> >not on a net basis for society
> well yes, on a net basis for society - an increase is an increase
No, not if you have conservation elsewhere.
> >if we can combine it with a
> >shutdown of the horrid energy-guzzling smelters
> oh, wait, do you mean that to support the one demand you must support
> the other.
Sure.
> That seems nonsensical to me. If there is a case for closing
> down SA's industry
Huh? I'm talking about the future decommissioning of a tiny fraction
of the industrial employment base (maybe 5,000 jobs all told) so as
to save half the electricity (so as to make more available for
other industry and for
> then you should make it. (But in the round it seems
> foolish to me to be arguing simultaneously for increased consumption and
> reduced production).
Increased production of other goods, and stimulation of other
economic activities, would logically follow a redistribution of
electricity from the powerful Minerals-Energy Complex. For an
analysis of what's wrong with the MEC, check out this
exceptionally good book: Fine, B. and Z.Rustomjee (1996), "The
Political Economy of South Africa: From Minerals-Energy Complex to
Industrialisation," London, Hurst and Jo'burg, Wits Press.
> Tough on those 'almost not' employed, but the London stock exchange's
> expropriation of profits seems to be a question to be addressed
> separately.
Why separately? Our arguments for social, environmental and economic
justice stand more strongly in unity.
> >A3) And no, not if redistribution is the main objective,
> Whoa ... where did that come from?
In this short-termist exercise of posing feasible reforms -- as
argued below, of an intrinsically non-reformist character -- within
capitalism (given the balance of forces), with SA as the world's most
unequal country, yes, this is what comrades are doing and saying, and
so we in the petit-bourgeois radical intelligentsia should be with
them, no?
> Is this a revival of the 'labour
> fund' theory?
No.
> I didn't realise that you had abandoned Marx for JS Mill.
Didn't.
> Since when was redistribution the goal? Redistribution of the existing
> consumption fund was always the reformist solution
Ok, now we get into that tiresome debate about reformist or
non-reformist reforms. We've had the same thing this week on our
e-debate list. Here's my ditty:
From: "Patrick Bond" <pbond at wn.apc.org> Date sent: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:56:37 +0000 Subject: Re: DEBATE: Re: electricity (was zimbabwe) Copies to: debate at sunsite.wits.ac.za
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:53:47 +0200
> What I'm arguing against is a *focus* on the 'pushing the
> contradictions' within governing policy (understood in a broad sense
> - including the unions, the government, the ruling parties, etc).
I think you're getting at this:
A) What are good "non-reformist reforms"? B) Is the SECC promoting them by trying to decommodify electricity?
A) Demands made by mass-based democratic organisations to government (who else?) which are
* reasonable (i.e., based on conceptions of "rights"--for women, workers, communities, the landless, youth, disabled people, the environment, etc--that can be won in the sphere of public debate),
* administratively feasible (so they're not just unachievable promises);
* logistically possible (i.e., so that we don't run out of land or building materials or whatever);
* financially affordable...
and, most importantly,
* politically *untenable* because to meet them would change the balance of class forces so decisively that we'd need a revolution in power and social relations to bring them to fruition.
> To do this is
> to keep operating from the point-of-view of capital - an
> alienated point of view.
No, these non-reformist reforms would logically challenge capital in its heartland: control of production and of the reproduction of labour power.
> From this point of view, the state,
> corporations, etc. are active forces, confronting the mostly
> passive 'citizens'.
Obviously, it has to be the reverse. Thanks to Trevor, Virginia, Bongani, Dudu, etc etc, SECC has this part of the formula right. Likewise, reflecting the bottom-up character of the citizens' electricity revolt, a couple of comrades from the Vaal were reportedly killed yesterday by the equivalent of Eskom's red ants, trying to halt disconnections. (Anna, can you upload that story which I hear was in the Star today?)
> In the concrete context of the notes you took, you note the
> contradictions within Eskom's policy, and the possibility of reform.
> Yet you end off by framing that possibility within the context of
> various policy statements, which basically amounts to a call on
> government/etc to honour its promises.
Sure, that makes tactical sense, doesn't it?
> So you're back to square
> one - unless you can find / create some 'progressive' current within
> government to make good on these promises.
Have given up on that, I assure you! Especially in relation to the electricity and water sectors. The real issue is whether SECC and other mass organisations cause the rulers enough hassle, that they get what they want in the short-term... at which point the struggle becomes one over the non-reformist reforms that will push the contradictions to the point of rupture. I would *guess* that such a trajectory is what the SECC leadership have in mind, or at the very least, in their gut.
> Somehow I think that the route of supporting / joining with on the
> one hand the resistance (anti-eviction, anti-forced removal, etc)
> and on the other hand the activity (self-reconnection of services,
> land invasions) of the poors / working class / multitude (whatever
> you want to call the majority of people today) in as a creative a
> way possible seems to be a more promising direction.
Isn't posing demands in the form of non-reformist-reforms "creative"? Some would call this the Transitional Programme, I think.
> (Actually,
> this sounds far too theoretical, too intellectual and
> leftist, but anyway - email seems to suck the passion out of things)
No, you're doing fine. These are exactly the questions that need to be asked. Back to you now...
> ==========
>
> To remove your email address from the debate
> mailing list, send the following two-line email message
> (no subject) to majordomo at sunsite.wits.ac.za :
>
> unsubscribe debate
> end
>
> To add your email address to the debate
> mailing list, send the following two-line email message
> (no subject) to majordomo at sunsite.wits.ac.za :
>
> subscribe debate
> end
>
> To get a list of all listservs under
> majordomo at sunsite.wits.ac.za and a majordomo help file,
> send the following three-line email message
> (no subject) to majordomo at sunsite.wits.ac.za :
>
> lists
> help
> end
>
> ==========
>
>
>