In this case my friend Franco Barchiesi -- a sardonic cynic whose insights we often appreciate enormously -- is way off the mark. We have a "debate" email listserve where all sorts of left opinions are welcomed, but just because I posted this from the SA indymedia site (http://southafrica.indymedia.org), doesn't mean I'd unite with any of Franco's main points. (To join e-debate, send me a note and I'll give instructions.)
Don't forget, this march was banned until late last week, and stun grenades were tossed by cops into the previous march from Wits University, with world tv cameras rolling, which was no mistake. I wasn't at the scene on Saturday when the attempted breach by a few unwashed m's happened. With so many people walking uphill 10km in the hot sun, and facing the most serious line of cops and army assembled since apartheid (just as formidable as anything I ever saw from the mid-'80s-'90s), if a few energetic young men had tried to storm the line, it would have been suicide, or at best a momentary distraction followed by a handful of pointless arrests. Our leading comrades' rhetoric in the run-up to the march -- "We will take Sandton!", "We will blockade the delegates!" -- was not atypical for the insurgent left narrative in contemporary South Africa. But when someone with the courage and respect in the local mass movements of a Trevor Ngwane (author of those two quotes) reads prospects for an insurgency as an impossible logistical exercise, I'd certainly take his lead over adventurism.
The mass march on Saturday was one culmination of thousands of acts of resistance being codified in a left project still under construction. (I highly recommend the gripping new Ashwin Desai book, "We are the Poors", from MR, for more info, and if anyone's interested in my own new book "Unsustainable SA: Environment, Development and Social Protest," which describes in more boring academic detail the controversies, let me know offlist.) The comrades who spoke from the truck included some with last-century rhetoric, sure, but they are understood as the genuine organic leaders of masses of people. The masses of people *do* still articulate their grievances in the preachy/chanty mode. Likewise, "Phansi Capitalism Phansi" is a profoundly popular call-and-reply. Ngwane is a socialist Rastaman with great charisma and an hilarious self-deprecating sense of humour (as witnessed on a nationally-televised 1/2 hour tribute to Dennis Brutus last night where he admitted he was full of hyperbole). He is bringing this rhetoric into internationalist terrain, maintaining a strong presense in the local/global struggles to shut the WB; his anti-imperialism is vibrant. It's silly for me to take one exceptional comrade as an example; there are probably fifty others of the calibre of Ngwane around SA, and a new layer building all the time.
But Franco's correct that there are also those who take forward the 1970s-90s traditions of anti-apartheid didacticism-from-the-platform without much translation. Nevertheless, speeches by a Malawian, two Zimbabweans, and two internationalists from via Campesino and the WSF were appreciated, by the reactions I saw around, and nicely tied the movement into regional and global problems. What's new and different about Mbeki's New Partnership for Africa's Development, by the way, is the strong evidence of an SA subimperialist project now in its infancy. So it was incredible that two dozen Malawians drove two days from Lilongwe and camped out in a hostel at my wee son's school, along with two dozen very radical Zimbabweans, meeting similar though smaller delegations from Swaziland, Lesotho, Ghana, Senegal and Zambia at the militant (anti-WB-IMF/anti-Nepad) Africa Social Forum last week. These comrades have been circulating all over, adding the necessary warning to the local crowd, that Southern Africans will soon need solidarity against the depradations of Jo'burg capital and Pretoria politicians. (The Zim comrades have been saying this since Mugabe began beating them up, with Mbeki's winks and nods, and so the controversy with the landless was a necessary stage of conscientisation.)
On the issue of Islamic fundamentalists, the main point here is that a few crazies will seep into any large gathering (one clown had a sign, "Osama, bomb Sandton" which got massive local coverage). But the beauty of the internationalism bubbling away in townships is that the Palestinian cause is taken very seriously indeed. "Apartheid Israel" is a common phrase. To cleanse a scene like Saturday's of a very few Islamic fundamentalists, when there are tens of thousands of genuinely progressive Muslim South Africans (with an excellent radio station) trying to connect to the progressive forces, would be wrong. Interestingly, because of a major split in loyalties amongst progressive Muslims, the larger group of Palestinian supporters were waylaid by a few manipulative pro-ANC leaders into the other, much smaller march, and from reports I received they were terribly frustrated.
Finally, back to where we started: the minor distraction of march logistics. There were marshalls last year at the World Conference Against Racism march in Durban, including from Keep Left (a former IS-aligned local group which for awhile went entryist into the SACP but which has several dozen dedicated activists to AntiPrivatisation Forum and anti-neolib struggles). Yes, because of a democratically-determined strategy, they were authoritarian about preventing a small group from immolating on the police line protecting Kofi Annan and Thabo Mbeki. Was that because they were Trotskyist? At the march on Saturday, Keep Left was not a factor. There are no other active Trotskyist groupuscules in SA with more than a dozen cadres, although come to think of it, I've seen more copies of Workers Vanguard around than usual the last few days. The call generally being made from grounded revolutionaries in the unions and communities (including Ngwane) is for a "mass workers' party." I think that's premature, personally, because the linkage of militant particularisms is still so fragile, and a major trade union break from the ruling party is a prerequisite. But actually, Saturday witnessed a profound strengthening of the threads connecting those fighting for free lifeline water and electricity, a moratorium on evictions from land and housing, free education, free antiretroviral medicines, an end to (*not* reform of) the IMF/WB/WTO, and the demise of the neoliberal ruling party's privatisation and other macroeconomic policies, and indeed the downfall of the ANC itself.
I do think Franco's terribly misguided about the need to avoid a "unifying identity." Activists and ordinary people here do speak in a fairly consistent tone of voice against violations of their human dignity, and are post-nationalist in the sense of not resorting to the kinds of easy ANC loyalties that are so tempting in the traditions of African nationalism. The task of stitching the anti-neoliberal campaigns, demands, struggles, grassroots organisations and entire movements into a coherent front, programme, network and maybe party stands logically ahead. The huge gap, still, is still the trade union left. Thus, some of our comrades' "Freedom Charter" rhetoric, which Franco derides, reflects the broader working-class consciousness of being betrayed and sold out by ANC leadership. But yet that is something that virtually all activists here still relate to, and it is the narrative bridge to those in the left of the Alliance who will, within the next five-ten years, have to lead the more fundamental breakaway that today appears inexorable yet still so difficult.
So in reality, in contrast to your spin, comrade Chuck, the leaders of A31 got nowhere near the palace gates. They had, in contrast, explicitly rejected a cooption gambit a few days before, when some labour/NGO twits announced their desire to unite the Global Civ Soc Forum with the Social Movements Indaba. The month before, leaders like Brutus and MP Giyosi from Jubilee rejected a gimmick from other NGOers to unite under the SA "Social Forum" brand, tying into the WSF, so as to give the pro-ANC gathering more credibility (those same NGOers pulled out of the pro-ANC activities in the nick of time, on Friday).
Indeed, it's safe to report, the leaders and the mass publicly beheaded Essop Pahad when he came to the Speaker's Corner. Yesterday's Sowetan/SundayWorld (the largest circulation black paper) led with a picture of Pahad under the huge heading "Voetsek!" (i.e., fuck off, in the manner that an old-school Afrikaner farmer tells his labourer, or the labourer tells the dog). Pahad's manhandling off the truck was nationally televised and was a profound humiliation to the presidency, not the other way around as Franco strangely infers. Setshedi accomplished this politely, in part by sarcastically saying "comrade" Pahad, and by not whipping up the crowd -- something that she excells at when she wants to, as anyone who has seen her in Washington, Calgary, Cochabamba or Narmada over the last year knows. The mass (or multitude or whatever fad term works for you) knew their choice: have Pahad respectfully accept the memo and dish out some anti-poverty and probably anti-yankee rhetoric, or send a signal that the ruling party has no legitimacy. In my experience working in townships here since the late 1980s, this mass is more radical-democratic and participatory, and the leaders more attuned to amplifying (not suppressing) grassroots demands and activism, and the militancy against neoliberalism more robust and deep-rooted, than anything the old national liberation movement would have allowed.
I'm a backroom academic (and a white expat to boot) when it comes to these matters, by way of disclaimer, so can't say with certainty that the warning flags Franco is waving aren't without any merit. But today, radicals in SA are vastly ahead of where they stood on Saturday morning. This is progress, to be denied only by those on our right, or by those with the most unrealistic of expectations, like Franco in this instance.
Cheers, Patrick
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Munson" <chuck at tao.ca> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:13 AM Subject: Re: a critique of the march on Sandton
> Awesome! Thanks for sharing this!
>
> Once again the righteous anger of working people is domesticated by those
> who seek to control dissent. Yesterday it happened in South Africa. In a
> few weeks it may happen again in Washington. We repeat this mistake again
> and again like we have for centuries. We mistakenly think that we can
> cotnrol our dissent and offer our discontent to the masters in the form of
> a few leaders. Everytime our leaders get to the palace gate, the rulers
> bring them inside and then proceed to behead them. Those who aren't quite
> leaders yet meet to discuss the failure of their efforts and conclude that
> the masses need more "unity" and "discipline," so that the negotiations at
> the palace will go better next time.
>
> The "unwashed masses" have the correct instinct: burn the palace down.
>
> We need to put an end to parade marshalls and Trotskists wannabe leaders.
> This is the lesson that the Left should have learned since Seattle, but
> those wih designs on power refuse to see the need to change their ways.
>
> Chuck0
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> > [and a counter to yesterday's commentary from Patrick Bond]
> >
> > From: "Patrick Bond" <pbond at sn.apc.org>
> > To: <debate at sunsite.wits.ac.za>
> >
> > After the March on the Left
> > by Franco Barchiesi . Saturday August 31, 2002 at 07:01 PM
> > <f_barchiesi at yahoo.com>
> >
> > Critical comments on today's march
> >
> > AFTER THE MARCH ON THE LEFT
> > Franco Barchiesi
> >
> > We at Indymedia South Africa had announced in a previous comment that
> > today'
> > s march on the WSSD would have been also a "march on the left". With
that
> > expression we meant that it was time for the new social movements to
> > express
> > the qualitatively new "biopolitical" nature of their struggle in terms
of
> > refusal not only of the identity and mystique of "national liberation",
but
> > also of the leadership practices of a left that has historically tended
to
> > reproduce subordination and discursive expropriation of the movements'
> > grassroots subjectivity.
> >
> > There was a glimpse, a sudden and volatile moment in today's march when
I
> > thought we were close to our objective of "marching on the left". We
were
> > already in Sandton, and the Convention Centre was in sight. At a certain
> > point I saw the Leaders of the movement quickly jump off the truck from
> > where they had until then directed the operations and disciplined the
> > demonstration. They ran on top of the march and at the same time Anna
> > Weekes
> > made me notice that there was a frantic run in the same direction by a
> > group
> > of young comrades. Shouts of "down with the marshals" were heard. Anna
> > and I
> > had the same thought: "Fuck! They want to break the cops' line".
> >
> > It was just a moment, then order and discipline were restored, but when
the
> > march was concluded by the Leaders' final speeches many of us retained
the
> > ominous thought that the Leaders' main concern at that point was that
some
> > could have funny ideas about breaking the "Red Zone". That can explain
why
> > many of their speeches replicated the very emptiness, rhetorical
ritualism
> > and mechanical repetitiveness that we have so often denounced as one of
the
> > most insidious disempowering devices that the Left has always used
> > vis-à-vis
> > its own grassroots. The best definition of the demonstration based on
its
> > conclusion was provided by an American comrade: "domesticated".
> >
> > The ritualism and conventionality of the Leaders' speeches (together
with
> > the banality of the slogans suggested from the bloody truck) is what has
> > ultimately produced the political outcome of the demonstrations in terms
> > that can unequivocally be defined as an appalling failure. And this time
> > not
> > even media coverage rescues us. Of course the political failure
contrasted
> > with the success of the march in terms of numerical turnout, which was
> > indeed quite significant. But precisely in this contradiction between
> > numerical success and political failure lies the biggest problem
emphasised
> > by the march. Numbers in demos like this can mean two rather different
> > things. They can indicate a mass, made of distinct individual or group
> > identities whose unity is artificially produced through the mediation of
a
> > specialised leadership that is the repository of a general ideological
> > discourse as the lowest common denominator. Or it can indicate a
multitude,
> > where the distinctiveness of autonomous singularities is engaged in
trying
> > to identify a commonality of themes and aims from below, without this
> > leading to a higher form of political synthesis that obliterates
> > singularities themselves.
> >
> > The political outcome of today's demo goes towards the first of the two
> > directions outlined here. And it is a very problematic outcome inasmuch
it
> > reiterates the self-construction and self-representation of the current
> > movement's leadership as a separate political apparatus located in the
> > control of organisational dynamics. This separation of the apparatus was
> > particularly evident when the ANC tried its incredible provocation of
> > sending Essop Pahad (one of the most sinister faces of the Mbeki regime,
> > the
> > former Stalinist chief eliminator of any form of dissent to the ANC
during
> > "the struggle") on the stage. I doubt that there was no one who wanted
to
> > jump on the stage at that time to kick that asshole down. Whatever the
> > peoples' feelings might have been, however, it was Virginia Setshedi's
kind
> > invitation to "comrade Pahad" to step down that prevented more dramatic
> > outcomes. And down he stepped, maintaining the affable and deriding
smile
> > that he has kept on his face for the whole duration of the appearance.
> > Power
> > always recognises itself, and it was precisely the self-recognition of
> > Power
> > on the two sides of the barricade, and the liturgical mediation thereof,
> > that made such a humiliation of the movement possible.
> >
> > I have already mentioned the trite rhetoric in the leaders' speeches.
True,
> > that rhetoric has not prevented them to denounce the "Mbeki regime" and
the
> > "ANC government", themes that, however, for long have not been taboos at
> > the
> > grassroots. However, the forms in which that denunciation was made
sounded
> > terribly empty, and were usually played on Power's discursive field, in
> > terms of Power's own contradictions ("remember why we have voted you",
"go
> > back to the Freedom Charter", and so on). In no ways those interventions
> > were able to grasp the quite radical interrogation and critique of power
> > that comes from the movements' own daily practices. These practices are
> > based on forms of community self-management, construction of grassroots
> > discourse, direct action in ways that are so rich, plural and
> > diversified to
> > be totally at odds with the hierarchical organisational practices of the
> > traditional Left from which the Leaders come. And, in fact, it is not by
> > chance that the APF represents de facto only a minority of urban social
> > movements in South Africa today, mainly around Jo'burg (in spite of
their
> > boasting fictitious "affiliations" in Durban and Cape Town).
> >
> > What is completely missed at the leadership level is that the critique
of
> > Power that the new social movements in South Africa represent is
radically
> > different from what the post-colonial state form has experienced so far,
> > where such a critique has usually been expressed as a rejection of the
> > 'inter-class' or 'non-class' content of national liberation. What is
going
> > on here and now is rather a constituent process of grassroots
> > subjectivities
> > that question the very validity of unifying identities (be they called
> > "class", "party", "union") as the form of expression of common desires.
> > This
> > is simply because these forms of representation and delegation, quite
> > effective when the stake of conflict is State Power, simply no longer
work
> > when the stake becomes immediate reappropriation of life, which is as
> > radical and subversive as the constraints imposed by the market and the
> > commodity form are tight and is, especially, unavailable to mediate, to
be
> > channelled, represented, predictable.
> >
> > This is not just a matter of theorising. The current separation of the
> > Leadership and its ghostly ideological discourse from the multifarious
> > processes of subjectivity construction in today's movements in South
Africa
> > creates a void in the definition of the movements' discourse. And unless
> > that is filled by interventions aimed at defining a commonality of
themes
> > around a prospect of anti-capitalist liberation, the void becomes a
space
> > where any sort of exclusivist, sectarian, reactionary closed identities
> > flourish. An urgent problem from this point of view is, for example, the
> > proliferation of Islamic fundamentalists at our marches, an issue that
was
> > already contentious last year in Durban and became quite visible today
as
> > well. While the entrenchment of such reactionary crap is a problem from
the
> > point of view of defining a multitude's commonality, it is not a problem
> > for
> > a leadership for which 3.000 islamists, independently from the contents
> > they
> > bring, are still valuable to swell numbers and add to the higher glory
of
> > the Leaders.
> >
> > Last year in Durban these problems were dealt with also in the form of a
> > direct contestation of the Leaders of the Left (the silencing of
Sangoco,
> > the dreadful Trotskyite marshals sent with their butts on the ground).
It
> > was especially for this reason that many of use have thought of the
Durban
> > demo as a "constituent moment" for the movements' subjectivity. Today we
> > have made a step back from that moment, maybe the problem is with big
> > marches, which cannot replace a necessary daily work of, as we have
written
> > on our IMC T-shirts, "DISOBEDIENCE, DEFECTION, BETRAYAL".
> >
>
>
> --
> Chuck0
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/
> Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/
> MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/
> Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/
> Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
> Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
>
> AIM: AgentHelloKitty
>
> Web publishing and services for your nonprofit:
> Bread and Roses Web Publishing
> http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
>
> "...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in
> the world today are anarchists, who are busily
> undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is
> still trying to form committees."
> -- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>