'ARRESTING PUTIN WOULD BE RISKING WAR WITH SA AND RUSSIA, SAYS NTSHAVHENI'

 'Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said South Africa had no intention of arresting Russian President Vladimir Putin after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against him' Eyewitness News, 8 June).

Were any of SA's first three presidents put on trial for supporting another dictator, Mugabe of neighboring Zimbabwe?    Mbeki during his tenure promoted alternative remedies such as vinegar rather than antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) which saved the state’s funds at a cost of up to 365,000 lives. Some members of the 99 percent called for him to be tried for crimes against humanity.   Was he?   Sharpeville II took place on 16 August 2012. With 17 workers killed and 78 wounded by the police, the Marikana Miners’ Massacre was the most lethal use of force by South African security forces against other workers since 1976. Commissioner Phiyega said that the police had acted well within their legislative mandate. Ramaphosa and King Zuma share responsibility for this mass murder.   Were there ever plans to put them on trial?   In June 2015, while in South Africa for an African Union meeting,  the former dictator of Sudan (and one of 15 on the ICC's most wanted list), al-Bashir,  was prohibited from leaving while a court decided whether he should be handed over to the ICC for war crimes.  Was he? 

The answer to all the above is NO!   It is futile to punish such odious  individuals whilst ignoring the vicious conditions which made them possible. War criminals are not responsible for war, which is caused by the struggles between competing capitalist states  over markets and economic resources. War will only end with the abolition of capitalism. The dictators of yesterday, and the dictators and leaders of today, with their frightening military machines, only reflect the preparedness of their workers to ignore the bloodshed of all the conflicts before, during and after the war to end all wars and still to die for capitalism.

We Have The Vote But No One To Vote For - South Africa Elections

Elections should be a season of hope. Steve Biko declared that our fight was for an open society, a society where the colour of a person's skin will not be a point of reference or departure; a society in which each person has one vote.

We have the vote but the political parties do not represent the aspirations of the people. Millions of black people remain poor and oppressed. When we organise outside of the ANC we are violently repressed.

This election is not the season of hope. It is the season of deception, slander, gutter politics and lies. There are campaigns to encourage our people, and in particular young people to vote. We are being told every day that voting is the way to express our hopes and to build a better society. Politicians are leaving the comfort of their fortresses and frequenting our townships. They all say that they are disgusted that we are still living below the poverty line in squalid conditions, with no water and electricity. They all say that voting is the way to restore the dignity of our people.

Those who claim to be so disgusted with how the people are living include the same ones that have been stealing from the people. There is the Nkandla Chief who has made his own family rich while the rest of us remain poor. There is also Malema who dismantled a house of R4m to build a mansion of R16m.

Another feature of our politics is that it has become about messiahs. John Block tells us that walking with Zuma is like walking next to God. According to Andile Mngxitama Julius Malema has become Maolema. Helen Zille has been given the name Nobantu (people's person).

In the black consciousness movement we read a lot. Some of us started as teenagers. At a young age we read Frantz Fanon's warning about leaders that send the oppressed to their caves and tell them to leave politics to the professionals or the messiahs. We understood clearly that a radical politics is a democratic politics and that a democratic politics is a politics in which the oppressed control their own organisations and participate in all decision making.

The media also reduce us to spectators of politics rather than participants in politics. We are reduced to those who must clap hands and cheer for our 'leaders'. At times the noise is so high that you hardly hear your leader.

We are in the struggle to kill the idea that one kind of person is superior to another kind of person. We want to abolish racism. But we also want to abolish the idea that politics is about choosing between Zuma, Zille and Malema.

The formation of the Black Consciousness Movement in this country was a realisation by black people that we could no longer stand and be spectators of the game we are supposed to be playing. This election season continues to demonstrate the relevance of Biko's teachings. We are expected to cheer the politicians as they play the game. We are expected to cheer the BEE millionaires as they play the game. If we want to play the game ourselves we end up like Andries Tatane, the Marikana martyrs or Nkululeko Gwala and Nqobile Nzuza.

Today our generation has to encourage people not to accept the hardships that they are facing. We have to find a way, even in the environments we are forced to live in, to have hope for ourselves and our country and to organise to confront oppression. That is what black consciousness is all about. It is not about supporting one corrupt messiah against another corrupt one. It is about taking a side with the people.

After the murders of Tatane, the Marikana miners, Gwala and Nzuza it is immoral to vote for Zuma. After Nkandla it is immoral to vote for Zuma. After Blikkiesdorp and Hangberg it is immoral to vote for Zille. After Malema forced his way into the leadership of the ANC Youth League and he and his friends plundered the organisation, as well as Limpopo government and the National Youth Development Agency it is immoral to vote for him too. Zuma must go on trial for Marikana and Nkandla. Zille must go on trial for Hangberg. Malema must go on trial for his plunder and unpaid taxes.

But corruption and repression are not our only problems. There is no doubt that the ANC is rotten but it is a grave mistake to divorce corruption from the rotten form of crony capitalism that we have in South Africa. Both the ANC and the DA are proponents of the kind of capitalism that always makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. They are both proponents of the Youth Wage Subsidy which is a false solution to unemployment. We need a subsidy for the people, not for capital.

The EFF say that they will nationalise the mines and run them for the people. But no one in their right mind can trust Malema to run the mines for the people.

We have to ask ourselves why it is that we now have the vote but there is no one to vote for. Maybe the reason is that the political parties are all funded by elites and so they all work for elites. We need to change the system in which the parties are funded. All parties should receive the same funding from the state and there should be no secret and private funding.

Elections should be an opportunity for the people to choose their representatives from amongst themselves. What we have today is a system whereby we can only choose which group of rich people, working for the big capitalists, we want to rule us.

From here

Never a follower be

This article touches on a topic that Socialist Banner finds close to its heart (see here)

"Before we fix Africa, however, we must understand what ails it. The easy answer is always to blame the leadership we've had to date. Change our leaders, and we'll change Africa and give it its pride back. True, Africa's loss of pride is caused primarily by its grotesque leadership choices and its disdain for good governance and probity. But underlying all of those issues is a singular driving force. It is the one thing we need in order to get Africa's pride back, and it can be stated in two words: voter discernment. We are in the mess we are in because the average person does not have the faintest clue about selecting leaders. We elect and appoint leaders on the most spurious of grounds: that they come from around the same river we do; that they make loud noise and entertain us at rallies; that they throw money around; that they have big stomachs and big cars and big wives. In other words, it is not our leaders we should be most worried about; it is the choices made by their followers. Africa's leaders only reflect the values and wishes of most of its people...We need root-and-branch overhaul of governance systems. We need to run the election process with foolproof institutions. We need to install all the infrastructure that powers up and connects the scattered people of the continent. We need all that and more. But we also need to fix the human capital: we must make Africa's ordinary people wiser, more knowledgeable and more informed in the choices they make...Our leaders won't do this for us -- it is in their interest to have armies of idle, ignorant people available to vote as directed. It is in their interest to have unquestioning, sheep-like people at their disposal." writes Sunny Bindra

Each of us can be our own leader. The greatest command is that over oneself. The leaders we are asked to support, and sometimes choose between, are a myth, created and maintained by--leaders. They are poor examples of honesty, integrity, even of humanity. They are not interested in truth, justice, or any of the grand notions they spout about. They exist, have always existed, will always exist, for one purpose only: to line their own pockets and empty yours. They are parasites on the social body, unwanted, unnecessary and destructive. To follow leaders is to hand over your heart on a platter, with knife and fork attached. It is an admission of defeat, acceptance that you are inadequate, in and of yourself. It is an act of submission and indeed an act of cowardice unworthy of the human animal.
To refuse to follow leaders is a liberating step. Socialists are their own leaders, and they follow nobody but themselves. "Neither a follower, nor a leader be." So the next time you are asked to vote for a leader, do yourself a big favour. Don't.

SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM: THE DILEMMA OF WORKING CLASS POLITICAL EMANCIPATION

Ninety years after the Bolshevik revolution the influence of that event on Marxist political doctrine has virtually waned. The two words socialism and communism have a chequered history. The word communism can be traced to Karl Marx and Engels who used it broadly in their Communist Manifesto, because of the discredit that utopian fantasy had impinged upon the term socialism. Lenin revived the term communism after the collapse of the Second International. He inconsistently amplified the theoretical dictums of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme in order to create his celebrated dogma of two stages of post-revolutionary society—with full communism as the second or final phase.

The WSM disassociates itself from many things which the Labour movement have called socialism. The WSM has always been familiar with the distinctions made and the lines of division drawn by the Communist Parties. So we must look to see what sort of disagreement that marked the pre-War Socialist movement and then contrast them with the great delusion that followed the dawn of the Bolshevik revolution. The divisions within socialism that were to make impact and dated back to a central ambiguity of Marx's own political thought. Marx had favoured recourse to political action by socialists as against the anarchists, mutualists, co-operatives and utopian strains in socialism.

But what is apparent is the fact that from Marxism may be deduced contradictory and incompatible policies, that one may find in it almost as one selects a minimum or maximum programme. That explained the great success of Marxism as the ideological dogma from which are derived all revolutionary trappings from Marx's death onwards. When Bernstein revealed the two contrasting elements in Marxism, the one utopian and the other conspiratorial, Kautsky replied that Marx had reconciled these two contraries in a higher unity. Disagreement about socialist policies—revolution or parliamentarian—raged for a quarter of a century before 1919 with the general drift in Europe towards parliamentarianism.

Briefly Lenin answered that the socialist revolution was to be advanced neither by a party wedded to parliamentary or conspiratorial force, but by a new party controlled by dedicated revolutionaries. This new party was expected to practise discipline of a sort the socialist parties had never seen nor for that matter military forces, since the iron chain of command was to extend beyond national borders to a central international command. The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" seems to be a purely Russian product, different from Blanquist and Jacobin traditions. The professional revolutionary has proved to be a striking literary success in the West—but this his material political influence there is short lived. But it is when he becomes a terrorist when his impact is felt.

Better few but better!
The Leninist conception of political purity as it was put into practice both within the Russian Communist Party and abroad was original. It put loyalty to a changing party line above the traditional socialist loyalty to a class. The notion of ideological purity was nothing new to socialists at the time.. Marx and Engels conceived political purity as a duty to keep a political point of view alive at a time of reflux —when there was no revolutionary opportunity.

Perhaps the Hungarian professor George Lukacs is a better guide to Lenin’s opinions when he says: "The enrichment that Marxism owes to Lenin consists simply in the more meaningful linking up of isolated actions with the general destiny. The revolutionary destiny of the working class."
He adds that the linking up means "Treating each particular day problem in concrete connection with the historico-social totality. Considering it as a component in the emancipation of the proletariat".

The cumbersome language of the Hungarian philosopher conceals indeed the kernel of Lenin’s supposed science. Each even is part of a process that is not yet complete but of which Lenin knows the end.

Communism’s failure to develop new thinking on social and economic matters to replace the specifically socialist ideas it sacrificed to securing state power was part of the general euthanasia of socialist theory after the death of Lenin and Trotsky, the imprisonment of Gramsci and the first recantation of Lukacs.

Basic to any understanding of "Communism" is an acquaintance with Marxism, the basic ideology from which Communist theory as it exists today has developed. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of Marxism must wince at the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of that doctrine so prevalent in our national life, in the speeches and writings of politicians, academicians, journalists and others who should know better—but too often they don’t, The vast volume of polemical anti-Marxist writings in the Western world is implicit evidence of the importance of Marxist ideas and of the urgency with which many seek to refute them.

Marxism as the doctrine espoused by the Soviet Union has been looked upon with fear and loathing. In Africa, Asia and Latin America Marxist ideas still play a major role in shaping the views of the intellectual elites from which are drawn the leaders and policy makers of today and tomorrow. If Marx and Engels had been merely conventional academic philosophers and theoreticians their ideas must have been of interest to the historians of ideas. Their achievement was rather to formulate a philosophical system that provided justification and ammunition for all who were dissatisfied with bourgeois society. Their doctrines have the power to move men to action and the Bolshevik revolution is a good testament to the great force of ideas.

Marxism is a philosophy: it is not merely a theory of economics or sociology or history. The key to this philosophy is the concept of dialectical materialism. Marxist economy theory is essentially the application of dialectical materialism to different areas of human experience and activity. And it was this philosophical claim to the discovery of the laws of history that caused Marx and Engels to label their economic doctrine "Scientific Socialism" as against the "Utopian Socialism" of other nineteenth-century thinkers. History has already shown that no amount of refutation on purely logical or factual bases is capable of destroying Marxism’s influence. The reason is that Marxism has now become an effective weapon against Western political and economic domination in Africa and Latin America.

The dilemma of economic growth and greenhouse emissions is at the centre of attention of modern orthodox economics. It must be granted that Marx and Engels early realised this problem. As usually the future is hidden from us by an impenetrable veil—but it is obvious that the workers and peasants may achieve a lot if only they can organise themselves into a formidable political party that is democratically organised.

The Socialist Party is an organisation of equals. There is no leader and there are no followers,. We advocate socialism on an international basis—without regard to race or tribe (nationality).
KEPHAS MULENGA, Zambia

The Real Role of Leaders

The real role of leaders.

Is it not interesting that whilst Safia "the Roman", Amina Lawal, Bariya Mazagu and many more yet to come face torture or even death a la sharia in Northern Nigeria for no crimes committed, Mohammed Abacha, son of the late Sani Abacha is granted bail after having been charged in court on 101 counts of corruption and theft? Yet Gen. Obasanjo maintains a deafening silence over both cases? What is the reason behind this "silence means consent"? It is that leaders are by necessity selfish and hypocritical? He is dumb in the face of religious barbarism because he fears to lose support from the Muslim north with elections around the corner. He is also blind to the release on bail of a convicted criminal obviously because the bail case happens to coincide with his visit to Kano, the hometown of the Abachas and any comments might worsen his electoral chances in an already strong opposition city.

Nepad –The clash of the Titans

If money is the root of all evil then so is the multi-billion dollar African economic renaissance package called Nepad. Whereas Abdoulie Wade, Thabo Mbeki and Obasanjo are leaving no stone unturned in their bid to secure funds for Nepad, others like Yahya Jammeh of Gambia are ridiculing the project. New African of September 2002 reports that Jammeh has dismissed Nepad as something that "will never work. You come up with a programme and depend on nothing but begging. I, Jammeh, will Not kneel down before any man and beg. I will only kneel before God" Every African leader, in fact, kneels before the almighty World Bank and the IMF! Charity begins at home, it seems. Billions of dollars begged will first have to satisfy the immediate families of Wade, Mbeki and Obasanjo before any left over (if there’ll be any) can trickle down to the families of the likes of Jammeh. That is genuine leadership in a money-based world!

The State

On whose side is the state?
Nowhere has the state ever been neutral. On the contrary it always works in the interests of the haves and against the have-nots. In February this year Trevor Manuel, the South African Minister of Finance, in his budget statement, announced a large surplus of a quarter of a trillion rand. So who gained from the windfall? The government cut taxes by significant margins, such that the rich got the top marginal rate of 42% of earnings cut to 40%. But a huge clamor for a basic income grant of 100 randfor all citizens fell on deaf ears. Instead, 2.5 billion rand was set aside for the hiring of more policemen on the beat; some 16000 rand to keep the coercive state machinery well lubricated
Later in July when municipal workers in Johannesburg went on strike, the police were unleashed on them for daring to ask for better conditions of service.

Fooling the people

The western powers divided Africa into small units for the sole purpose of pillaging the resources of their colonies. Today, African leaders are talking about uniting the continent as a means of redressing the sorry state in which it finds itself. But in practice they are fighting tooth and nail to maintain the artificial borders as the colonialists demarcated them. And the reason? Like the colonialists before them, they have a firm grip over the resources of their fiefdoms and the wealth created is for their own personal use. Barely a week after the birth of their AU in Durban, South Africa, and Wade of Senegal openly expresses his preference for money over people. Gambian private and commercial vehicles were barred from crossing into Senegal because of a misunderstanding over taxes. Even the Gambian Foreign Minister, who was on his way to Mauretania on an international assignment, was turned back at the border by Senegalese authorities. (The Independent Friday 19-21 July 2002)

Leaders or criminals?

The leaders of the world’s most powerful nations, the G8, gathered in Canada for their annual summit a few months ago. The two-day meeting was held in the small mountain resort of Kananarkis. They were guarded by thousands of police within a twenty-mile security zone and there was only a single road leading into the resort with 16 checkpoints. (BBC June 2002). Why should leaders be treated like prisoners or they really are criminals?

Hypocrisy

Madagascar was excluded from the AU meeting in South Africa as the Central Organ of the OAU ironically recognized neither of the two contestants to the presidency. The leader of the CO is none other than A. Wade of Senegal, who was the same man who brokered a peace plan (in his Dakar ) which agreed on a recount of the ballot and who said that whoever emerged winner was the legitimate choice of the people. It was done and Marc R. got the people’s mandate. So how come Wade led his gang of kingmakers to ostracize Madagascar? How reliable are these leaders?

From African Socialist No1