| |
 |
|
|
Religion Forum Index » Christian Orthodox Forum » Political left at crossroads...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Steve Hayes... |
 Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
10 September 2008
The political Left in South Africa is at a crossroads in the history of its
revolution, according to the SA Communist Party’s policy conference discussion
document released today.
“As the National Liberation Movement prepares for elections in the first half
of next year, and as we face the many new possibilities but also challenges
that have emerged since the ANC’s 52nd National Conference, the question of
State power and the role of the SACP in this regard have become even more
critical.
“Both the opportunities and the dangers have escalated. The SACP has a major
role to play in the current context and much depends on our ability to rise to
the occasion,” the document said.
Many important positive resolutions were adopted at Polokwane, and there was
generally a much improved policy-making engagement within the African National
Congress, SACP and Congress of SA Trade Unions (Cosatu) alliance.
However, the document said there were many challenges and threats.
The ANC, in particular, continued to be beset with very serious factional
crises and these continually spilled over into its alliance partners.
The capacity of the ANC to run an effective election campaign or to provide
strategic leadership under these conditions, and if not immediately addressed,
could be impaired.
Among other things, there were also “fight back” initiatives in some quarters,
seeking to undermine the progressive outcomes of Polokwane.
There was rank opportunism in some quarters — either by those who regarded
themselves “Polokwane victors” and who sought to advance not the policy
positions agreed at conference but their own personal careers.
There were also those who were suddenly crossing the floor and becoming
zealots of the “new cause”.
And, at the back of all of this, was the sheer power and tactical flexibility
of the capitalist class within society, according to the documents.
TWO CONTRADICTORY FUTURE SCENARIOS
The current post-Polokwane reality contained at least two contradictory
potential scenarios.
Firstly, a scenario in which the many positive features of Polokwane — the
opening up of democratic space, the consolidation of fresh policy, the
rebuilding of mass campaigning and organisation, were all taken forward.
Secondly, a negative scenario in which the Left failed to hegemonise the
post-Polokwane reality, and instead (and particularly after national elections
in 2009) a new alliance of “1996 class project floor-crossers”,
“compradorists” and “fugitives from justice” coalesced around a programme of
awarding influential posts, tenders and contracts to themselves, while the
factional destabilisation (and not democratic transformation) of the state,
including the criminal justice system, persisted.
If the latter scenario prevailed, the Left would be used for the electoral
campaign and then dumped, with some individuals co-opted, while the rest were
marginalised, perhaps more brutally than before.
“We are, therefore, at the crossroads in the history of our revolution. The
conjuncture is full of real space for consolidating an effective, progressive,
programmatic approach to state power.
“However, the space opened up by Polokwane can also be squandered and the
opportunity lost,” the document said.
PARTY INDEPENDENCE?
The struggle to ensure the hegemony of the Left in the present reality made it
imperative that the SACP return to the subject of the party and state power.
The two general possible electoral “modalities” for the party in 2009, were
firstly, independent [SACP] electoral lists on the voter’s roll with the
possible objective of constituting a coalition alliance agreement
post-elections.
Alternatively, an electoral pact with the alliance partners, which could
include agreement on deployments, possible quotas, the accountability of
elected representatives, including the accountability of SACP cadres to the
party, the election manifesto, and the importance of an independent face and
role for the SACP and its cadres within legislatures.
In practice (at least for the prospective national/provincial elections of
2009), the SACP had already chosen this latter option.
Already the SACP was actively participating in the ANC-led election campaign
planning, election manifesto preparations, and related policy-development
processes.
This did not mean that the alternative option of an independent SACP electoral
list should quietly and now forever disappear from the table, the document
said.
Already one SACP province had indicated its intention to argue for an
independent SACP electoral list in the next round of local elections.
The modality of the SACP’s engagement with elections was not a matter of
timeless principle, but something that needed to be periodically analysed and
evaluated in the light of potentially shifting realities.
“However, if indeed we are serious and sincere about an ANC-led election
campaign in 2009, then it is critical that we should not be ambiguous, or send
mixed signals about this over the coming eight or so months.
“On the other hand, this certainly does not mean that the SACP should simply
give the ANC a “blank cheque” — 100% party support and activist effort, but
without any serious party influence or impact on the campaign and beyond,” the
document says.
Sapa
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=840446 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter H.M. Brooks... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 29, 7:34 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:46:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
Peter.H.M.Bro... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I had to do some googling over the word "compradorists". It seems it
is not even run-of-the-mill communist party jargon, but particular to
the SACP. Why don't they just say "coconut" or "sell-out" and make
themselves clear?
For extremely good reasons! If pinkoes were clear then people would
understand that what they were saying was bullshit. So they always
have, and, presumably, as long as they continue to exist, always will
try to be obscure in their language. Sadly, for them, they tend not to
be that good at the obscurity (it requires a certain flexibility and
nimbleness of mind that doesn't coexist well with adherence to Marx as
a god) so you can get the drift of what they think they're banging on
about - as you do above.
You are, however, anything but clear in your use of "pinkoes".
Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
leftish persuasion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Hayes... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:46:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<Peter.H.M.Brooks at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: I had to do some googling over the word "compradorists". It seems it
is not even run-of-the-mill communist party jargon, but particular to
the SACP. Why don't they just say "coconut" or "sell-out" and make
themselves clear?
For extremely good reasons! If pinkoes were clear then people would
understand that what they were saying was bullshit. So they always
have, and, presumably, as long as they continue to exist, always will
try to be obscure in their language. Sadly, for them, they tend not to
be that good at the obscurity (it requires a certain flexibility and
nimbleness of mind that doesn't coexist well with adherence to Marx as
a god) so you can get the drift of what they think they're banging on
about - as you do above.
You are, however, anything but clear in your use of "pinkoes".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Dubery... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 30, 5:22 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Communists aren't wishy-washy pinkoes, they are full-blown Reds (full-bodied,
as the wine snobs might say).
I always thought a pinko was somebody who had communist leadings. Such
a term would have been needed so that the Senator McCarthies of the
world could still find ways of persecuting and besmirching people who
could answer "no" to all the "are you now or have you ever been..."
type questions but still were regarded as un-American, undesirable
etc.
But then in that era they used to talk about "commy pinko liberals",
so perhaps the word was to just to deny full-blooded redness and paint
liberals as limp-wristed panty-waists. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter H.M. Brooks... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 30, 5:32 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:01:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
Peter.H.M.Bro... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Remember that the Nazis, were 'National Socialists' - socialism, at
least a particular brand of it, is part of fascism. Fascism, like
socialism and communism, believes strongly in forcing people to do
what is 'good for them' and also has a strong ideological basis.
Oh dear, Peter, I thought you were immune to that kind of American right-wing
sophistry, which is about on the same level as those who say that America is
not a democracy but a republic, using contorted definitions of the terms to
justify their silliness.
Not really. I'm not wishing to make any particular point - apart from
ideology being a nasty way to run things (look at Saudi Arabia for
another example of pretty much the same thing as Stalin's Soviet Union
and Franco's Spain).
If you can point to genuine differences, then why not do so, rather
than simply dismissing the point? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter H.M. Brooks... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 30, 5:29 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <megap... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:00 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
leftish persuasion.- Hide quoted text -
Terms like "left" and "right" are actually pretty vague.
And just to make things vaguer still, some Americans are now talking about the
"theological left" and the "theological right". It's bad enough in politics;
in theology it's quite impossible. I've blogged about it here, for anyone
interested:
http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-left-theological-ri...
The Nats used to refer to the progs as "left", but in some ways the
Nats were more socialist than the Progs. The Progs were certainly to
the right of the Nats economically. Arguably the current government is
to the right of the Nats in terms of macro-economic management.
The ANC is positively Thatcherist.
They spend a lot more on arms and a lot less on health as a
proportion, than Thatcher ever did. Thatcher used to come out with all
sorts of rhetoric about doing various things, but, under her, health
spending, for example, increased considerably.
I suppose you could say that the ANC do what Thatcher said she'd do
rather than what she actually did. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter H.M. Brooks... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 30, 5:22 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
It was a satire on the John Birch Society in the US, and in it two characters,
the deacon and the mushrat, go round making a list of pinkoes and comsymps and
others suspected of UnAmerican activities.
The whole HUAC episode revealed the deep level of repression that is
at the heart of US behaviour - look at the figures of which countries
keep the most people in prison and you see more evidence of how deep
seated this is.
Quote:
So raise the scarlet standard high
within its shade we'll live and die
though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
we'll keep the Red Flag flying here.
and the wishy-washy pinko version:
The people's flag is deepest pink
It hangs above the kitchen sink
the working class can kiss my arse
I've got the foreman's job at last.
See the difference?
I enjoy playing the tune on my trurmpet and you can't tell the
difference there!
The second is the more truthful version of the first, though. It is
the petty street-committee interference that marks a totalitarian
state (did you see the excellent film about this 'The Life of Others')
not the grand parades. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Hayes... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:00:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<Peter.H.M.Brooks at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Sep 29, 7:34 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:46:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
Peter.H.M.Bro... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I had to do some googling over the word "compradorists". It seems it
is not even run-of-the-mill communist party jargon, but particular to
the SACP. Why don't they just say "coconut" or "sell-out" and make
themselves clear?
For extremely good reasons! If pinkoes were clear then people would
understand that what they were saying was bullshit. So they always
have, and, presumably, as long as they continue to exist, always will
try to be obscure in their language. Sadly, for them, they tend not to
be that good at the obscurity (it requires a certain flexibility and
nimbleness of mind that doesn't coexist well with adherence to Marx as
a god) so you can get the drift of what they think they're banging on
about - as you do above.
You are, however, anything but clear in your use of "pinkoes".
Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
leftish persuasion.
I am reminded of "The Jack Acid Society Black Book" by Walt Kelly.
It was a satire on the John Birch Society in the US, and in it two characters,
the deacon and the mushrat, go round making a list of pinkoes and comsymps and
others suspected of UnAmerican activities.
Two other characters, the cowbirds, who are communists, object because they
have been blacklisted from the black list. They say that they are communists
and demand to be included. But the deacon and the mushrat demur. "You are
known communists," they say, "so you can't be on a list of suspects."
Communists aren't wishy-washy pinkoes, they are full-blown Reds (full-bodied,
as the wine snobs might say).
And of course George Bush and John McCain and the US Republican Party get all
their support from "Red" states, while all those true-blue Tories of the
conservative Democratic Party get their support from the "Blue" states.
Nevertheless, the Communist Party are your actual Reds, whether under the bed
or not. They are not suspects and comsymps and wishy-washy pinkoes.
The Brit Labour Paqrty used to sing the Red Flag at their congresses -- I
wonder if they still do?
The people's flag is deepest red
It shrrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
their heart's blood died its every fold
So raise the scarlet standard high
within its shade we'll live and die
though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
we'll keep the Red Flag flying here.
and the wishy-washy pinko version:
The people's flag is deepest pink
It hangs above the kitchen sink
the working class can kiss my arse
I've got the foreman's job at last.
See the difference?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Hayes... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <megapode at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: On Sep 29, 8:00 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
leftish persuasion.- Hide quoted text -
Terms like "left" and "right" are actually pretty vague.
And just to make things vaguer still, some Americans are now talking about the
"theological left" and the "theological right". It's bad enough in politics;
in theology it's quite impossible. I've blogged about it here, for anyone
interested:
http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-left-theological-right.html
Quote: The Nats used to refer to the progs as "left", but in some ways the
Nats were more socialist than the Progs. The Progs were certainly to
the right of the Nats economically. Arguably the current government is
to the right of the Nats in terms of macro-economic management.
The ANC is positively Thatcherist.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Hayes... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:01:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<Peter.H.M.Brooks at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Remember that the Nazis, were 'National Socialists' - socialism, at
least a particular brand of it, is part of fascism. Fascism, like
socialism and communism, believes strongly in forcing people to do
what is 'good for them' and also has a strong ideological basis.
Oh dear, Peter, I thought you were immune to that kind of American right-wing
sophistry, which is about on the same level as those who say that America is
not a democracy but a republic, using contorted definitions of the terms to
justify their silliness.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Dubery... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 1, 5:14 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <megap... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Sep 30, 2:10 pm, "AGGreen" <aggr... at (no spam) nomorespam.org> wrote:
***You're such an ass. America **IS** a republic. What's wrong with calling
our country exactly what it is? You South Africans are such jerks.
But we are trying to move away from making sweeping generalisations.
For example we don't claim that all Americans are such jerks because,
as eny fule kno, they all support the invasion of Iraq. Or that they
all are philistines because they eat nothing but McDonalds and Burger
King. Individual Americans can be total assholes without all other
Americans being tarred by the same brush.
But back to the matter under discussion, I suppose that "republic" and
"democracy" are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. They can overlap.
You can have one without the other. To be a republic you just need to
avoid having a hereditary head of state. So the USA is certainly a
republic - or, to be more precise, a federal republic.
SA under the Nats was republic but not a democracy. England is a
democracy, but not a republic.
And the USSR was a collection of republics, but not particularly democratic.
Saying that a country is a republic but not a democracy is nothing to be proud
of.
Nobody will ever admit to their country not being a democracy. OK...
maybe the people of Swaziland will. My point is that "republic" and
"democracy" are two axes on a graph.
Swaziland would be right down near the intersection of those two axes
- certainly not a republic, and not particularly democratic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Hayes... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <megapode at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: On Sep 30, 2:10 pm, "AGGreen" <aggr... at (no spam) nomorespam.org> wrote:
***You're such an ass. America **IS** a republic. What's wrong with calling
our country exactly what it is? You South Africans are such jerks.
But we are trying to move away from making sweeping generalisations.
For example we don't claim that all Americans are such jerks because,
as eny fule kno, they all support the invasion of Iraq. Or that they
all are philistines because they eat nothing but McDonalds and Burger
King. Individual Americans can be total assholes without all other
Americans being tarred by the same brush.
But back to the matter under discussion, I suppose that "republic" and
"democracy" are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. They can overlap.
You can have one without the other. To be a republic you just need to
avoid having a hereditary head of state. So the USA is certainly a
republic - or, to be more precise, a federal republic.
SA under the Nats was republic but not a democracy. England is a
democracy, but not a republic.
And the USSR was a collection of republics, but not particularly democratic.
Saying that a country is a republic but not a democracy is nothing to be proud
of.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter H.M. Brooks... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 3, 12:22 pm, Bob Dubery <megap... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 2, 2:35 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
But, as I see it, a republic can't be oppressive to its citizens - in
other words you shouldn't, if the word means anything, have a
totalitarian republic. You can, of course, as we know from a number of
examples, have a repressive democracy, though.
It's a game of definitions. Some would argue that if you don't have a
head of state who will be succeeded by his/her offspring then you have
a republic. That's about the narrowest definition, and probably the
only non-arguable one.
Your concept makes life more interesting though. SA circa 1980 would
have been a republic for some of it's citizens only. Unless you take
the view that Nat policies were ultimately oppressive to ALL South
Africans. Which leads me on to the point that there's always going to
be people bellyaching about the government oppressing them even if
they're the most benign government on earth, or thinking that this
government is great, good and kind when they're utter bastards.
Well, politics is a religion for many, it's true, so, yes, you will
have fundamentalists. I've met and argued with a few!
Just yesterday I was listening to an English series of podcasts called
'philosophy bites' (they're nice little interviews on specific topics,
quite fun, just the thing for an aeroplane trip) and they interviewed
a Yank on the subject of 'freedom of speech'. He kept talking, without
irony (and remember he's not a stupido, but somebody who is paid to be
a professional philosopher) about how this or that was a consequence
of 'living in a free society' - he truly believed, that he did live in
a free society. Amazingly, as a philosopher again, he saw Yankland and
'free society' as synonyms and, if asked for some truth about the
notion of a 'free society' simply referred to his experience in
Yankland. He wasn't asked it, but I'm sure he'd have simply stated, as
obvious, again with no irony, that a 'free society' could be expected
to keep about a percent of its citizens in gaol for a good proportion
of their lives.
Stephen Fry has, apparently, been doing a wonderful job of rescuing
Yankland from its image - he's produced a film about each state. I'm
looking forward to seeing it, I'd love to learn some good things about
the place. I fear that it is unlikely to want me to go there again
though.
Quote:
In the 'Golden Bough' a number of instances where Kings were appointed
for a year and executed at the end of it are mentioned. It seems an
eminently sensible system and it is a little unfortunate that the
practice died out. It does indeed show that it is possible to have a
monarchy with limited tenure, though!
But they weren't volunteers were they? More likely they drew the short
straw.
They were volunteers. That was the point, it was attractive to be a
King, even if only for a year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:31 am
|
|