Can we trust MKP? By Lindokuhle Mponco

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!