Introduction
UMkhonto
WeSizwe Party (MKP) emerged as a surprise package in the recent National
elections which led to them polling at number three and netting over two
million votes just on the national ballot alone. However, the arrival of MKP to
the political scene has displace the EFF from the position it had held for ten
years, and threatens its very existence, especially after the decimation of the
support of the EFF in KZN, and the departure of the co-founder of the EFF who
was serving as the Deputy President, Floyd Shivambu to the MKP. This
announcement has sent shockwaves across the African Left, and the EFF as a
Party has felt them the most. The departure of one of the most prominent
members of the EFF and political twin of the President of the EFF, has led to
the party going through the most testing period, and has led to an increased
support and solidarity for Cde President Julius Malema. Some CCT members
have come out in the open to affirm their loyalty while some have been sulking
in silence, silence so loud that it speaks volumes. However, in this article I
will dialectically assess using dialectical and historical materialism whether
can we trust the MKP as members and supporters of the EFF, or should we close
the curtain on our short but tumultuous relationship.
What
is the ideological character of the EFF juxtaposed to the MKP?
The
EFF defines itself in its founding manifesto, and constitution as follows,
"(1)
The Economic Freedom Fighters is an economic emancipation political movement
which seeks to act in the interest of all South Africans, Africans and people
of the world, striving for socialism and ECONOMIC EMANCIPATION IN OUR LIFETIME.
(2)
The EFF takes socialism as the theoretical basis guiding its thinking and
development of its political line and
identifies itself as a MARXIST, LENINIST and FANONIAN organisation.
(3)
The basic programme of the EFF is the complete overthrow of the neo liberal
anti-black state as well as the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes,
the establishment of the dictatorship of the people in place of the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the triumph of socialism over capitalism.
The ultimate aim of the EFF is the realisation of socialism through people’s
power and the establishment of a state that responds to the needs of its
people.
(4)
The EFF is anti-capitalist, anti-racism, anti-sexist and anti-imperialist in
its world outlook and is driven by sound
democratic socialist values where the leadership is accountable to the
members who elected it.
(5)
The EFF is a vanguard mass organisation leading the revolutionary masses in the
fight against the capitalist class enemy."
Therefore,
the EFF defines itself as a Marxist-Leninist-Fanonian organisation which is in
a class struggle against the ruling bourgeois class. The EFF defines itself as
anti-neoliberal, anti-white supremacist, and pro-Dictatorship of the
Proletariat, a mass vanguard party which seeks to attain socialism as a prelude
to Communism. Thus, in the final sum of it all, the EFF views itself as a
Communist Party which is steeped in mass democratic politics. The EFF does not
leave one doubting on who they are, what they represent, whom they represent,
and what is it that they seek to achieve in the long run. This has been
consistently articulated by its leaders including our former leaders like Cde.
Andile Mngxitama, and Cde. Floyd Shivambu.
The
EFF in its 11 years of existence has consistently found itself in the thick of
pro-working-class struggles. This led to a point whereby the EFF had to
establish a labour desk and a gender desk to advance the struggle within the
workplace and advance the struggle against gender inequality. These
interventions have boosted the credentials of the EFF as a genuine Socialist
party which seeks to realise a total defeat of all oppressor classes, and the
establishment of Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The EFF throughout its
lifespan has made it clear that elections are merely a tactic for it to gauge
class consciousness, expose the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie, and gain some
necessary reforms for the oppressed classes within a liberal bourgeois
democratic framework. The Socialism espoused by the EFF and its seven cardinal
pillars are not that vastly different from the ten planks of Communism which
were outlined in the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels as follows,
"1.
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public
purposes.
2.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank
with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the
State.
7.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the
bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil
generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.
Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially
for agriculture.
9.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of
all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution
of the populace over the country.
10.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s
factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial
production, etc."
The
EFF makes it clear that the State they espouse is a state which is directed by
the workers, and peasants with the land question being answered in the most
inclusive way ever, State Custodianship. The concept of State
Custodianship in a state led by an evidently Communist party takes a
different form from State Custodianship in a Capitalist state
or even a Feudal state. In this case, the State represents the majority
(Proletarians and Peasants) who form the base of South African society. The
aspirations of urban & rural workers and rural farm dwellers &
subsistence farmers living under aristocrats represent the aspirations of the
majority, who are the masses of our people (Proletarians & Peasants who are
mainly black in general and African in particular). The aspiration of better
working conditions, higher wages, profit sharing, agricultural support for
emerging co-ops, and subsistence farmers, better land tenure rights in
patriarchal aristocracies for women and sexual minorities, the democratic
ownership, control, and management of the means of production, combatting of
crime in working class communities, inner-city rejuvenation, and many other
progressive demands will find expression in this State due to the class
character of the Party, and the State which would be run by this Party, which
in this scenario would be the EFF.
State
Custodianship in as far as the land question
is concerned therefore becomes a democratic means of controlling the wealth of
the land. The people who are tasked to manage, administrate, and distribute
this powerful resource will be democratically elected, and appointed by a
democratic government which will be held accountable by the very same people
whom the State would be representing in that scenario, which are the workers,
and peasants. Thus, State Custodianship becomes the most
accessible, most open, and most class inclusive method of answering the land
question. The proposition of Land Councils would enhance and democratise the
system of land boards and trusts which are run by capitalists, aristocrats, and
their puppets who constantly distort rural development, instead of advancing
development which will seek to eradicate the divide between the urban and rural
areas. The EFF espouses such a society due to its ideological orientation, and
its ideological framework which is consistent with the revolutionary character
of the most revolutionary class in our capitalist society, the Proletarians
(Working Class).
However,
when we juxtapose this with the character of the MKP, we find that MKP has no
publicly available constitution whether interim or adopted in a gathering. Their
electoral manifesto is the only document which we can derive a sense of
identity or what is it that MKP represents. In their manifesto, they make it
clear that they are pro-Nationalisation while making it clear on the land
question that they seek to return the land to the custodianship of the
traditional rulers (Kings and Chiefs). Land being the base of any economy
according to MKP must be kept in the hands of aristocrats, which is basically
Neo-Feudalism. However, we must understand that this Neo-Feudalist aspiration
is not necessarily according to a strictly Eurocentric line or approach to
feudalism but steeped in what Marx and Engels characterised as Feudal-Socialism
due to aristocrats being expropriated by the bourgeoisie and the capitalist
system in general. Marx and Engels characterised Feudal-Socialism in the
Communist Manifesto as follows,
"In
order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight,
apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment
against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class
alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their
new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming
catastrophe. In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half
lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its
bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very
heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to
comprehend the march of modern history. The aristocracy, to rally the
people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner.
But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old
feudal coats of arms and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter."
They
further say this about the rise of Feudal-Socialism,
"In
pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the
bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and
conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing
that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that
the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.
For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their
criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this,
that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed which is destined to
cut up root and branch the old order of society. What they upbraid the
bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat as that it
creates a revolutionary proletariat. In political practice, therefore,
they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary
life, despite their high-falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden
apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and
honour, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits."
What
Marx and Engels expose about the historical relationship between the
Bourgeoisie, Aristocracy, Proletarians, and Peasants is that in a bid for the
Aristocracy to survive, it will use slogans, rhetoric, and ideas that link with
the struggle of the proletarians, and the peasantry against the now dominant
Bourgeoisie to merely arouse sympathy for itself. MKP has used this effectively
not only in written word as Marx and Engels experienced in their time, but
through practical campaigning and contestation of power within the liberal
bourgeois framework of democracy. The working class in KZN, parts of Mpumalanga,
and Gauteng cast their votes for MKP because of the slogans which it advanced
which seemed to link its fight with the interests of the working class
(proletarians) while maintaining its strong support for the Zulu monarchy, and
many other aristocrats within these areas. Their manifesto seeks to create a
parliamentary democracy which will have monarchs from across the ethnicities of
South Africa as overlords. This is no different to the arrangement in the UK,
Lesotho, and many other constitutional monarchies across the world. What MKP
aspires to achieve is a socialism which is directed and controlled by the
aristocrats for the benefit of the aristocrats, while creating an impression
that it has the interests of the oppressed classes in South Africa (Proletarians
and Peasants).
The
MKP seeks to restore the relations of the past while adapting them to the
modern era of where democracies are found everywhere and anywhere. These
relations as Marx and Engels allude in the Communist Manifesto have been
antiquated by time and will never return to their prime state as espoused by
this Feudal-Socialist tendency. The march of history has moved so far ahead
that many South Africans across different sections of the country including in
areas dominated by aristocrats ask themselves the question, 'Are monarchies
still relevant within the democratic framework?', while some ask whether
democracy is a viable tool to actualise development. This dialectical reality
of aristocratic leadership living side-by-side with a liberal bourgeois
democratic system will eventually lead to the negation of one or the other, and
it is most likely going to be the aristocracy that will die out should the
relationship become antagonistic. However, our history has proven time and time
again that the bourgeoisie has always had a way to capture the aristocracy and
use it for its benefit. As we speak, MKP operates within a system where
aristocrats are subordinates to the bourgeoisie. The MKP seeks to overturn that
while pretending to care for the proletarians and the peasants.
Can
MKP be an ally of the EFF?
Besides
the historical ties of the leaders of both parties (Most of them come from the
structures of the ANC, an ideological broad-church) which has somewhat
tactically blindsided the EFF, the difference is fundamental. We must remember
that Lenin teaches us that nationalisation as a concept is not necessarily
socialist. The modern example of this is the fact that most central banks are
fully owned by the State, but you will find that most of these States are
capitalist states. These national instruments owned by the state exert
capitalist policy and capitalist pressure. Lenin in one of his many texts and
articles which I cannot pinpoint now makes an example of how the
nationalisation of land enables capital to freely and rapidly develop with
little hinderance. An example of this is the island of Singapore. The land in
Singapore is owned by the State, but the relations of production are capitalist.
Therefore, just because a certain party is chanting the slogan of
nationalisation it does not mean that they seek to nationalise for the benefit
of the majority, but it could be for the benefit of the ruling class. As we can
already see, the SOEs in South Africa while providing services to the public,
are controlled by private players. Thus, the SOEs don't necessarily benefit the
people but the capitalists.
In
MKP's articulations, there has been no indication that MKP seeks to nationalise
for the benefit of the motive forces of the revolution (workers and peasants),
but it rather leaves it to the prospective voter to decide what it means to
them. This is no different to the founder of MKP, Jacob Zuma declaring Free
Education, while not announcing modalities of such, and leaving large swathes
of students outside of the system of NSFAS. The MKP has provided vague answers
to the questions posed by the masses of our people, thus leaving us
revolutionary Marxists with a simple question, can MKP be an ally of the EFF?
The question can be summarily answered as follows, no! MKP's fundamental
political outlook on the socio-political and socio-economic direction cannot be
married with the outrightly Marxist character of the EFF. The differences are
irreconcilable, and class based. The MKP represents the disgruntled upstart
capitalist, petty bourgeois, and aristocratic faction which has made it their
duty to weaken the EFF by poaching prominent EFF leaders by either dangling the
proverbial carrot or promising them power that they crave. Not only can we cite
the poaching while claiming to be part of the Progressive Caucus, and being a
signatory of the Progressive Charter, but their stance on the land question
leaves much to be desired.
The
MKP is clearly at odds with the EFF, and these differences are finally
simmering to the fore. The gaslighting on social media by MKP to the reactions
of Fighters to the departure of Cde. Floyd Shivambu is typical of how the
political principal of the MKP operates; he strikes you while smiling at you
and with you! Furthermore, the MKP represents a coalition of corruption accused
who have a case to answer in some respects while it harbours Zuma loyalists who
benefitted politically and materially during the tenure of Jacob Zuma as
President of the ANC and South Africa. This to many revolutionaries is not
something we must openly embrace or turn a blind eye to. We must see it for
what it is, an attack on the EFF that led the campaign to remove their beloved
leader and dislocate their patronage network! The Party has to ensure that the
road to the 3rd National People's Assembly is not filled with potholes created
by internal saboteurs whose loyalties lie with MKP, but it must ensure that internally there is
open criticism of these tendencies, and facilitating an environment where there
will be BPAs (Branch People's Assemblies), BGAs (Branch General Assemblies),
RGAs (Regional General Assemblies), and PGAs (Provincial General Assemblies)
that will address this question leading up to the National People's Assembly.
We
must objectively analyse the space so that we can locate our true allies and
continue to foster strong relations with them while maintaining our identity as
a truly Marxist-Leninist-Fanonian Party which seeks to achieve Socialism in our
lifetime. Lenin once said,
"Unity
is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the
unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of
Marxism."
It
is very important for us to choose our allies wisely. We must not ally with
those that who distort or oppose Marxism, but with those that share our ideas,
and agree with the basic tenets of Marxism, while forming a united front with
those who share the progressive vision of negating the ruling class and
neoliberalism, not those who poach our members in the cover of the dark night!
