[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Sasco-ML

[Patrick Bond]

(Thanks to Dominic for passing this along. Here's an important Lenin 
quote: "A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of 
the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, 
even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, 
although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight 
against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a 
certain degree of understanding and agreement with the imperialist 
bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it .")

SASCO Ideological Debates Revisited: A brief overview of 
Marxism-Leninism as SASCO’s guide to action and tools of analysis

October 2006

The South African Students’ Congress (SASCO) utilises Marxism-Leninism 
as tools of analysis and guide to action. Since SASCO’s adoption of 
Marxist-Leninist telescope to view and analyse society and its 
transformation, there has not been a thorough and convincing argument on 
what this exactly entails for the organisation. The ongoing debate on 
SASCO’s ideological orientation and inclination is virtually eternal. 
Almost all congresses and gatherings of SASCO at branch, regional, 
provincial and national levels continue to engage on the debate, and it 
presently seems far from closure. This is not a healthy situation, since 
an unequivocal position on what categorically guides SASCO should be 
unpacked and the debate will thence be altered to ask whether the 
organisation is on track with its adopted and agreed upon principles, 
and whether certain SASCO positions reflect the principles and/or 
revolutionary theory which the organisation should agreed upon.

On a deliberate guide to lead this debate towards its final conclusion, 
it is perhaps important to clarify some conceptual, semantic, dogmatic 
and strategic mistakes and blunders committed on the course of engaging 
around the ideological character and orientation of SASCO. More often 
there has been obfuscation around the whole debate, a calamity that 
could have been avoided, since this debate requires a sober perspective 
and environment to engage, since it speaks directly to the spine and 
nerves of the organisation.

How SASCO adopted Marxism-Leninism as guide to action and tools of 
analysis?

Indeed, the 12th National Congress of SASCO adopted Marxism-Leninism as 
tools of analysis and guide to action. The insertion of a 
Marxist-Leninist perspective into the existent and somewhat outdated 
Strategic Perspective on Transformation (SPOT) has not been executed 
with the level of clarity and understanding it could have required. This 
is due to a variety of reasons, main being the fact that a document 
which is largely used in SASCO cycles as a SPOT is actually an analysis 
of SPOT by the former Secretary General of SASCO, Comrade Mxolisi Mlatha 
titled “What is the Strategic Perspective on Transformation”, prepared 
for the National Political School of SASCO 2001 in Northern Cape. 
Nevertheless, this analysis of SPOT helps to highlight the important 
aspect of SASCO’s strategic vision and outline the pillars of the 
struggles the organisation should wage in society, but where is the SPOT 
document?

A recount of the environment within which SASCO adopted Marxism-Leninism 
would assist to clearly locate the whole debate on the strategic vision 
of the organisation. Virtually all Congresses of SASCO had lengthy 
discussions around the ideological character and inclination of SASCO, 
with milestones of such discussions recorded in Congress discussion 
documents of the period 1996 to 1999. The 11th Congress of SASCO laid a 
very firm foundation on a shift towards the Left, while the organisation 
had been indicating towards the left since its launch in 1991 through 
its adoption of working class biasness and working class leadership 
principles.

Throughout its history, SASCO had been defined by a very resounding 
ambivalence towards the Left political paradigm, with the dominant 
organisational discourses and rhetoric laden with Marxist-Leninist and 
working class emphasis. Certainly, there were certain levels of 
vacillation and zigzagging concerning various roles SASCO would define 
and execute along the way, yet the Left outlook has not been eroded in 
SASCO’s organisational cultures and practices. The outlook usefully 
sustains the character and strategic vision of the organisation.

In the 2001 National Political School, SASCO acknowledged that the 
struggle in South Africa is a class struggle. But the nature of the 
class struggle was described as that which compels the intelligentsia at 
the cutting edge of knowledge production (noting that all knowledge has 
class content) and social production to play a role either consciously 
or unconsciously . The document, which is currently used as SPOT further 
states, “Consistent with one of the fundamental principles of the 
organisation that of working class leadership, our programs continue to 
emphasise the notion of the working class leading the transformation 
discourse, as the motive force of the revolutionary forces both in 
process and content. This is also what informs SASCO’s engagement in the 
student worker alliance ”.

Sprinting to the 2004 12th National Congress, on the discussion of the 
Commission, which was ultimately the only one to report to plenary in 
Congress, debates and discussions therein were a culmination of a 
process that was started long time ago. Areas of emphasis in the 
discussion was that adopting Marxism-Leninism was necessary and long 
overdue step for SASCO, since all revolutionary organisations needed 
revolutionary theories to guide their deeds. This was premised on 
Lenin’s observation that “"There can be no revolutionary action without 
revolutionary theory." Congress anonymously agreed that Marxism-Leninism 
is the only revolutionary theory that can assist SASCO’s analysis of 
society and guides its actions.

Additional to the resolution on adoption of Marxism-Leninism as tools of 
analysis and guide to action was an emphasis that political education 
should be intensified in all structures and organs of the organisation 
to ensure that there is an overall understanding of what 
Marxism-Leninism is. 12th National Congress acknowledged that throughout 
SASCO’s outlook was predominantly Marxist-Leninist, with very 
insignificant elements that could have swayed the organisation in 
different periods and epochs.

WHY

In earlier documents of SASCO, there was a rather frank acknowledgment 
that it is vital to acknowledge that commonly, the relationship between 
higher education and ideology reflects the nature and level of class and 
contradictions in society. This view was reinforced in the reality that 
the history of education struggle in South Africa is a testimony to the 
class contestation of higher learning institutions. Concretely, the 
struggles in higher education cannot be differentiated from the 
struggles and the continuous conflicts between labour and capital in the 
broader society.

The then apartheid regime systematically applied racist, supremacist and 
unpopular policies in education system for class and racial privilege 
and benefits. In the early twentieth century, the twin concerns of the 
South African state were guaranteeing capital accumulation based on 
cheap unskilled labour and consolidating the structures of white 
political domination and privilege . Consequently, training and 
education of blacks was not priority. This largely informed the 
segregationist education policy, institutionalised in the political and 
social spheres of apartheid and colonial society. Practically, apartheid 
education policy meant, inter alia, limited funding and access, and 
inadequate provision of education and training facilities for blacks and 
Africans in particular .

Throughout colonial/apartheid period, social relations in South Africa 
continued to be fundamentally structured along lines of race, class and 
gender, whilst shaped by the articulation of racism, capitalism and 
patriarchy. It is however important to note that whilst the ideology of 
racism and racial prejudice were predominant in determining social 
relations in South African society, the various changing historical 
forms of national oppression and racism in South Africa are organically 
linked with and have provided the fundamental basis for the development 
of a capitalist economy .

Post apartheid, Higher Education remains a very significant non-cohesive 
instrument for class rule and perpetuation of the class divides 
necessary for a capitalist society. Financial exclusions, academic 
exclusions, democratisation of higher education, access and success, 
welcoming learning environment and curriculum content are but some of 
the class struggles SASCO is waging in campuses. In a non-dogmatic 
fashion, it is vital to locate and understand SASCO struggles in Higher 
Education and society within the conflict of the producing and 
appropriating classes in society.

Marx and Engels correctly pointed out in the Communist Manifesto that 
‘the history of hitherto societies is the history of class struggle’. 
Under capitalism, the class struggle is between the capitalists and the 
proletariat, and is over the control and ownership of the means of 
production. In the process of struggle, contending classes use different 
ideological, political, economic, military instruments to fight for 
their class interests. Political parties, trade unions, armies, youth 
and students organisations, media, states and schools are amongst other 
concrete instruments through which the class struggle is fought. 
Ideologies have class base; that is to say, they represent the interests 
of a particular class. Bourgeoisie ideology takes different forms. 
Racism, sexism, Nazism, nationalism, liberalism, social democracy, and 
tribalism are amongst other forms of bourgeoisie ideologies, of which 
some of them are appropriated from the pre-capitalist modes of production.

Revolutionary Movements and forces for change adopt different 
ideological guidelines and theories to inform and direct the kind of 
battles they wage in different situations and under different 
circumstances. This is largely and desirably done in a non-dogmatic 
fashion that acknowledges and understands both subjective and objective 
factors within the revolutionary struggles and the environment within 
which the revolution has to eventuate. SASCO has after careful analysis 
of both subjective and objective factors adopted Marxism-Leninism as its 
telescope and/or ideological lenses through which it analyses society 
and guides its deeds.

What is Marxism-Leninism?
This term is generally used to describe what are considered 
revolutionary Marxists (those who see that the present system must be 
replaced by a new one), as opposed to reformists (those who believe that 
the capitalist system can be made "kinder and gentler" - which is not 
possible!). Leninism is really nothing more than the extension of Marx's 
ideas into the age of imperialism (the age of the domination of finance 
capital and monopolies, and the total subjugation of the colonial world 
to the will of the major powers).
Marxism-Leninism is SASCO’s ideological perspective, since used as tools 
of analysis and guide to action. What is an ideology? Ideology is about 
ideas how a society should be organised. For instance bourgeoisie 
ideologues accept class inequalities as natural and necessary in 
society. Some of the bourgeoisie ideologies use sex, race and sexual 
orientation as a basis for organising society. For instance in colonial 
societies racism and gender oppression have been ideological pillars of 
capitalism.
Before Marx and Engels developed scientific socialism, utopian 
socialists had their ideas about how to organise society. Utopian 
socialists, who reacted against the harshness of the capitalist system, 
did not have a scientific understanding of the capitalist system and its 
defeat thereof. Marx and Engels provided the working with historical 
materialism and dialectical materialism as philosophical instruments to 
wage the class struggle. The set of ideas and systems developed by Karl 
Marx and Engels are collectively referred to as Marxism.

Historical and dialectical materialism only differ in terms of the 
objects of their study. Historical materialism is a science of history 
of society or modes of production, their constitution, specific 
structure and forms of transition to other modes of production. 
Historical materialism provides us with theoretical categories such as 
mode of production, class, productive forces, means of production, 
superstructure, base and relations of production through which we 
understand concrete societies, viz, primitive communism, feudalism, 
capitalism and socialism. Historical materialism does not only critique 
the pre-capitalist and capitalist societies, but also suggest a 
communist future. This future will only come about if the acting subject 
of history – the working class, is aware that it is oppressed and 
exploited as a class. Dialectical materialism’s object studies the 
history of thought, which provides us with a method to interpret 
reality, which is different from mechanical materialism or dialectical 
idealism
What about the principle of a SASCO as a Broad Church?
The principle of a broad church for a student movement is very 
important. Broad church basically refers to the organisational character 
and composition, viz. that an organisation must be a mass organisation 
accommodative of a variety of constituencies. However, broad church must 
never be confused with the strategic vision of the organisation. SASCO 
strategic vision is Marxist-Leninist, and this does not mean whatsoever 
that it cannot be a broad church. Broad church and Marxism-Leninism do 
not stand in opposition to each other as would have been argued in the 
past. They are actually mutually beneficial, in that although 
individuals who are not necessarily Marxists and/or Leninists are 
allowed to participate fully in the organisation, yet acknowledge its 
standing resolution of using Marxism-Leninism as tools of analysis and 
guide to action.
In a real sense, it is theoretically misplaced to could believe that 
broad church can be a strategic vision or ideological direction of the 
organisation. Broad church simply speaks to the composition of the 
organisation and its mass character. Broad church is not an ideological 
telescope that can give an organisation an understanding of society and 
the direction it should take on revolutionary struggles. In essence, 
SASCO is a broad church that utilises Marxism-Leninism as a guide to 
action and tools of analysis. Broad church is not a strategic vision; it 
is a characterisation of the organisation’s mass and popular front. 
Those that justify their linkage to neo-liberal and conservative 
perspectives within SASCO as consistent with Broad Church, simply 
misunderstand SASCO, and are misallocated.
Can SASCO lead a socialist revolution?
Majority of students by their very location in capitalist production do 
not constitute a class. The working class is best suited to lead a 
socialist revolution. It is precisely the social nature of capitalist 
production, the collective nature of production that brings workers 
together in a common struggle. The working class, unlike the petty 
bourgeoisie (small business people, small land holders, intellectuals 
isolated form the masses), develops a collective consciousness and that 
is precisely why Marxists base themselves on the working class. It is 
the only class that can develop such a consciousness, precisely because 
of its position in production. Of course, without organization, as Marx 
explains, the working class is only raw material for exploitation.

Majority of students, like children and unpaid spouses can be 
accommodated within an orthodox class schema by means of a mediated 
class position, that is, they derive their class position from other 
individuals on whom (typically) they are directly dependent 
economically. This form of class positioning is mainly applicable to the 
populations that are neither proletariat, nor bourgeois in orthodox 
terms. This is however not absolute, and should be understood within the 
South African Communist Party conceptualisation of the working class 
comprising of virtually all economically disadvantaged communities, not 
only those that trade their labour for wages.

Now, to accomplish a socialist revolution in any country is the 
historical mission of the modern working class/proletariat (working men 
and women). But the history of all countries has shown that the working 
class, exclusively by its own effort and day-to-day experiences, is not 
able spontaneously to develop a consciousness any higher than trade 
union consciousness, the need to unite in unions for economic struggle 
against the employers and the government. The trade union consciousness 
is bourgeois consciousness. Unionism in and of itself does not challenge 
the capitalist mode of production but only seeks to better the immediate 
conditions and wages of the workers in struggles with individual employers.

The founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and their 
followers like Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky, in fact most of the 
Bolshevik leadership, all came from the educated classes. As such they 
were the bearers of scientific socialism into the workers movement 
because they were educated and were able to study history and study 
economics and put together the understanding of historical materialism. 
These revolutionaries were the instruments for bringing the theories of 
scientific socialism, and they constitute what Lenin calls 
“Revolutionary Intelligentsia”.

As long as the working class is not mobilised by a party based on 
revolutionary theory, its consciousness remains determined by bourgeois 
ideology and culture, leading it to see capitalist society as fixed and 
not open to fundamental change by workers revolution. In Leninist or 
Bolshevik theoretical framework, a revolutionary Communist and/or 
Workers’ Party should lead the socialist revolution, whilst other vital 
and strategic sectors and sections of society constitute part of the 
leading formations, in the form of what is called the Vanguard Movement.

Within this complex, SASCO cannot and should not attempt to lead the 
socialist revolution; it must however form part of the leading 
formations and cadre (revolutionary intelligentsia) in the transition 
towards socialism. It is not the singular role and revolutionary task of 
SASCO to lead a socialist revolution, yet that does not prevent it to 
constitute part of the leading formations in the transition towards 
socialism and daily reformist and revolutionary struggles necessary for 
a socialist revolution. Whether being part of the leading formations 
towards socialism makes SASCO a “socialist student organisation” is a 
conceptual factor that has systemic and systematic consequences. It is 
matter though, which SASCO could decide upon, yet considerate of the 
dominant aspects of its struggles and battles in society.

SASCO’s dominant character is that of a revolutionary, mass and militant 
student movement whose main objective in transformation of education in 
particular and society in general. This is clearly articulated in the 5 
pillars (International work, policy work, campus work, community work 
and building a strong movement for popular transformation ); of the 
organisation, that gives a very broad yet workable scope within which 
the organisation addresses issues. These pillars are underpinned in the 
Constitutional principles of Democracy, non-racialism, African 
leadership, working class leadership and academic excellence.

So within this context, SASCO should conceptually be characterised as a 
revolutionary, mass and militant student organisation, which is not 
indifferent towards the struggle for socialism, and actually is part of 
the leading forces towards socialism. Correct utilisation and 
application of Marxism-Leninism as tools of analysis and guide to action 
will lead to nothing, but socialism en-route communism. This socialist 
aspect and objective within SASCO, should not be conceptually applied to 
define the organisation for strategic and tactical reasons, because is 
not a dominant aspect and objective, in SASCO.

SASCO, the NDR and Marxism-Leninism

Recent debates on the South African State and transition theory in the 
ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South 
African Trade Unions (COSATU) have at least exposed the fact that the 
understanding of the National Democratic Revolution (NDR) is not common 
in South Africa. There are indeed various conceptualisations and 
understanding of what exactly the NDR is, what it seeks to achieve and 
which classes in society lead it. There is not even a consensus on such 
basic questions of whether the NDR is a national, democratic and 
revolutionary programme. Various conceptualisations and schools of 
thought contend that the NDR is not purely national, some say it is 
currently not democratic, and neither revolutionary.

The debates about and around NDR are indeed ongoing, and SASCO’s ‘SPOT’ 
made mention of the NDR “as a theory of our revolution properly 
dissected in the 1962 program of the South African Communist Party 
(SACP), which recognized the intersection and dialectical connection 
between the struggle against race, class and gender oppression”. ‘SPOT’ 
derives the theory of the NDR from the SACP and ironically defines it by 
quoting the African National Congress’ Strategy and Tactics, which 
speaks of the NDR as destined towards a “creation of a non racial, non 
sexist, prosperous and democratic Society, which in essence means the 
emancipation of Africans in particular and blacks in general from 
political and economic bondage ”.

It is always instructive to indicate that the first time the expression 
NDR was used in the Marxist tradition was at the Second Congress of the 
Communist International under the leadership of Lenin. (The Communist 
International is an international organisation which represented 
Socialist and Communist organisations in the world). In the Communist 
International, national-democratic “or” national revolutionary replaced 
the expression “bourgeois-democratic” referring to the liberation 
movements in colonial countries. The reason for this was to emphasise 
the fact that the bourgeois and nationalist forces in the colonial 
countries were becoming more and more linked up with imperialism and 
increasingly afraid of the potentially dangerous consequences of a 
revolutionary movement of the masses against imperialism.

The nationalist bourgeoisie in the colonial countries was more afraid of 
the revolutionary potential of the masses and was therefore no longer 
prepared to lead a genuine anti-imperialist movement. This is how Lenin 
explained it at the Second Congress of the Communist International in 
1920: "A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of 
the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, 
even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, 
although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight 
against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a 
certain degree of understanding and agreement with the imperialist 
bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it ."

Therefore, the Communist International resolved that in colonial 
countries, the National Democratic revolution should seek to address 
simultaneously (at the same time) national oppression and class 
exploitation. Specifically, the NDR was conceived as a multi-class 
revolutionary path, which could be only led by the proletariat or 
working class. This again was because it is precisely the social nature 
of capitalist production, the collective nature of production that 
brings workers together in a common struggle. The character of the NDR 
was in this sense meant to be non-capitalist in that it would not be 
destined towards a consolidation of a capitalist society. Its character 
was to retain the working class as the main motive force, since this 
class is the only class that stood to objectively gain out of the 
revolution.

The African National Congress (2006—Umrabulo 25) maintains that the 
motive forces of the National Democratic Revolution (NDR) include black 
workers and black capitalists. The ANC emphasises that “the NDR does not 
and is not meant to resolve class contradictions”…. Therefore it should 
be expected that contestation between these two contending classes will 
continue, in turn affecting the state and the leading organisation in 
the process of change, the ANC. It is important to highlight though that 
the dominant conceptualisation of the NDR within the ANC refers to the 
objectives of the NDR as creation of a non-racial, non-sexist, 
democratic, and united South Africa, which is an antithesis to apartheid 
state. This antithesis to apartheid state is not defined in class terms, 
but it is conspicuously a capitalist state with superficial alterations 
effected to benefit an inherently small elite, from previously 
nationally oppressed communities.

The SACP has predominantly conceptualised the NDR as a non-capitalist 
revolutionary programme, which although not necessarily leading to 
socialism, will address the class contradictions in society, in 
acknowledgment that there was a dialectical relationship between gender, 
class and national oppression. The SACP General Secretary noted recently 
(October 2006) that “One critical issue that has emerged as a 
significant area of difference within our Alliance in the debates, since 
the release of the SACP Central Committee Discussion Document, is our 
understanding of the concept of the national democratic revolution 
(NDR), the motive forces and 'policy package' of such revolution in 
contemporary South African ”. In the same document, the GS asserts that 
“SACP is arguing for a socialist oriented NDR as the only form that will 
ensure that indeed our revolution is able to achieve its objectives ”.

Within this significant area of difference, the SACP position is not 
unambiguous, since its emphasis on addressing of class contradictions 
means entail discontinuity of private property and socialization of 
production, which the SACP has not stated in unequivocal terms. The SACP 
State and Power document, according to the ANC’s response “posits an 
outdated proposition that South Africa could have had or should have a 
"socialist oriented" or "non-capitalist" path to socialism” . The ANC 
asserts that “this contradiction in terms arises from the Party's own 
historical assertion that SA is primarily an industrialized capitalist 
society with a large working class ”. A conclusion of the ANC response 
is that “from the strict application of Marxist-Leninism about 
transitions to socialism, you cannot have a non-capitalist path in a 
capitalist society and that the "Socialist orientation" is a variant of 
the same category ”. Whether this is true continues as a area for debate.

COSATU ask a critical question in its discussion document for its 9th 
National Congress… “Does fostering a black bourgeoisie advance the 
National Democratic Revolution and concretely how does it contribute to 
transformation, notwithstanding their role as the new donors for the 
democratic movement?” Furthermore and importantly, COSATU asserts that 
the federation “concur that for many years there was a shared 
perspective that the National Democratic Revolution as the shortest 
route to socialism….” This shared perspective, according to COSATU 
“became dominant in the 1950s and was crystallized in the Freedom 
Charter, the SACP 1961 Programme and the ANC 1969 Morogoro Strategic 
Perspective ”. COSATU also supports most of the Party’s characterisation 
of the post 1994 era, including its characterisation of the state and 
the democratic movement. It raises important questions which echo a 
number of positions taken by COSATU that require discussion in the 
movement as a whole.

The positions of the ANC, COSATU, SACP and various Mass democratic 
movement structures and cadre reflect that there is no absolute 
consensus on what the concept and practice of “NDR” entails, and what 
objectives it seeks to achieve. Despite reflecting that there is no 
consensus, the debates illustrates and indicates quite clearly that 
there cannot be consensus due, amongst other things, to vast ideological 
differences, which up to so far have not been categorically expressed 
within the Tripartite Alliance. At some stage, it would be important for 
the alliance to acknowledge the simple fact that what was termed the 
National Liberation Movement is not in pursuit of similar objectives 
post apartheid. In actual fact, various components and individuals 
within the National Liberation Movement are in pursuit of not only 
dissimilar, but contradictory objectives.

How useful is the Concept of NDR?

It must be acknowledged that the usefulness of the concept “NDR” is a 
rather fresh although not original debate, which requires special 
attention and thorough discussion. Within this fresh debate, the 
questions of whether the NDR seeks to manage capitalist relations or 
not; take us towards socialism; return to the ideals of the Freedom 
Charter or consolidate capitalism are neither here nor there. The major 
question how useful is the concept “NDR” is conceptualising, defining, 
understanding and charactering the struggles that the working class is 
waging and/or supposed to wage in South Africa in the present 
conjecture. A specific question should be asked with regards to SASCO 
(using Marxism-Leninism) that how useful and effective is usage of the 
highly contested concept of the NDR in defining and understanding the 
nature of the struggles and battles we should wage in South Africa today?

In all sincerity, the concept NDR whether in practice or not has been 
used for various reasons in different contexts—it is actually a 
multi-purpose concept. Its multi-purposes are often dissimilar and 
contradictory, depending on who is defining NDR for what purposes. How 
useful would it be to continue using a concept which will be permanently 
contested to define our struggles? To what extent are we going to 
understand and have a sense of the direction of our revolution (if it is 
a revolution) within the multi-purpose NDR? Should SASCO even dare 
develop a working definition of what NDR is and what it is not, and 
further venture into the classical debates of who constitute the motive 
forces for the NDR? In mechanical terms, how do determine the leadership 
of the NDR? Do we even such thing as NDR?

In the wake of SASCO Marxist-Leninist approach, the organisation should 
consider such brave steps as dropping and eliminating the usage of the 
concept NDR in assessing, defining and understanding our struggles for a 
society free of exploitation as envisaged in the Marxist-Leninist 
spectrum. If such brave step is taken, SASCO could within unequivocal 
Marxist-Leninist terms define and characterise the type of society the 
organisation aspires to see in South Africa. Further than that, SASCO 
could lead a very concerted and focused campaign within the Left 
political forces within the Mass Democratic Movement to eliminate the 
concept of NDR and define South African revolution in Marxist-Leninist 
terms. Such action would fit in very well to our implied commitment to 
discontinue private property, exploitation and alienation for more 
socialised production and redistribution system.

Conclusion

At Marx's grave, Frederick Engels stated that his friend's (Karl Marx) 
great discovery was that "mankind must first of all eat, drink, have 
shelter and clothing, and therefore work before it can pursue politics, 
science, art, religion etc. " Further than this materialistic assertion, 
Engels presaged that ‘Marxism is not just content with understanding how 
the world works but seeks to give people the ability, collectively, to 
change it more effectively’; the view expressed by Marx himself. 
Furthermore Marxism sets out not to be just a theory, and Engels thereof 
made a very important acknowledgment, that “Our theory (i.e. Marxism) is 
not a dogma, but a guide to action” .

Karl Marx would always maintain that although he had great sympathy for 
the working class, it was not for this reason that he developed 
scientific Communist views and perspectives, but it was through a 
thorough study of history and the political economy. Marx maintained 
that any person free from private interest, class prejudices and 
biasness would necessarily reach the same conclusions if they thoroughly 
study history and the political economy.

Reflections above are meant to redirect in an educational manner the 
debate about the theory and practice of transition South African by 
raising critical questions that directly link to SASCO’s adoption of 
Marxism-Leninism as tools of analysis and guide to action. Let’s engage!


Nyiko Floyd Shivambu
The views expressed do not yet represent official positions of any 
structure of SASCO, but meant for robust and frank discussions and debates.

Amandla!