Remarks on “Going to the Root”
SACP Discussion Document <http://www.sacp.org.za/pubs/buakomanis/2014/vol8-2.pdf> The word “Radical” is derived from the Latin “radix”, a root. Communists would usually not explain any given circumstance in terms of a root. Communists would usually consider any given set of circumstances, or “conjuncture”, as a dialectical “unity and struggle of opposites”. The word “crisis” would be used, by communists, to identify that part of the dialectical contradiction which is tending to break it into a new and qualitatively different set of circumstances. The SACP discussion document called “Going to the Root” (Bua Komanisi Volume 8, Issue 2, October 2014) begins by using the word “crisis” in an explicitly quantitative sense. Under the heading “SA’s triple crisis - the immediate context of the call for a second radical phase of the NDR” it says: “Two decades beyond the critical 1994 democratic breakthrough our society remains afflicted with crisis levels of unemployment, inequality and poverty.” The document never explains why five, or twenty-five, or any other number of crises should not have been considered. Nor does it show how the three alleged crises are supposed to form an organic trinity, distinguished in some way from other “crises”. If “crisis” just means a bad time, or a bad moment, then there are many of them, and the remainder of the document contains plenty of examples of such. Further, in the sentence quoted above, the document talks of “crisis levels”. What is a “crisis level”? In Marxism, it would have to mean a potentially revolutionary moment of transformation from quantity to quality. It would mean, in the equivalent bourgeois terminology, a “tipping point”. But the document quickly rules out such an interpretation. Very soon it rules out any consideration of a new “stage” or break, and insists that the (radical second) “phase” is called “phase” precisely so as to deny any revolutionary pretentions or desires that might arise. Actually, there is only one critical point around which things can turn, and that is employment, (or conversely, unemployment). Let’s take advantage of the usual shorthand for this: “jobs”. Deng Xiaoping’s famous dictum is: "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." The required mouse-catching ability is a metaphor for the creation of jobs. Deng’s argument appears, on the face of it, to mean that one cat is a socialist cat and the other one is a capitalist cat. But in practice there are no two “cats” in this realm of political economy. There is only one kind of “cat”. Whether it is black, white or ginger, the cat is a capitalist cat. The Chinese are clear about this. They say that the institution of different relations of production will not happen until far into the future. Until then, the relations of production are of the capitalist kind, and the need is for more of it. The state-capitalist cat and the private-enterprise cat, especially from the point of view of the employees who work for them, for wages, are the same breed Even when both cats are employing to the maximum, there is still unemployment, but not a crisis, because unemployment is a normal part of the capitalist system. Unemployment is a crisis for the unemployed person, but not for the system. Likewise, poverty may be a crisis for the poor person, but not for the system that produced the poverty. Inequality is not a crisis for the system, either. In fact the capitalist system requires unemployment. This is one of the very bad things about capitalism, and it is a good reason for wanting to overthrow it. But at the same time, perhaps paradoxically, employment itself is capitalism. To do away with capitalism is to do away with employment, as well as unemployment. A job is the elementary particle of capitalism, made up of a worker, and a boss who employs the worker. We continue to demand more jobs, even though we are fully aware that more jobs mean more capitalists. There is a good, revolutionary reason for this. It is that the main agent for the overthrow of capitalism (its “gravedigger”) will be the working class. The bigger, and the better organised, is the working class, the closer comes the possibility of proletarian revolution. This explains why we want more jobs, even though more jobs means more capitalists. Which in turn means means our problem - our limiting factor - is not really the lack of “jobs” in the abstract, but it is a lack of employers. The lack of sufficient employers could even become a crisis, in the sense that the shortage of employers could throw the whole (currently booming) South African economy into a decline. The lack of sufficient employers in South Africa is referred to in the document as an “investment strike”. It amounts to a (rightful) complaint that the South African bourgeoisie is not being sufficiently capitalist in South Africa, but instead is “playing away”. The “Going to the Root” document suggests two principle remedies for this. One is exchange control. The other is the creation of livelihoods that are substantially outside the commodity economy, using the Expanded Public Works Programme. Surely the latter, as desirable as it may be, is only a holding operation, very important to the people in the programme, but marginal to the rest. The bigger questions lie in the capitalist, commodity economy - the dominant mode of production in our country. Could legislated exchange control succeed? There is no proof that it will, and there are very few current examples to copy in the world, that are different or extra over what South Africa is already doing. Or, might we not as well negotiate, instead of legislate? The black cat is as good as the white. This means that any capitalist is better than none, if we are looking for capitalists. What comes under pressure in that case is, firstly, chauvinism, and secondly, BEE and even BBBEEE. Once again, the Chinese example is before us: China imported capitalists, deliberately. They courted them, negotiated with them, and deliberately created a boom. Russia is trying to import capitalists, and the “West” is trying to stop them from doing so. The “West” is trying to force Russia into a defensive posture, knowing that such a posture will damage the Russians. Exchange control is not attractive to overseas capitalists. For South Africa to institute Exchange Control, would be a risk. The policy of South Africa, already, is to attract more capitalists. And the SACP is not actually opposing this policy. Rob Davies, the DTI Minister, a communist, actively pursues them. Neither the SACP’s, nor anyone else’s “radical phase” is proposing to change this. Therefore it would be better to be frank about it, just as Deng Xiaoping’s frankness allowed for China to move forward in an unprecedented way. The communist party’s job is to lead, and not to lament, but the “Going to the Root” document laments. It says that the immediate context of the call for the second radical phase of the NDR is: “The triple crisis is reflected in rising popular discontent, a growing sense of alienation, frustration and sometimes despair amongst significant strata of the youth, the unemployed, the working poor, those in informal settlements, and the so-called “black middle class” ... it is critical that we recognise there is a popular, but for the moment largely amorphous, groundswell of frustration - much of it currently beyond the reach of the ANC-alliance’s organisational and ideological influence.” This is in the third paragraph of the document. There is no objective evidence provided to support these assertions. It would be more sensible to conclude that when the Party is not leading, it worries about being overtaken, abandoned, and forgotten. The remedy is to lead. The prescription is as before: Educate, Organise and Mobilise. A question on tax: The “Going to the Root” document comes out at a time when the Reserve Bank and the Treasury are contemplating the raising of taxes. In the spirit of Karl Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, our question is: What is the best part of the economy from which to draw off tax money? Is it VAT? Or, is VAT a tax on the poor? Supposing VAT is raised by 1%, from 14% to 15%, will that hit the poor hard? In spite of the apparent effect on the poor, it might be that Value-Added, which in Marxist terms is Surplus Value, is the right thing to tax, since all other charges are a division of Surplus Value, according to Marx. A tax on Surplus Value would be upstream of all the parasites. The 1% employment levy (used to fund the SETAs) is a brake on job-formation, and is inefficient as a tax on Surplus Value, because it taxes unproductive employment equally with productive employment. Perhaps the SETAs should be abolished, and the levy with them? What is the right thing to tax? It is no use to say, no tax for us, let the rich pay. Please see what Karl Marx had to say about this, below, in the “Critique of the Gotha Programme”. Nobody wants to pay tax, but a campaign against tax (including the campaign against the e-tolls) is a bourgeois campaign. So what is the best tax? If tax must go up, then which tax should go up? Two apt quotations from Karl Marx: Theses on Feuerbach (#3): The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances... The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self‐change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part 1, extract: The kernel [of the Gotha Programme] consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labour". Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labour; then the co‐operative proceeds of labour are the total social product. >From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labour are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity. There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production... Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc... Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so‐called official poor relief today. Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion ‐ namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co‐operative society. The "undiminished" proceeds of labour have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds... -- -- 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.
