[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Coleman v Phosa on the ANC majority
pbond at mail.ngo.za
Fri May 1 09:41:15 BST 2009
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
Which ones, do tell?
> It's absurd to postulate the SACP as "independent" left.
> ... 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!
More information about the Debate-list