[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Coleman v Phosa on the ANC majority

[Patrick Bond]

Dominic Tweedie wrote:
> ... I think this is pretty much what Neil Coleman has been trying to 
> do, with his think-tank of small-"e" economists. I repeat, you are not 
> challenging him. 

I agree, the only question is whether the reforms and small-e economists 
generate 'non-reformist' or 'reformist' projects. Each one has to be 
considered in turn.


> ... the reason for having a Party, a communist party, and specifically 
> the SACP, is only because Economism, or Fabianism or gradualism (it 
> has many names) is opposed by us

Oh really now?

> and necessarily so. The SACP is equally opposed to ideas of 
> "independent-left". 

Which ones, do tell?

> It's absurd to postulate the SACP as "independent" left. 

Agreed.

> ... the SACP is what is behind the idea of unity-in-action that is 
> embodied in the ANC, in the first place.

This gets all hocus-pocus now. Who is responsible - unity-in-action or 
disunity-in-action - for Phosa's speech saying conservative policies 
will continue? Did that speech somehow miss your radar screen?

> You ask me to debate a specific instance. In that case let us return 
> to one that we have started already on this forum, namely the SABC. 

I thought you made good points on that Cosatu list. But SABC is rather 
superstructural and notwithstanding good efforts by Cosatu, FXI and 
others, not really amongst the crucial sites where accumulation dynamics 
and adverse class power relations in the ANC together screw 
workers/poors. So come back to the other sites I mentioned, I would 
challenge you, Dominic.

> ... The proletariat, the proletariat itself, must be boss (not the 
> "independent left"). 

Oh, I have no problem with that. Anyone speaking of vanguard parties 
these days should heed such words of wisdom!