquidation of capitalism and the building of socialism". (p. 19) And again: "To establish genuine democratic people's power in South Africa, which can only be secured on the foundation of workers' power, means to smash the South African state -not merely as an Apartheid state, but equally as the capitalist state which it essentially is." (p. 21) Thus national liberation can only be achieved on the basis of the destruction of the political and economic foundations of the apartheid system. But what organizations will lead this overall political struggle, by what forms of struggle and on the basis of which social classes? It is in the answer to these questions that both the incorrect analysis in the document and the strategy it is intended to support, are revealed. Firstly, it is necessary to point to "an apparent confusion in the document - apparent because, as will be seen, it is a confusion which serves an important purpose. It was shown above that the document argues that no fundamental changes can be achieved in South Africa without overthrowing apartheid and capitalism. But there is an additional argument which the document derives directly from the above that is, the contention that "no substantial or lasting concessions" (p. 18), even though they fall far short of amounting to fundamental changes, in the spheres of wages, trade union rights, pass laws and "migrant labour can be won from the apartheid regime. The document states: 'We have explained again and again that even the most basic demands of the workers can only be secured through the victory of the struggle to smash apartheid and the profit system.' (p. 19) And furthermore, "The struggle for democracy has exactly the same implications". (p. 19) Now it is true that the document does purport to recognize that there is a specifically trade union arena of struggle (see p. 23 -"it concentrates its activities in a definite field of struggle") and furthermore, that the trade union must "strive to mobilize and organise the workers through day to day struggles for concessions and reforms... ' (p. 26-27). However, the purpose of those struggles is to demonstrate to the workers that nothing can be won short of the revolution: "... the trade union represents for the workers weapons which they can use to advance their economic struggle and defend their gains. But as we have seen, not one of the vital material needs of the working class ... can be secured on the basis of capitalism. Every partial gain by the workers in the economic struggle is immediately placed in jeopardy and sooner or later stolen back again by the employers and their apartheid state. The economic struggle is thus doomed to frustration unless it is linked to the revolutionary struggle for state power ... (p. 26) The idea that every gain won by the working class is merely absorbed by capital to its own advantage is an old one; it is an idea which totally underestimates the gains in many spheres made by the working class (political and trade union rights etc) in different countries. But if this argument is, nonetheless, correct, then, until the revolution succeeds, all apparent gains will be frustrated sooner or later. What becomes vital then is that the working class should not as a result of its failure to win permanent concessions, itself become "frustrated", demoralised and passive. Since the revolutionary struggle is protracted, and gains, therefore, subject to frustration, how is the revolutionary struggle to be advanced? According to the document merely, it seems, by linking the immediate demands "to the revolutionary struggle for state power". It is, of course, correct to link immediate with revolutionary demands in order to avoid a reformist position. But making such a linkage is quite obviously not enough. The guarantee against depression of the revolutionary struggle and the participation of the masses rests on the ability of the working class and revolutionary organizations to mobilize the masses, by their own struggles, to win concessions, to resist the erosion of gains and to win new gains and concessions. The mobilization of the masses and their success in winning concessions as the outcome of struggle is of fundamental importance in overcoming frustration and developing self consciousness in the struggle. Quite the opposite position is argued in the document: in the view of the, document the revolutionary struggle is furthered by ensuring that the so-called day to day demands which are put forward must be formulated so as to guarantee that the struggle will fail to achieve them. That is, frustration of the workers' struggle, failure to win their immediate demands is the proposed path to revolutionary confidence and intensification of the struggle. Thus: "We have to bring out in practice ... the total incapacity of the system in South Africa (or any reforms within the system) to provide a decent life for the working people." (36) "For example, our wage demand ..... sets the minimum wage at an entirely reasonable level of R50 a week for all workers ... This is impossible to achieve while capitalism has its stranglehold on the development of the South African economy". (p. 37) It must be stressed that what is in issue here is not the necessity of a revolutionary trade union movement linking immediate demands with the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the regime. What is at issue is the insistence by the document that the revolutionary trade union movement must advance general revolutionary demands and only those specific demands which cannot be met except as the outcome of a successful revolutionary transformation of the society. That is, the trade union movement is conceived of as standing in the same relationship to state power as, for example, MK does - that is, in direct and total opposition unmediated by the possibility of intermediate demands around which the struggle can be conducted. But, except in the moment of revolutionary crisis the trade union" movement like the political movement (although in different ways) is obliged to conduct the struggle around specific demands. Thus despite the reference to the trade union field, the document sees the struggle of the trade unions in a way which fails completely to differentiate it from and yet link it to the general political struggle. This is clearly reflected in a number of passages in the document in which the organizational role of SACTU is defined in a general way so as simply to identify, it as a general revolutionary organization. Thus, for example, "SACTU is a trade union organization but it is compelled nonetheless to address itself to all the basic, political questions of the South African revolution". and the "impossibility" of separating the national liberation and socialist aims of the movement means that for SACTU "This understanding must be the cornerstone of SACTU's approach to the revolution." This "overpoliticization" of the trade union sphere leads above all to the obliteration of the specific role of the revolutionary trade union movement and gives to SACTU a general, revolutionary political function. This conclusion is reinforced by the document's conception of the armed struggle which, together with its analysis of the relationship of SACTU to the worker's movement leads, in fact, to the substitution of SACTU for other, political organizations. The Trade Union Movement and the Armed Struggle Thus far we have shown that the document, starting from the correct principle that in South Africa there is a particularly close relationship between the economic (trade union) struggle and the political struggle, then draws the quite erroneous conclusion that this requires a fusion of the revolutionary trade union movement and the "workers' movement" such that the entire political struggle of the workers becomes submerged in the trade union movement. Now the argument is taken further: from an argument that the armed struggle must not be separated from the political struggle, the conclusion necessarily seems to be that the organization of the armed struggle and that of the trade union movement must be fused into the latter. This emerges in the following way: The document first of all makes the general point that "The struggle for the seizure of state power takes many forms and many courses linked together, but at the decisive point that struggle can only be won by defeating the armed force of the state with the revolutionary armed force of the masses." (p. 22) In South Africa the futility of not linking the armed to other forms of struggle is demonstrated by the facts of Sharpeville and its aftermath and, indeed, the "... most advanced and politically conscious layers of the working class have never counterposed armed struggle to mass struggle, as if they were different things." (p 22) The critical importance of the armed struggle notwithstanding, that struggle must be subordinated to the politics of the mass struggle: "A revolutionary strategy directed towards armed insurrection - the only genuinely revolutionary strategy possible in South Africa - requires at every stage that clear priority must be given to building organizations of mass struggle." (p. 22) And this means "... that armed struggle must not be separated from mass struggle but must be fused with the development of the mass movement at every stage. It means that politics - the politics of mass struggle - must at every point command the gun." (p. 23) Now, within this general approach how are we to understand the fusion of the armed struggle with SACTU according to the analysis advanced in the document? Firstly, as in the case of all struggles of the "mass movement", the role of the armed struggle should be in the form of organized self-defence: "... armed action on our side should in its early stages have mainly the character of organized self-defence by the mass movement against the terror tactics of the state. It means armed defence in favourable circumstances, of strikes, demonstrations, 'squatter' camps and schools; against police raids, pass arrests, forced removals and so forth." (p. 23) The question arises, however of how and under what organizational form this self defence is to be organized? In our movement it has been recognized that while the armed movement must be under the command of the political, nonetheless, it requires its own, separate form of organization. The document departs from this position in the most radical way. Not only is there absolutely no discussion in the document about the question of the separate organization of the armed wing of the movement and hence of the way in which that wing might be brought into relationship with the trade union struggle, but, perhaps, more importantly, the document absorbs the armed struggle into SACTU which is now set up as in command of the armed struggle. This can be shown through a series of quotations from the document: "... The most advanced and politically conscious layers of the working class have never counterposed armed struggle to mass struggle, as if they were different things. For them and for us, it is a question of the organization, mobilization and arming of the mass of the people, headed by the organized workers, towards the eventual armed insurrection and seizure of state power." (p. 22) This arming and organizing of the workers is, thus a function of SACTU, and what is more is a task which belongs to the activists of SACTU who have been militarily trained; that is our militarily trained cadres find their organizational base not in armed units but in the ranks of SACTU. A revolutionary strategy aimed at armed insurrection "...means the fullest participation of militarily trained revolutionaries in the day-to-day struggles of the people as political cadres first and foremost, involved in the mobilising, educating, training and arming of the mass movement."(p. 23) SACTU and the Workers' Movement The title of the pamphlet is SACTU and the Workers' Movement and this separation is repeated in many different parts of the document. The implication, of course, is that the workers' movement and SACTU are, in some sense, separate entities and that SACTU cannot be conceived of as incorporating the whole of the workers' struggle into itself. It has already been shown, however, that the document actually argues for the "fusion" of the armed struggle and the workers' political struggle and organization fully into SACTU. This position is reinforced in a different way. Firstly, no other organizational forms of the mass movement are discussed at all - the ANC rates one mention (an affirmation of the ANC-SACTU alliance), MK is not mentioned at all and nor is the Communist Party. And this, in a document purporting to analyse the role of the revolutionary trade union movement not merely in relation to specific demands for wages etc but in relation to the overall political and armed struggle to overthrow apartheid and capitalism in South Africa! The inescapable conclusion is that for the authors of the document SACTU is the workers' movement or, at the very least, the sole leading force of that movement: "It is an elementary duty of revolutionaries to make work in the trade union movement in South Africa one of the top priorities of the whole struggle. This work is indispensable if we are to find a road to the mass of the workers, to unite them in concrete struggles towards armed self-defence and the eventual forcible seizure of power." (p. 31) That is, the whole of the workers' movement, its revolutionary role, its role as the factor of political organization and unity of the whole working class is condensed into the sole bearer of the working class struggle - SACTU. In a certain sense, the exaggeration of the role of SACTU can be related to the fact that the authors of the pamphlet held positions within SACTU which thus appeared to provide an organizational base from which their line could be propagated. It is necessary, however, to go beyond that and to explain why SACTU could be conceived of by them to fulfil the role they wished to assign to it. The answer lies in their economistic conception of the political struggle and a related underestimation of the importance of class alliances in the struggle. Implicit in, and underlying the entire document, is the "workerist" conception that the political struggle grows directly out of the immediate struggles at the point of production. For them, the wage struggle leads directly to the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of apartheid and capitalism. It is not possible here to discuss this issue at any length. It is clear, however, that despite the direct intrusion of the political into the economic, there are structural conditions which tend to limit the horizons of the trade union struggle and it is quite impossible to reduce the complexities of the general revolutionary political struggle to the trade union struggle. For one thing, the revolutionary struggle is never fought by the working class alone even though that class is the foundation of the struggle. It is significant, however, that because the document accords to the workplace the sole source of revolutionary struggle, it is unable to conceive of the role of other classes. Indeed, it barely mentions other classes and makes no reference at all to the "rural poor". For the document, other classes are simply passive entities to be drawn behind the active, working class. Thus, from the starting point that the working class is the leading force, the document moves more or less to the position that the working class is the only force in the revolutionary struggle. From that position it is a short step to the view that the political organization of the working class must occur within the factory and from that notion to the idea that the trade union movement (rather [than] its revolutionary wing) is the political organiser and leading organization of the entire revolutionary movement on all its fronts. It is clear, however, that the political leadership of the revolutionary movement must be in a position to organise the unity of all oppressed classes on the basis of a broad revolutionary programme. Such a task cannot be fulfilled by an organization of trade unions, though it can of course play a part in 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.
