shops 11.04

Who are the ultra-left?

An important public debate has erupted within the Tripartite Alliance. Although it has been going on for some time, it was brought into the public eye by President Thabo Mbeki's address to the ANC's recent Policy Conference and his article in ANC Today on 4 October 2002. He raises raising the spectre of 'ultra-left forces' within the movement, specifically within COSATU and the SACP, which he says are attacking the ANC for being 'neo-liberal' and treating the ANC and government as 'the enemy'.

In light of these allegations, we need to clarify COSATU's position by defining what we mean by 'ultra left' and 'neo-liberal', and then look at the positions of COSATU, the ANC and the government.
To demonstrate how absurd it is to level such a charge against COSATU, we have to go back to basics and look into the history of this phenomenon of ultra-leftism. In its crudest form, it can be used to categorise anyone who is to the left of whoever is using the term. As such it is not a useful concept, but just an insult. Nor can it be just anyone who wants a socialist future with greater prosperity, equality and democracy. That defines anyone on the Left. Rather the ultra left are identified by certain ideologies, strategies and tactics.
The classic work on this subject is 'Left-wing communism, an infantile disorder' written by the Russian revolutionary leader, Lenin, in 1920. He was responding to the political views of certain leading communists in various countries, which he saw as dangerous to the international communist movement.

Their position had two features - a rejection of work with non-revolutionary organisations to secure partial advances in the struggle and a refusal to countenance any 'compromises' in the course of the revolutionary struggle.

Lenin condemns those revolutionaries who want to set up separate 'pure, revolutionary' trade unions in opposition to the unions to which the mass of workers belong. Real revolutionaries, he argued, have to work where the workers are, not where they would like them to be, and get their hands dirty in the workers' day-to-day struggles. They must convince those workers by argument and example of the correctness of their policies.

Forming breakaway unions only strengthens the hold of the right-wing leaders in the mass unions and splits the working class.
COSATU could not conceivably be accused of that kind of ultra-leftism. It is the country's biggest trade union federation, with nearly two million members. It organises all workers, irrespective of their political affiliation, and thus has within its ranks all political tendencies and ideologies.

Over years COSATU has developed a particular hegemony within society by taking democratic decisions in its constitutional structures, in particular the National Congress that brings together no less than 2000 delegates from the shop floor. This applies to the ANC as well - a liberation movement that is truly a broad church.
COSATU is in alliance with the ANC, SACP and SANCO and works closely with other union federations and numerous other civil society organisations. There is not a shred of evidence of this kind of ultra-leftism, within COSATU. If COSATU were an ultra left organisation it would refuse on principle to work with non-socialist formations such as the ANC.

The other feature of ultra-leftism which Lenin condemns - the idea that a struggle can never involve compromises - is again something that COSATU cannot conceivably be tainted with.
"Every worker" says Lenin "has been through strikes and has experienced 'compromises' with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands."

COSATU knows how true this is. Every day on the shop floor and in the bargaining chambers, our members engage with hostile forces, negotiate deals and make compromises. And we fully understand that the ANC government also has to make compromises from time to time. But that does not mean that all such compromises are justified. They all have to be judged by the same criteria that Lenin used.

He gives the example the biggest such compromise that the Russian Bolshevik government had to make - the humiliating Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany which surrendered large areas of Russia to its imperialist enemy. He makes very clear that this compromise was forced on them. He compares it to the compromise that you have to make when you are hijacked and forced at gunpoint to part with your wallet.
Such compromises are completely different from unnecessary compromises leaders enter into voluntarily.

"Every worker," he says… "sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion) - a compromise which in no way minimises the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers - and, on the other had, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into 'compromises'!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists."

Lenin concedes that it can sometimes be difficult to assess whether a compromise is legitimate or treacherous. It often requires knowledge, experience and political flair to judge what is acceptable. But while ridiculing the idea of a general rule of 'no compromises' he in no way counterposes a general rule that compromises are inherently good. On the contrary he is scathing in his criticism of 'left' leaders who compromise by willingly capitulating to the pressure of the capitalist enemy and abandon the struggle for socialism.

Lenin is not deviating from the main aim of the communist struggle. "It is an incontestable truth," he says, that "the communists must exert every effort to direct the working-class movement and social development in general along the straightest and shortest road to victory of soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world-wide scale." The danger he is warning against is a principle of not permitting "tacking, conciliatory manoeuvres or compromising", which he identifies as a mistake which may cause grave prejudice to communism.

COSATU's position is the same as Lenin's. We are committed to the struggle for socialism. But we do not take the simplistic view of a tiny fringe minority outside our ranks that it can be achieved without engaging with the class enemy in all sorts of battles, negotiations, strikes, temporary alliances and, yes, compromises.

But that does not mean that we will support avoidable compromises that are against the workers' interests. Our negotiators will always fight to get the best possible outcome from any engagement and never willingly settle for less. The crucial test is to recognise a compromise for what it is and only support it if we are sure that it is unavoidable or will not damage the workers' long-term goals.

The ultra left. On the other hand, are unwilling to look for any solutions to problems within the current system and thus find it hard to build coalitions to achieve reforms which fall short of socialism. That is why they often remain trapped in small groups.

They typically ignore the real balance of forces in society and the scope for radical change in the short term, focussing solely on the long-term aim of workers' revolution and the socialist transformation of society.
An example was the view of a minority within the South African liberation movement who failed to understand the importance of the national struggle, which they subordinated to the struggle for socialism. They failed to understand that socialism could not be achieved without also crushing apartheid. This required an understanding of the balance of forces and the need to form alliances with progressive nationalist organisations.

In South Africa today, such groups oppose the ANC government as a matter of principle, rather than disagreeing with specific policies and strategies. If they could achieve it, they would like to establish a new political party to oppose the ANC. Unlike COSATU they do not see the importance of ensuring that the National Democratic Revolution [NDR] succeeds in eliminating national oppression, as the immediate and the most important task of all revolutionaries, including socialists and communists.

So is COSATU part of the ultra left? For a start, it is obvious that its members would never allow it to adopt an ultra left approach. If they are to retain their members, unions must seek to improve their lives within the existing capitalist system, both on the shop floor and in policy interventions. And COSATU recognises that the ANC brings together the most progressive people in South Africa. We will not therefore oppose it as a matter of principle. Nor do we seek to establish a new party.

However we insist that all our policies must help to build the basis for socialism. That is why we support the co-operative movement, more public ownership, strong unions, workers' rights, better education and skills development; participatory democracy as opposed to a representative democracy, land reform and other measures to restructure capital, and a culture of collectivity and solidarity.

What is neo - liberalism?
Does COSATU see the ANC as a neo-liberal party? The short answer is no. We do however say that government has adopted some basically neo-liberal policies, especially GEAR.
Neo-liberalism, as President Mbeki said, it is characterised by a belief that free markets will bring about growth, prosperity and development for all, and, as a result, wants to cut government spending, including on social services that benefit the poor, in order to cut taxes and release more money for investment.

Nobody actually calls themselves 'neo-liberal'. Like 'ultra left', it is always used as a label to show disagreement. People who support these ideas usually call themselves conservatives or liberals.
Judged by its long-held policy positions, the ANC is not a neo-liberal party. It has always argued that the state must intervene to bring about development, in particular by improving social protection for the poor. It stands for providing free or affordable basic services like water, housing, health and education and welfare grants.

It favours regulating labour markets to ensure labour rights and promote skills development, and guiding infrastructure investment to support industry and ensure rural development. It supports small and micro enterprise and land reform, and working with organised business and labour to define sectoral growth strategies to create jobs.

Although government has to some extent implemented these policies, especially on social protection, labour rights and small and micro enterprise, it has also adopted some strategies that align with neo-liberal positions.
In particular, the GEAR strategy set limits on government's own spending so that between 1997 and 2000, it fell sharply - especially on the main social services of education, health and welfare. As a result, it became difficult to expand social protection and land reform as much as necessary. Since 2000 government spending has increased to an extent but spending per person will only reach the 1997 level in 2005, precisely as a result of the deep cuts resulting from GEAR.

In manufacturing and agriculture, government has tried to reduce regulations and free up markets. To that end it has cut tariffs and ended price controls on food. At the same time, it has only supported export sectors - which have not created jobs and do not meet the needs of poor people for affordable food, housing and equipment. The result has been huge job losses and soaring food prices. Government has begun to re-examine this approach, but it is not clear if and how it will change its policies.

In restructuring state enterprises, government has called for the introduction of competition - that is, profit making and the market - to replace state control and ownership. Thus, it wants to privatise 30% of Eskom, 49% of Telkom and parts of Transnet. It has already commercialised these companies, making them focus on making profits rather than serving the people.

It has called for 'user fees' for schools, healthcare, transport, water and other basic services, which our people cannot afford. The promise of free basic services for the very poor has not been implemented in many places. And where it has, it has often been so restricted that the working poor do not benefit.

In short, government policies have been very contradictory. Many policies, particularly for social protection, have led to improvements for working people and poor communities. But these policies have been undermined by budget cuts and rising joblessness due to laisser-faire market economic policies. We do not question the dedication of the government to helping the poor - but some of its policies are defeating its own purposes.

The recent ANC Policy Conference adopted draft resolutions that, if implemented, would help set our economic policy straight. These include the commitment to a strong employment strategy and sector job summits, ensuring that the restructuring of the state serves our strategic aims and improvements in the social security system. But will these resolutions will be implemented and how?

These criticisms we make of GEAR and the privatisation of essential services in no way reflect 'ultra-left' tendencies. These policies are not compromises forced on a government but are freely entered into and justified by ministers as the best policies for the country. COSATU believes however that they are dangerous and do nothing to advance the revolution. They will worsen rather than improve the problems of poverty and unemployment which we want the ANC government to tackle.

The debate around these issues ought to be the opportunity for a serious exchange of views on the challenges we face in implementing the NDR, tackling the unacceptable levels of poverty, unemployment and inequality and transforming the lives of the people. Only through such debate can we clarify the way ahead for our revolution and unite to take forward the next phase of our struggle.

Unfortunately this debate is in danger of being derailed by groundless allegations, character assassination and the questioning of people's bona fides. Most worrying about the position of some in the ANC is that they equate any criticism of government policy with 'ultra-leftism', regardless of the merits of the criticism. This is then used as a way to stifle debate. It poses a grave danger to democracy within the Alliance. 'Ultra left' is being used by some just as a label to prevent constructive debates within the left.

We are appealing to the ANC leaders and members to reject name-calling and listen seriously to what COSATU is saying. It is in the interests of the movement as a whole to enter into a debate on these issues and not try to dismiss all criticism with insults like 'ultra-left'. Let us unite to take the revolution forward!