[What
is Anarchism]
[WSM]
[Publications]
[Discussion
lists]
[Getting
Active]
[Ireland]
[Spanish
revolution]
[Women]
[Anti-Racism]
[Capitalism]
[Sexual
liberation]
[About
these pages]
Anarchism & the 'new' South Africa
An interview with the South African WSF
Q. Most readers of Red and Black Revolution will be familiar with
the main organisations on the left in South Africa, such as the ANC
and the South African Communist Party (SACP). Can you tell us
something about the tradition of libertarian ideas and struggle?
A. Anarchism and Syndicalism do (or at least did) have an
important place in South African history, although this is typically
hidden or obscured by official and "radical" versions of the past.
Before the founding of the SACP in 1921, libertarian ideas were
common on the revolutionary left. A section of the US syndicalist
union, the Industrial Workers of the World, was established here in
1911, growing out of an organisation called the Industrial Workers
Union . The Industrial Workers Union, in turn, was set up by the
conservative craft-dominated (and, one must add, racist)
Witwatersrand Trades and Labour Council (WTLC) at the behest of Tom
Mann, the British revolutionary, who visited South Africa in 1910.
The IWW (SA) was aligned to the Chicago (anti-parliamentary section)
of the IWW (US), and the Voice of Labour - a radical local paper with
which it was closely associated - carried articles by American
anarchist-syndicalists like Vincent St. John. The IWW (SA) mainly
organised amongst unskilled poor Whites (and also among groups like
the bookmakers). They launched several strikes but collapsed in or
about 1913. Some syndicalists were also active within the WTLC,
although it must be stressed that they opposed that organisation's
racist politics - for example, they organised amongst Black miners as
well as White.
With the outbreak of the First World War, a number of
revolutionary socialists, including anarchists and syndicalists, came
together to form the International Socialist League, a body which
opposed the pro-war stance of the Second International (represented
in SA by the racist Labour Party). Although the International
Socialist League (ISL) is typically seen as a Marxist party, and as
the forerunner of the SACP, its internal politics were far more
complex. For example, the ISL's paper carried advertisements for
Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread and other non-Marxist socialist
writings, yet none for works by Marx or Engels. The dominant position
in the ISL seems to have been "DeLeonite", that is syndicalism which
supports both revolutionary trade unionism and participation in
parliament. This sort of chameleon-like ideology probably provided a
basis for unity amongst the ISL's diverse membership, which included
a vociferous anarchist-ayndicalist grouping which opposed all
involvement in capitalist elections. Between 1917-8, the DeLeonites
and anarchist-syndicalists took the initiative in organising the
Industrial Workers of Africa (initially called the IWW) which was the
first Black trade union in South African history.
The remnants of the Industrial Workers of Africa played an
important role in the Black worker struggles of 1919-20. In about
1918 or 1919, the anarchist -syndicalists left the ISL and set up the
Industrial Socialist League, which was mainly based near Cape Town.
The Industrial Socialist League seems to have had some success
organising amongst non-White workers in this area, and it maintained
an office in the ghettoes of the Cape Flats. In Durban, syndicalists
were involved in a successful attempt to organise workers of Asian
descent. Ironically, despite its libertarian politics, the Industrial
Socialist League renamed itself the Communist Party of South Africa
in 1920 and applied for affiliation to the Third International, as
did the ISL. However, the Industrial Socialist League failed to
accept the Third International's conditions for membership which
included a willingness to engage in electoral activity and work
within reformist unions. The Industrial Socialist League eventually
merged (a few militants excepted) with the ISL to form the official
SACP.
Once the SACP got established in 1921, Marxist ideas came to
predominate on the revolutionary left, although echoes of the older
libertarian movement could still be found. For example, the 1925
constitution of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (a
massive Black trade union that dominated the political scene in the
1920s and which incorporated the remnants of the Industrial Workers
of Africa) adopted the famous IWW preamble that a struggle must go on
between the working class and the employing class until the workers
seize the means of production through their industrial organisations.
This is not to say that the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union
was anarcho-syndicalist, it was not. The Union was dominated by a
clique who used it as a platform for their nationalist politics and
capitalist aspirations (and activities) and who expelled all
Communist Party members in 1926 (after a campaign of
'white-baiting'). As far as we know, it was only in the 1990s that
anarchist and syndicalist ideas re-emerged in an explicit and
organised form in South Africa.
Q. So let's talk about the 1990s. What was your
attitude to the elections in 1994? Did you see them as a landmark in
South African history?
A. Definitely. It was Bakunin who said, "It is true that
the most imperfect republic is a thousand times better than the most
enlightened monarchy, for at least in the republic there are moments
when, though always exploited, the people are not oppressed, while in
monarchies they are never anything else". Bakunin's statements are as
relevant to the South African today as they were over a hundred years
ago when he wrote them. Under apartheid the black working class and
poor were always oppressed. Since the April 1994 elections, we are
able to experience moments of limited freedoms. While we consider the
current government to be an improvement on the racist apartheid
regime, as anarchists we also realise that as long as we are ruled by
governments and capitalists, the working class and the poor will
never be free; they will remain enslaved. Bakunin went on to say,
"But whilst giving preference to the republic we are nevertheless
forced to recognise and proclaim that, whatever the form of
government, whilst human society remains divided into different
classes because of the hereditary inequality of occupations, wealth,
education and privileges, there will always be minority government
and the inevitable exploitation of the majority by that minority."
That is the situation in South Africa today.
Q. The official result of the election was a
resounding win for the ANC - they obtained 63% of the vote. There
must have been high hopes at the time?
A. Yes. The high voter turnout (estimates say that 96% of
people voted!) indicated a great degree of confidence in the vote to
bring about change in South Africa. When the election results were
announced, massive parties were held to celebrate the political
changes. Perhaps of more significance, the move towards a democracy
greatly increased the confidence of the black working class. In the
month following the election, South Africa was rocked by a strike
wave which effected just about every section of the economy from
mining to communications, transport, clothing, food, commercial, and
the public sector. In most of these strikes workers clearly displayed
that were unwilling to accept racist practices on the shop-floor such
as wage inequalities and racist supervisors.
Q. How did the Goverment respond to such optimism
and direct action?
A. Well, to take the Pick n' Pay strike as just one
example. The police shot at striking workers, let their dogs loose
into the crowd, and heartily beat workers without any provocation.
There were also reports that the police tortured some of the women
workers. The police attacks on workers were backed up by court
injunctions against the union. And then there were mass arrests on
charges of trespassing!
Q. An argument is often made - at least over here,
anyway - that the ANC has had its hands tied in terms of opting for
any real 'radical solutions' to the problems of South Africa. For
instance, it is said that the ANC has no option but to obey the
'financial markets' and that if it doesn't there will a run on the
South African Rand and so forth. What's your response to this?
A. The problem with this kind of argument is that it
suggests that the ANC has some sort of radical programme of
redistribution which has had to go on the back-burner because of this
or that constraint. But the ANC cannot claim that 'the economy made
them do it'. The ANC was not, and is not, anti-capitalist or
anti-business. In fact they are ardent free marketeers. As Thabo
Mbkei 'joked' at the launch of a recent macro-economic plan : "call
me a Thatcherite" !! Another example of this is that the ANC
government is implementing GATT policies faster than the GATT
actually requires the South African government to do so.
Q. Yet Nelson Mandela was talking about
'transforming' South Africa if he won the election. Clearly he had
something else in mind - maybe it was electricity transformers!
A. It is necessary to consider to what extent the ANC
planned to redistribute wealth in the first place. The ANC
historically called for some welfare measures, but never claimed to
be anti-capitalist. At its most "radical", the ANC was in favour of
nothing more than a mixed economy. In the 1950s, Mandela countered
claims by anti-communists in the ANC that the Freedom Charter was a
"socialist document" alien to African nationalism by stating that
while "the Charter proclaims democratic changes of a far-reaching
nature it [was].... a programme for the unification of various
classes and groupings amongst the people on a democratic basis", and
that the dispossession of the "mining kings" and "land barons" would
open up "fresh fields for the development of a prosperous
non-European bourgeois class" who will for the "first time.... have
the opportunity to own in their own name and right mines and
factories, and trade and private enterprise will boom and flourish as
never before."
Q. What was your attitude to the ANC during the
anti-apartheid years?
A. While the ANC was still a fighting mass movement, we
defended it as a progressive force but we never had illusions in it -
we see the need to build an independent political alternative to the
ANC tradition. It is important to note that the hard-line
anti-communists in the ANC later went on to form the Pan-Africanist
Congress, often seen as the militant wing of the anti-apartheid
movement!
With reference to the ANC's lack of delivery in terms of the
provision of housing, land and job creation, the ANC does argue that
it is constrained by the massive legacy of apartheid and economic
conditions. It also continually stresses that global economic
competitiveness, foreign investment, and economic growth, are
important pre-conditions for being able to address inequality and
poverty, and raise the standard of living of the poor and working
class.
However it needs to be noted that since the start of the 1990s,
the ANC has shifted from a welfarist mixed economy position to an
increasingly blatant free-market or neo-liberal position. Its main
idea is that if we all participate in making the economy grow, by,
for example, accepting low wages and unsafe working conditions, the
bosses will get richer, and a few crumbs will eventually fall to the
poor and the working class. On several occasions Mandela himself has
told workers to "tighten their belts" in order to facilitate economic
growth. Therefore the ANC-led government blames limited economic
growth, the country's inability to compete globally and low worker
productivity for their failure to deliver.
Q. So lots of promises before the elections but
little of any substance afterwards? It sounds familiar.
A. There has definitely been a lot of disappointment on the
ground. The RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme) is a bit
of a joke, and the politicians have gone to pains to stave off
criticisms that nothing has happened. They point to a few projects
here and there where there has been electrification or the like.
Unfortunately, disappointment does not always translate into
anger. Instead, there is a definite tendency towards demoralisation
and political apathy on the part of the working-class. Struggles do
continue to break out - that is inherent in a racist-capitalist
system - but these are often fragmented, and also often trapped
within the symbols and traditions of mainstream organisations like
the ANC. This reflects the absence of a clear ideological
alternative.
Q. How have the South African Communist Party
reacted to the ANC's imposition of austerity measures and to the lack
of wealth re-distribution?
A. The SACP remains a very loyal partner to the ANC. In
fact they have argued that they are the left wing of the ANC and
boasted at their 75th anniversary that their policies are the same as
those of the ANC "only five degrees to the left"! But in practice the
SACP has accepted a two stage theory of socialism since the 1920s.
They consider the ANC government to be in the process of the
so-called "National Democratic Revolution" which is seen as a
necessary step towards socialism. As a result the SACP does not
really offer any fundamental criticism or alternative to the ANC.
SACP members on the whole are fairly demobilised and direction-less
at present; when they are active, it's basically to support ANC
reforms which are seen as inherently progressive and as laying the
basis for more radical change later.
As for socialism itself? The SACP lacks any clear vision of a
non-capitalist society right now. Its latest policy documents claim
that there will be no rupture between capitalism and socialism - one
will just sort of slide into the other through the "deepening of
democratic reforms". Clearly, the SACP has moved from a Stalinist
position to social democracy (although of course it denies it!).
Q. It would seem from what you are saying that the
position of the large majority will probably worsen in the coming
years. Even relatively minor reform appears to have stalled.
A. We have no illusions that capitalism is going to help
the workers and the poor out - that must be emphasised. Capitalism,
in its racist apartheid form, was the main cause of the conditions
that the majority of the population live in. Capitalism in South
Africa was built on the genocide, enslavement and super-exploitation
of the Asian and African people of this country. It is impossible to
deal with the massive inequalities within South Africa through the
market, that is, without radically transforming society. It is only
with an economy geared towards people's needs, rather than profit,
that we will be able to solve poverty, the housing shortage, and the
supply of essential services, etc. Capitalism and the State are the
main cause of racism, and they always create new forms of racism: for
example, there are current attempts to whip up a tide of xenophobia
against immigrants from other African countries. Clearly, the
solution to this situation is a revolutionary class struggle by the
Black working-class and that minority of white workers who adopt
progressive positions against the ruling-class, which now of course
includes the emerging Black bourgeoisie. That is why we raise the
slogan, "Black Liberation Through Class War".
Q. As a matter of interest how large are class
differences within the various colour groups?
A. Class divisions are immense within each race: the
richest 20% of African households increased their real incomes by
over 40% between 1975 and 1991, whilst the incomes of the poorest 40%
of African households decreased by nearly 40% over the same period
(These figures come from the Mail and Guardian). A similar decrease
in incomes was reported for the poorest 40% of Whites. According to
another estimate, the wealthiest 10% of African households have
incomes over 60 times those of the poorest 10%, compared to ratios of
roughly 30 times amongst Whites, Coloureds and Indians (SA Institute
of Race Relations 1996). The idea that all Black people share the
same interests and conditions is a myth peddled by the nationalist
leaders and the bourgeois press.
Q. What about Cyril Ramaphosa, the former head of
the mineworkers union and COSATU? He's in business now, isn't he? How
has news of this been received in the townships? It must make for a
lot of cynicism!?
A. No, there hasn't been much cynicism concerning Cyril
Ramaphosa's move into business. Ramaphosa has justified his move into
the business sector as a step towards "black empowerment". The notion
of "black empowerment" is generally accepted as a means to overcome
the apartheid legacy and is broad enough to incorporate a number of
different interpretations. The illusions in "our own" bourgeoisie
operating in the best interests of the masses are fostered by
nationalist politics which claim that race, rather than class is the
key division in society. His move into business (heavily sponsored by
White capital, it should be said) has not been problematic. Like the
rest of the rapidly emerging Black bourgeoisie, Ramaphosa claims that
his own enrichment is part of Black liberation, and that it will
benefit Black working and poor people.
This is nonsense, of course. Capital accumulation can only benefit
the few at the expense of the many who produce the wealth in the
first place. The WSF is against "black empowerment" which is reserved
for black people in the middle and upper classes. This kind of
"empowerment" is built on the exploitation of the majority of the
Black population - the working-class. "Black empowerment" should mean
an improvement in the lives of the majority of black people - that is
the poor and the workers. And "black empowerment" for the
working-class can only come about through the abolition of capitalism
and the State and the establishment of libertarian communism/
Anarchism.
Q. Just to conclude on this particular area. How
has the largely White business sector taken to the changes since
1994? I'm talking about the big mine-owners here - the Oppenheimers
and so on.
A. The White-dominated business sector love the ANC and
Mandela. There was and is a ridiculous illusion amongst parts of the
left that capital favoured the historically white political parties
and feared the ANC. This is nonsense. The ANC is the party of capital
in the very real sense that , firstly, its policies promote business
interests and, secondly, a substantial number of ANC leaders (like
Ramaphosa and Winnie Mandela) are busying themselves accumulating
capital.
Q. Before we go on, you mentioned the land question
earlier. Can you tell us a little about this?
A. The land question is a key one. Since 1652, the colonial
and apartheid governments have dispossessed the indigenous people of
the land in favour of rich White farmers. The bulk of the land, at
present, is owned by about 120,000 White farmers. At the same time,
68% of the rural population (mainly African and Coloured
working-class people) live in extreme poverty. Conditions on the
farms for the working-class and for other exploited categories such
as labour tenants, sharecroppers and the remnants of the peasantry
are abysmal. Labour control is extremely violent and unions rare - in
fact, unionisation was illegal in the agricultural sector before
1995!
Unemployment in rural areas is also very high, and getting worse
as machines are used to replace workers. In the old homelands - now
integrated into the rest of the country - land is controlled by
chiefs - so-called "traditional authorities" - who use this power to
extract labour and taxes from working and poor people. They use their
connections with the government to enrich themselves and enforce
their rule. Women are denied access to land on the grounds of
so-called tradition. And heavy use of chemicals on the "White" farms,
and land shortages in the reserves, have led to massive environmental
degradation.
Despite these terrible conditions, the ANC's land reform policy
promises to deliver very little. It is totally inadequate. The land
reform policy has three main elements. The first is the establishment
of a Land Claims Court to allow people dispossessed by racist laws or
"corrupt practices" after 1913 to try to claim their land back. The
problem with this plan is that about 90% of the land had already been
stolen by this point! Also, many people dispossessed after 1913 are
scattered across the country and lack documents to prove their
claims. Even worse, the government has promised to buy-out the
farmers who lose out in the Land Claims Court.
The second element of the reform programme , ironically called
"land redistribution", is based on the so-called
"willing-buyer-willing-seller" approach. This means land must be
bought on the market when it is available. The State will provide
households with a R15,000 subsidy to help buy land. This figure is
ludicrously low and will mean that only the emerging Black
bourgeoisie will be able to obtain land. In addition, the subsidy is
likely to be targeted towards wealthy black farmers and peasants as
they are generally regarded by the decision makers as more skilled
etc. And land sold on the market will in any case tend to be low
quality.
The third, and last, aspect of the land reform programme is
"tenure reform". Basically, what this means is that labour tenants
and traditional communities will have more secure rights to stay on
the land. While more protection for tenants against the constant
threat of evictions is clearly a good thing, this kind of reform does
nothing to deal with the basic problems of land redistribution,
poverty and women's oppression.
The WSF believes the land reform policy will deliver almost
nothing to the working-class, although it is quite in line with the
interests of White farmers, chiefs, and Black capitalists. We need
mass organising on the land to fight for better living and working
conditions, and to secure land redistribution.
Q. The youth and school students were very militant
over the years in the fight against apartheid. How have they dealt
with the lack of real change, and with the disappointments of the
last three years?
A. Ever since the 1976 Soweto uprising, school students
were most certainly a very militant section of the broader
working-class and its struggle against apartheid. Unfortunately, the
high school student movement has experienced a deep crisis since the
elections, and high school organisations, such as the Congress of
South African Students (COSAS) and the ANC Youth League, are very
weak and direction-less today. For example, there are hardly any
strongly organised ANCYL branches operating in Soweto today. The
student and youth movements are not therefore in a position to
adequately respond to the lack of changes. There are some cases of
mobilisation and struggle, for example around issues of racist
schooling admissions (when joint actions have been organised with
teachers' unions), but compared to previous periods, the overall
level of action is minimal.
An important exception to these trends has been the student
movement in universities and technical colleges. They have remained
very militant and students have consistently fought for the
transformation of tertiary education. Black students, who are
committed to democratic and equal education for all, have not
hesitated to take up mass action against the authoritarian university
and technical administrations. In the last year, we have again seen
students from all over the country take up the battle against on
going racism on campus, financial exclusions, and increasing fees.
This sort of activity took a very advanced form at the University of
Durban Westville (UDW) where students joined with workers and staff
in protest against unfair dismissals. The highest point of the UDW
struggle was when workers and students successfully expelled the
university management and ran the university for 48 hours.
While the ANC claims to recognise that tertiary education needs to
be transformed, they have condemned these student protests. Despite
this, the South African Student Congress (SASCO), the spearhead of
the militant and progressive student struggle, remains very loyal to
the ANC. As a result, there are indications that the SASCO leadership
is becoming more reformist and that it has accepted the ANC's reasons
for the lack of change within tertiary institutions. For instance,
the SASCO leadership have accepted the Education Department's
argument that the government will not be able to provide free
tertiary education because there are not enough resources.
The WSF believe that as long as SASCO remains tied to the ANC
these reformist tendencies within SASCO will continue to grow. We
favour the formation of a broad Black- centred student union by
progressive student organisations in place of student structures
which function as party wings on campuses.
Q. On May Day last year there was a general strike
against the ANC government's attempts to introduce some laws that
would have curbed trade union power. What has been the outcome of
this confrontation?
A. A 24 hour general strike was held on the 30th April (May
Day is a public holiday) in protest over the attempt to include the
bosses' "right" to lock-out and because of a clause protecting
private property in the new constitution. The lock-out is a strategy
that bosses use to undermine workers' power by locking striking
workers out of the factory/ plant/ shop and hiring scabs. While the
right to strike is included in the constitution, workers felt that it
was unfair if the lock-out was also included. The "right" to
lock-out, further extends bosses' power by directly undermining
strikes.
In the case of the property clause, workers felt that as long as
private property was protected under the constitution, land
re-distribution would be undermined as land would have to be bought
on the market or the owners compensated at a market price. It has
been estimated that up to 90% of workers in some areas participated
in the strike, which demonstrates organised workers' continued
willingness to take up the fight against both the bosses and the
State (itself a large employer). While workers won their main demand
for the lock-out clause to be dropped from the constitution, they
lost their demand for the private property clause to be dropped.
Q. What are your impressions of rank and file
militancy in South Africa at present? Much of the COSATU leadership
are tied to the ANC - I realise that - but what is the grass-roots
organisation like?
A. The unions and union federations, especially COSATU,
continue to be one of the most powerful forces, apart from the State
and capital, within South Africa. This is despite a concerted media
campaign portraying organised workers as 'an elite'.
Just to give some background: There is a high level of
unionisation - about 60% of the workforce (outside agriculture) are
unionised. There are five main union federations in South Africa, the
most important of which are the ANC aligned Congress of South African
Trade Unions (COSATU); the National Council of Trade Unions (NACTU)
which is loosely linked to Africanism/ Black consciousness, and the
Federation of South African Labour (FEDSAL), which is mostly white
and organises white collar workers. Outside of these you find centres
like the South African Confederation of Labour (SACOL), which is the
rump of the old racist White-only trade union movement , and the
United Workers Union of South Africa, the industrial wing of the
reactionary tribalist Inkatha Freedom Party. However, SACOL and
UWUSA, with about 50,000 members each are dwarfed by the larger
federations: NACTU has about 350,000 members, FEDSAL about 300,000
and COSATU has a massive 1.6 million members. In addition, COSATU is
typically much better organised than the other centres, and its
affiliates have reasonably strong shop-steward structures.
It is true that COSATU leaders are tied to the ANC . However,
these leaders do not necessarily toe the ANC's neo-liberal line and
have adopted a more social democratic approach. COSATU leaders have
also been critical of some of the ANC 's policies and have called for
mass action against the policies that they disagree with. There are,
however, indications that COSATU is becoming more bureaucratic and
the leaders more reformist. One example of this, last year, was when
COSATU backed down on its threat to call a general strike against
privatisation when the government made some vague promise to consult
the trade unions in its "restructuring" of public assets. Needless to
say, privatisation has gone ahead anyway. This sort of compromise
reflects partly the innate conservatism of paid union officials as a
distinct stratum. It also reflects the dominant politics within the
unions - COSATU favours a corporatist strategy, a social contract in
which it will work alongside the bosses and the State to reconstruct
the economy.
Q. Sounds awful but very familiar.
A. It is a recipe for disaster, as it will not only
drastically increase bureaucratisation in the unions, but it will
also tie them into restructuring the capitalist economy (something
which can only be done at the expense of ordinary workers). This will
further demobilise and demoralise rank-and-file union members. We
believe that the unions must remain autonomous of all corporatist and
tripartite arrangements. A large section of rank and file workers
remain loyal to the ANC. However, this has not necessarily dampened
their militancy. Workers have consistently showed a willingness to
fight the bosses and the state, even when their unions do not support
their strikes. There are also various socialist currents operating in
the unions, although it must be admitted that the SACP commands
incredible influence and is playing a leading role in tying workers
to the ANC and to the union leadership's corporatist agenda.
Q. In a general sense anarchists are split on the
issue of involvement in a union such as COSATU. What position does
the WSF take?
A. As we see it the trade union question is a key one for
revolutionaries, and it is often dealt with in a very problematic way
by libertarian revolutionaries. Many anarchists take a wholly
dismissive attitude to the existing unions, and propose that we build
brand new revolutionary unions. This is based on the idea that the
unions are irredeemably reformist and bureaucratic.
What this argument misses is the class nature of the trade unions.
The unions were built to defend and advance the class interests of
the workers and the poor. Even the most bureaucratic and reformist
union must defend its members' interests or it will collapse. The
unions have massive potential power because they can disrupt
production, the source of the bosses' wealth. They promote class
consciousness, solidarity, and confidence because they organise
people to fight as working and poor people against the bosses and
rulers. It is incorrect to say that the unions 'serve' the bosses or
capitalism. Even the most 'progressive' boss will oppose the unions
because they are a challenge to his exploitation of workers. Even the
most reformist union cannot be totally 'incorporated' into capitalism
because capitalism cannot satisfy the needs of workers.
This is not say that the unions as they exist now are perfect -
far from it. To a greater or a lesser degree, most have a strong
bureaucracy of paid officials and leaders. This group is better paid
than ordinary workers and has many privileges. Because of these
conditions they develop different interests to ordinary union
members. Ordinary workers need to take action to improve their
conditions, but bureaucrats want the unions to avoid struggles and
spend their time negotiating with the bosses. We oppose the union
bureaucracy because it undermines union struggle and because it is a
threat to union democracy.
But the existence of a bureaucracy is not inevitable. The Spanish
CNT had a million and a half members but only two elected full-time
officials. The argument that the unions cannot be changed makes the
false and very dangerous assumption that the trade union bureaucracy
is invincible, when it is not. This anti-union view in fact begs the
question of how we are ever going to beat the bosses if we supposedly
cannot even defeat conservative officials within our own class
organisations. Practically all unions today are also dominated by
backward reformist ideas, such as the notion that capitalism and the
State can be changed to look after the needs of the workers and poor.
We reject these ideas. As we see it there are two issues: union
bureaucracy and reformism.
We must do two things if we want the unions to play a
revolutionary role. First, get rid of the union bureaucracy and make
sure that the unions are controlled by the membership. Second, win
the union membership over to anarchist-syndicalist ideas. As we see
it we must work within existing unions to achieve these goals.
Leaving the mainstream unions to form new "pure" revolutionary unions
has serious consequences. It withdraws militants from the unions,
leaving them at the mercy of bureaucrats and reformists. It isolates
militants in tiny splinter unions because the masses prefer to join
large, established unions. Small groups of revolutionaries working
inside established unions can achieve impressive results. For
example, the main French (CGT) and Argentinean (FORA) union
federations were won over to anarchist-syndicalism in this way in the
early twentieth century. We think in terms of two strategies to reach
our goals in the unions:
(1) work alongside other militants of various political stripes to
build a rank-and-file movement in the unions that fight the union
bureaucracy as much as the bosses, and
(2) build anarchist affinity groups in the unions which aim to win
the battle of ideas, and which are part of an anarchist political
organisation with theoretical and tactical unity.
Q. Anarchists stress direct action and not
parliamentary activity as the key way forward. This must have a lot
of resonance in a country where so much was gained by direct
struggle? The defeat of Apartheid was one of the great victories of
recent times.
A. Definitely. For centuries the Black working-class has
only had mass struggle as a way to win anything from the ruling
class. And it has won victories. This tradition, and the confidence
generated by many small gains, means that people have a high level of
faith in mobilisation as a tactic. Of course, this doesn't mean that
there aren't illusions in parliament and the like, but it does mean
people are willing to go onto the street to secure their demands.
This is seen as a major problem by the new managers of the State -
for example, the new Labour Relations Act places a heavy emphasis on
promoting mediation and penalising 'un-procedural' strikes, whilst
consistent attempts are made to either repress or co-opt militant
struggles elsewhere (such as in the universities).
Q. How do you feel about the current situation? Are
you hopeful?
A. Yes we are hopeful for the future and we believe that
Anarchism has great potential to grow within South Africa, and Africa
in general. The WSF, as you know, emerged out of the Anarchist
Revolutionary Movement in the early part of 1995. We consider
ourselves to be anarchist-syndicalists and are committed to the
tradition of class struggle anarchism. We strongly believe that the
workers and the poor should lead the revolutionary overthrow of
capitalism and the state through democratic means. In place of the
grotesque capitalist system and government, which thrive on
exploitation and oppression, we wish to see the implementation of an
anarchist society.
Q. What assistance can anarchists and socialists
outside Africa give you?
A. In our first year of existence we concentrated on
internal education and drawing up our position papers. This year we
have made substantial progress and have learnt a lot about the
practicalities of organising and recruiting members. We would greatly
appreciate the assistance and the support of other anarchist and
socialist organisations. In particular, there are very few anarchist
materials and resources available within South Africa such as books
and magazines and due to the exchange rate (for example, one Irish
pound costs about R7.80 in our currency) it is very difficult for our
organisation to buy or import anarchist material from overseas. We
would like to make a special appeal for donations in the form of
anarchist books, pamphlets, tapes and videos. Financial donations
would also be welcome. We are setting up a resource centre and would
appreciate all possible help.
The WSF are also
on the web and have put several of their publications on their
web page
