[Debate] (Fwd) Review of Malema book in NY Rev of Books

Fri Apr 13 15:31:19 BST 2012

Good points Riaz.....  I don't think we actually disagree that much - I am
raising questions that I do not know all the answers for.....

I am generally a glass half-full type of person......so appreciate the
positive energy coming from the likes of Davies and Motsoaledi in
particular (and possibly Gigaba and Patel).....  but cannot help being
increasingly concerned about the rising, intolerant SACP/securocrat axis
around Zuma and his social conservatism (including empowering traditional
leaders at the expense of women's rights).....

If Blade becomes our deputy president we will know we are in sh*t
creek..... Never mind media freedom....bye-bye academic freedom (or am I
being paranoid?).  Just going by his and Cronin's recent, and thoroughly
misleading and  scurrilous,  attacks on leftwing  "civil society" are
enough to give anyone the creeps....and theirs are milder versions of
thinking inside the SACP, as represented by the likes of Tweedie and their
Gaddafi-supporting crowd.....

If this happens, the likes of Davies have to make a choice - legitimise a
more open neo-Stalinist/social conservative regime (whether kleptocratic or
not), or join and help build a genuine counter-movement....(but we are not
there yet, and hopefully we will not get there).....

I would not be so worried if our only real hope (at the moment anyway) for
Left renewal, Cosatu, was not so embedded with the SACP and its
anachronistic, rigid and schematic  "Marxism-Leninism", which blocks or
hinders a real engagement of Left ideas within the unions.  But there are
encouraging shifts, such as around ecological issues, so hope springs
eternal.....

cheers,
D.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Responses below.
>
>
> On 2012/04/13 09:01 AM, Devan Pillay wrote:
>
> Riaz
>
>  I see what you're getting at but fear that you are lumping together
> radical democrats with  the Dominic Tweedies (and in more nuanced fashion
> Jeremy Cronins), who are happy to trash our liberal-democratic
>  Constitutional order in favour of a vaguely defined "peoples democracy"
>
>
> Correctly pointed out... and noted.
>
>
>  Substantive Democracy - as defined for example by Rick Turner in the
> 1970s, or EO Wright in Real Utopias (or for that matter the progressive
> faction in the CPIM, Kerala)  INCLUDES in its definition liberal-democratic
> freedoms, but extends and deepens this to include broader socio-economic
> freedoms, and maximum participation and accountability (as embodied in
> Cosatu's social movement unionism of the 1980s.)
>
>
> We are ad idem. In addition to the formal, we need clear substance,
> especially in the economics, even if it is instrumentalist... and tactical
> (as is R2K, which is not partialism, but a circumstance not of our making
> and possibly of our undoing, so it is necessary even at the risk of
> partialism...)
>
>
>
>  I agree though that the SACP have muddied the waters on this, as they
> join forces with the securocrats in the drive to build a Chinese style
> 'developmental state'.  Where does Davies stand on this?  Is he going to
> keep quiet as long as he gets to implement his industrial strategy?
>
>
> This is a very difficult consideration, on which we may well differ - but
> not because of lack of values convergence. I think it is prudent for Davies
> to keep mum - and keep the eye on the developmental prize - and leave this
> battle to the commentariat as he does have a plan which is people-centred.
> It is difficult for anyone person to be everything to everyone, and this is
> where holism needs to be deployed. As a cog in the wheel one can see Davies
> role as functional to tactically good economics, or a waiting on carrion.
> On the other hand, when the whole of the left is considered, he represents
> a major/minor feature in the non-neoliberal camp. As we can see that
> shallow considerations drive the factionalism of the democracy within the
> ANC. A holistic approach would be to cajole players to render players like
> Davies outside of the petty games - i.e. this is important and needs to be
> done, irrespective of how is in charge. Collective action and unity does
> come at a price - and like not all have to pay it, it will not do to leave
> the likes of Patel and Davies hanging to the vagaries of factionalism. This
> position would make for a more coherent whole (for the left) especially if
> there are DLF or intellectuals like yourselves who continue to hold them to
> account on general issues (of r2k) AS WELL as on specific issues
> (economics).
>
>
>
>  But it is surely not empty to demand a more substantive democracy, I
> think you agree.
>
>
> I do. But I really feel we need to avoid the simplistic framing of the
> choices we face. Formal, substantive and instrumentalist notions make the
> understanding the right *ensemble *for analysis.
>
>
>  And yes, full spectrum engagement is cool.......
>
>
> Not cool, necessary. As you indicate, the challenges are enormous and all
> of us would like to move political work to a deeper level on "vanguard"
> action instead of the chaotic rearguard retreat that objectively the left
> is in at the moment as the most Fanonian of pitfalls plays all almost to
> script.
>
>  but be careful of abandoning the vision of an emancipatory future to the
> Book Club (or the bold rhetorical flush),
>
>
> I am adequately chastised - but it is a bit of a habit so pound away if it
> reveals itself : )
>
> I do mean it about managing contradictions, and being in two places at
> once, and encouraging that wonderful spirit of unity that even liberals
> rarely use nowadays, I disagree with what you say, but will defend your
> right to say it...
>
>  while we pour all our energies into the here and now of Partialism....
>
>
> Like there is no clear definition of the progressive Organic Intellectual,
> or formula in "what is to be done", these are not simple matters...
> complexity needs to be embraced... that is the fullness of concern not just
> for one's position but the movement as a whole... a different kind of
> idealism from yours, but idealistic, I submit, nonetheless...
>
>  and in the process give Supreme Legitimacy to the essence of the status
> quo.
>
>
> This is why it is important for tactics and strategy to adjust so that we
> do have full spectrum engagement. How many of our fights are about radical
> and reform positions? We need to move the discussions to the relationship
> between the two - in full dialectical contradiction. First law is that
> antagonism leads change. Second law, which in the paradox of participation
> is relevant, is that quantitative change can lead to qualitative change...
> So we really need to think about the left as a whole. And on the reformist
> front, we are really missing a flank... and the breach is internal as well
> as external as you point out... the centre cannot hold, and further vice is
> more likely than an emancipatory position...
>
> As a whole, we need an appreciation of the importance of the book club as
> well as peoples self determined needs, as well as the creation of a moral
> and ethical pole to which the pedagogy of the oppressed can gravitate... It
> is difficult for me to see why the left has does not appreciate the extreme
> structural violence that is seeded in the reformist front, and that
> reformists get attacked in the short and medium term while the strategic
> positions are developed have a longer term function.. really, one can have
> a left that both supports Davies while fractures keep him on his toes when
> he gets out of line... that is holism for me...
>
>
>  This, I fear, is where Cosatu stands at the moment.  It needs to break
> out of this stranglehold.  How can we help it to do so?  That, for me, is
> the political question of the moment.
>
>
> Cosatu may or may not break out of the stranglehold. But is there a
> strategy for it here and now IN ADDITION to a strategy to help it break
> out? Could not the deployment of a clear position on tactics actually lead
> to the "obvious" conclusion that it needs to break out of the stranglehold
> (as if reasons enough have not been piled up)?  But what flows from this is
> not clear, and a holistic account needs to be prepared for this.... and
> COSATU too is in objective difficulty - witness some discontent with Patel
> on the NGP or the textiles investment scandal... its investment funds are
> in intimate association with disciplining threats to profits... COSATU is
> the embodiment of the contradictions that are faced... is it capable of
> vanguardist is the question that needs to be addressed... but that is a
> matter that is a process rather than outcome since it can be vanguardist
> (as it has on many issues) but perhaps not enough...
>
>
>  comradely,
> Devan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  What is empty for me, is not recognising that formal (shallow) democracy
>> is essential to substantial democracy, as this gets caught in the cross
>> fire of division of "preference" of economic and social rights over civil
>> and political rights - full spectrum engagement...
>>
>> Appeals, from the level of abstraction in the discussion, need to avoid
>> this spurious definition because it is the concrete circumstances that
>> determine the approach we take: for instance the brilliant right to know
>> campaign is a classical case of civil and political rights claims
>> (essentially formal) with the backdrop that these are essential to
>> achieving more substantive participation...
>>
>> And further, the point about is that the claim of we want "real"
>> democracy is often (not always) used as either an excuse to fight formal
>> democracy, or as fill in to criticise lack of victories on substantive
>> issues that fail in the democratic process... here I prefer the framing of
>> emancipatory democracy that is functional (or if you like instrumentalist)
>> to emancipation (political as well as economic - holistic )... in other
>> words, it allows me (and this may not be relevant to others) to deal with
>> China and Zim (where the former has a plan for development sans democracy,
>> while the latter does not but is none the less smart at maintaining power
>> and not an idiot as if often made out)...
>>
>> On 2012/04/11 01:16 PM, Neville Adams wrote:
>>
>> Quick question – what’s empty about valorising substantive democracy
>> above shallow democracy?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Debate-list mailing list
>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing listDebate-list at fahamu.orghttp://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120413/75bbdec3/attachment.htm 