May 1996

ECONOMIC POLICY - THE STRUGGLE GETS HOT

Two years after the April 1994 political
breakthrough in our country the economic debate is sharpening. There has
been a tendency to muddle along - some progressive policies have been adopted
and implemented, but often without clear strategic perspectives. The time
has come for a much clearer and more determined economic course to be set.

The assault on the value of the Rand over the last month should wake
us up. The declining international value of the Rand, which strikes at
the living standards of South Africans, has been blamed on the ANC alliance
- the health of our President, the appointment of an ANC member as Finance
Minister, mass action campaigns by COSATU. Every time the progressive movement
in our country breathes or blinks, we are told that we are lowering investor
confidence in the Rand.

The real reasons behind the assault on the Rand are never clarified.
But it is no secret that big business wants to sabotage our infrastructural
development RDP programme with an "export-led" growth strategy
instead. Could it be a coincidence that every time the Rand slips lower,
the export-led strategy is strengthened in practice, and an approach favouring
production for domestic and regional social needs is weakened? Could it
be that the fall of the Rand is connected to this agenda? It is certainly
not the ANC-led alliance that is able to manipulate international currency
markets.

Another sign of the sharpening struggle over economic direction has
been the recent release of two major economic policy documents.

The first, called "Growth for All", was released by the SA
Foundation, representing the top 50 companies in SA. It is the class viewpoint
of big capital in SA. Its main concern is the preservation of the power
and privilege of big business.

The second document is called "Social Equity and Job Creation"
(SEJC), and it is produced by the labour caucus (COSATU, NACTU and FEDSAL)
at Nedlac. It presents a very different perspective. Its main argument
is that the logic of political democracy must now be carried through into
the economic and social sectors of our country. Apartheid was an economic,
as well as a political, reality.

The export-led model that the GFA document proposes concentrates much
of its fire on government. As far as it is concerned, the role of government
is to protect property, fight crime, and to create favourable conditions
for the market (that is, the capitalists themselves) to have a free run.

It wants the new democratic government to keep as much as possible out
of the economy. It proposes that government spending must be slashed to
a minimum and it calls for a "brisk" privatisation programme.

By contrast, the labour document recognises the need for the state to
be an active player in the economy. It does not call for an authoritarian,
bureaucratic state, but for one capable of playing an effective strategic
and developmental role.

The GNU and, particularly, the Reserve Bank have continued to implement
very conservative macro-economic policies. The Reserve Bank still defines
fighting inflation (rather than poverty and unemployment) as the main priority.
As a result we have extremely high interest rates.

The labour document calls for a much more active alignment of macro-economic
policy with job creation and redistribution objectives.

The working class and progressive forces in our country need to redouble
their efforts. We need to assert our economic perspectives. If we fail
to intervene actively, the economic agenda will be set by other forces.

WHY A TRUTH COMMISSION?

The first hearings of the Truth Commission,
the experiences recounted by the witnesses there, and their anguish as
they remembered those experiences, have overshadowed doubts, and silenced
critics.

However, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission began its work,
there were some attempts to question its role. Not surprisingly, right-wing
parties and some of the former apartheid securocrats have tried to undermine
its work. Inkatha has said it will not cooperate with the Commission. These
forces are worried about the unveiling of the truth about the past.

There have also been questions about the Truth Commission from other
quarters. Some of these questions have their roots in the legitimate concerns
of victims and families of victims. They are worried that the Truth Commission
will block their ability to bring criminal charges against human rights
abusers. However, other forces are also exploiting these real personal
concerns.

AZAPO, a political formation that, in the recent past, never had enough
finances to produce a poster, is suddenly bringing costly legal cases to
the courts. It has made a number of high-profile challenges to the legitimacy
of the Truth Commission. One can only speculate where AZAPO is suddenly
getting the funding for this.

Those defending the Truth Commission have spoken a great deal about
"catharsis", "nation building", "reconciliation
and forgiveness", and the need for "healing".

Commission chairperson, Archbishop Tutu, has given the proceedings a
very strong Christian tone. Tutu has every right to his beliefs, but we
hope he will remember that the Commission is a public structure in a secular
state. Not everyone in our country is a Christian, not everyone is a believer.
Indeed, many of us were tortured in apartheid jails by so-called "Christians"
because we were communist "unbelievers".

But none of this is the main point.

The SACP welcomes the Truth Commission. We will give it our fullest
support. We encourage all South Africans to support the process. While
"nation building", and "reconciliation", not to mention
the right of victims to know the truth, are very important realities, the
Truth Commission is significant in another way, that is rarely mentioned.

Our transition towards democracy has been a negotiated process. Change
in our country has not flowed from the absolute defeat of the apartheid
security and dirty tricks machinery.

Tens of thousands of individuals associated with these apartheid operations
remain within our country, and a large proportion of them are still in
the Defence Force and in the Police Services. The Truth Commission is one
(not the only) means to ensure that we do not allow these sinister forces
to recover their morale, that they do not regroup.

Herein lies the great strategic importance of the Truth Commission process.
We must support the Commission, and we must ensure that its strategic purpose
is not undermined by confused or simply emotional approaches to its important
work.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

THE CASINO INDUSTRY A THREAT FOR KWAZULU-NATAL

Dear Comrade

Building casinos is seen by the municipality of the Greater Durban area
as a way to enhance economic growth, bringing money and jobs to the impoverished
population.

In fact, such a policy is full of threats for the future, as a quick
look at the casino experience of other countries can show.

In the United States, for example, the building and opening of casinos
have been made possible by big interest groups, spending enough money to
lobby the politicians ruling the region, and even to gain a social respectability
similar to that of tobacco and arms lobbies.

According to the New York Times, quoted in The Natal Mercury of December
19th 1995, "... in Ledyard, Connecticut, gambling interests, which
now run casinos in 24 states, have used vast profits ... to fatten the
campaign coffers of political candidates and wage multi-million dollar
lobbying offensives."

We could take similar examples, in other countries, like newly "westernised"
Russia, where the casino industry became a convenient way for local and
international crime and drug mafias to launder (that is, reinvest) their
dubious revenues.

Everywhere in the world, the wealth brought by the gambling industry
has contributed to major corruption scandals, and has done so, not before,
but after, gambling became fully legalised. Nowhere is this industry classified
as economically productive, and not a single country has been able to build
a sound economy on it.

The ruling party in KwaZulu-Natal has made numerous statements in favour
of the building of casinos. This party has a free-market ideology, and
is trying desperately to bring this province to political autonomy, in
order to consolidate its strongholds. It is objectively interested in the
mingling of business and politics.

Having now lost its former apartheid paymasters, and having lost its
positions elsewhere in the country, the IFP is looking for new paymasters,
in order to make sure it will survive.

These paymasters can easily be found by expanding the gambling industry.
And that all the more, since, given the fragility of the South African
economy (we are not talking about the political fragility of KZN) some
foreign investors look for the quickest return on their investment, when
they invest in such a country. They will get more quick profits from casinos
than from any other business.

Bill Wayne

Durban

A PATRIOTIC BOURGEOISIE?

Comrade Cyril Ramaphosa's impending shift to New Africa Investments
Ltd (NAIL) has once more opened up the debate around "black economic
empowerment," (writes Jeremy Cronin).

The SACP regrets that this talented political leader
will no longer be full time in politics, as he has been over the last critical
six years. We assume, however, that he will continue to be politically
active, under an ANC political mandate.

NAIL's track record has not been particularly inspiring. Its activities
have been largely speculative, money-making ventures. It has not involved
itself in any productive investment of note.

In 1995, NAIL chairperson, Dr Ntatho Motlana, associated himself with
the positions of big white capital, against COSATU, in the struggle against
the Labour Relations Bill. Hopefully, Comrade Ramaphosa's presence will
have a positive, transforming impact.

But how, in principle, should we see this kind of deployment of a senior
ANC poltical cadre?

It is possible that black capitalists may view the RDP perspectives
of our movement with more sympathy than do their white counterparts. But,
at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that a black bourgeoisie will
be more patriotic than any other bourgeoisie. Generally, the patriotism
of the bourgeoisie is reserved for the Kingdom of Profit.

The present reality is that the shift in political power has left white
captains of industry with fewer points of access to government. The whiteness
of their boardrooms has left them easy targets for anti-capitalist demands.
To address these concerns, corporations like Anglo-American are proposing
to "unbundle" parts of their empires, and to cut out a slice
of the action for an emerging black bourgeoisie. Co-option is clearly the
name of their game.

More substantially, black entrepreneurs lack serious financial resources.

The pressures on white business, and the weakness of black entrepreneurs,
create possibilities for the democratic movement to advance transformation.

In the past, when we looked at economic transformation, we tended to
concentrate on nationalisation. However, history has taught us that, while
nationalisation may achieve gains, on its own, it has often resulted in
a stifling bureaucracy. Government bureaucrats, in the name of "the
people" or "the workers," have often simply replaced former
owners.

At the SACP 9th Congress, last year, we argued that there are many entities,
not only the state, that need to exercise ownership in a socialised economy.
We mentioned parastatals, provincial and municipal government, co-operatives,
trade unions, civics and other social collectives.

Clearly, there are progressive possibilities in the trade union bid
for a stake in Johnnic. With unions exercising part ownership, investment
can be shifted away from speculation and shopping malls towards productive
investment in real social needs.

All-round economic and social change requires the active deployment
of cadres into many sites of transformational struggle. Whether, in these
particular cases, Comrade Ramaphosa and the trade unions will succeed in
contributing to real economic transformation remains to be seen. But these
are the kinds of challenge that have to be taken up.

IF THE OLYMPICS ARE HELD IN CAPE TOWN

WHO WILL BENEFIT?

Garth Strachan, member of the Central Committee of the SACP, lives
in Cape Town. He believes that the bid for the Olympics is an issue that
needs much more public discussion and debate.

Cape Town, like all South African cities, is an
apartheid city. Racially separated living spaces, huge disparities in housing,
income, access to opportunities and the provisiion of services, have given
rise to gross inefficiencies and inequities. The challenge facing the city
is restructuring: changing the way in which it operates to create development
and growth, especially in black areas.

Some of the main principles which should govern this effort are: the
prioritisation of mixed land use, the densification of the city (ensuring
that available land close to the city and amenities is used), the development
of an efficient and affordable public transport system, and due consideration
for the ecology.

As well as trying to meet these challenges, Cape Town is gearing itself
up to make a bid to host the Olympics in the year 2004. The Olympic Bid
Committee has argued that the Olympics is a potential catalyst for development.
It is argued that, in addition to the enormous credibility that the Olympics
will bring to South Africa, the preparations required to enable the city
to bid will boost the economy, create jobs, stimulate tourism, attract
investment, and empower black business through subcontracting mechanisms.

There appears to be broad agreement that the Olympics could be a potential
catalyst in development. However, there is also agreement that, unless
properly managed, hosting an Olympics could create a debt trap for the
citizens of the city and the country, which can only be repaid by years
of higher rates and taxes.

Business has suggested that it will contribute R67 million to the bid
itself, and R288 million to infrastructure, presumably income-generating
infrastructure such as hotels. However, it is highly noteworthy that, according
to the latest projections, government will have to spend upwards of R7
billion on infrastructure, if the bid is to succeed.The Bid Company has
suggested the games will generate R4.25 billion in income, and a profit
of R1.3 billion.

We don't want the Olympics, irrespective of the consequences. Precisely
because it has happened elsewhere in the world, we must point to the danger
that hosting the Olympics will not necessarily facilitate fundamental change.
It may further enrich only the business sector, with limited "trickle
down" effects to the poor from direct employment in construction and
commercial activities associated with the Olympics, neither of which will
lead to sustainable development.

There is also a great danger that the construction of new facilities
and infrastructure will serve to entrench existing inequalities and divisions
within the city, and may not lead to reconstruction and redistribution
of expenditure and resources.

For example, building more and wider freeways to venues and Olympic
accommodation might provide better access for private motorists, but will
not address the crying need for accessible, affordable and safe transport
for the working people of the city.

In other words, public sector investment in infrastructure and resources
may encourage development in well-established centres, rather than disadvantaged
areas, and perpetuate the apartheid city.

For no other reason than the scale of public funds involved, the many
and complex issues involved in the Olympic Bid should be made the subject
of a national debate.

In addition, every effort should be made to ensure that the planning
process is accountable, transparent and inclusive. Rather than providing
assurances couched in the vocabulary of development, the Bid Committee
must make available detailed proposals, which make possible and, indeed,
stimulate, public debate and involvement in the process.

It is imperative that the Olympics do stimulate growth and development
for all - not just big profit for big business.

EAST RAND DISTRICT ANNUAL CONGRESS

The East Rand district of the SACP held a very
successful fourth Annual Congress in Vosloorus over the week-end of 13th-14th
April, writes district secretary Toka Molapo.

This Congress took place at a time when a lot of people thought Communists
were an endangered species, especially after the deaths of Comrades Chris
Hani and Joe Slovo. The delegates proved sceptics very wrong. They said
that history will not be made by individuals, though Comrades Hani and
Slovo were two of a series of outstanding revolutionaries of our times,
and that the SACP cannot be allowed to be endangered after 75 years of
proud and gallant existence. We are here to stay.

We did not, from the outset, expect that the new South Africa would
be a picnic or a dinner party. We have to muster all our forces against
the forces of neo-colonialism.

It is our historic mission to be actively at the forefront of the struggles
and campaigns of the most oppressed and exploited people of our country.
We are aware that there is a greater need now to defend the RDP, with all
its principles and programmes, because its main objective is to narrow
the gap between the rich and the poor, to champion the cause of the working
class, and deepen and broaden democracy throughout society and the State.

CONCERN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION

SACP PRESS STATEMENT

This is an extract from a press statement issued by the SACP
on 23rd April.

Like COSATU, the SACP is outraged that there are
forces that are holding out for the inclusion of a lockout clause in the
Constitution. This is virtually unprecedented internationally.

We are also deeply concerned about what kind of content there will be
in the Property Clause of the Bill of Rights. Such a clause, if it is needed
at all, must not pre-empt economic and social transformation to overcome
the legacy of decades of apartheid and centuries of colonialism. It is
not as though existing patterns of property ownership, including, but not
only, land ownership, is the result of spontaneous, natural, or even free
market, processes.

Those who are trying to entrench a lockout clause, and who are insisting
on an extensive Property Clause, are, at the end of the day, seeking to
entrench powers and privileges derived from an apartheid past.

Picture
of Joe Slovo

The tombstone of Joe Slovo will be unveiled at the Avalon Cemetery on
Thursday, 4th May 1996, at 4 pm. Please arrive at 3 pm.

HAVEN'T THEY HEARD WE'RE LEGAL?

The Eastern Province Herald of 2nd April 1996
carried the following small ad under the heading, "Employment."

"Organisers and workers needed throughout South Africa, in Campaign
against Communism in South Africa. Send SASE, CV and telephone number to
CRDP, PO Box 13161, Noordstad 9305. (061) 31417 telephone and fax."

And, according to a report in the Johannesburg Star of 23rd April,
a recent visitor claims that the form he had to fill in at the South African
Embassy in London asked applicants whether they had ever been members of
a communist party. "You wouldn't have thought they knew things had
changed in South Africa," the visitor said.

CHINA

THE SOCIALIST ECONOMIC GIANT OF ASIA

An SACP delegation visited the People's Republic of China in March
this year. It was led by Charles Nqakula, General Secretary of the SACP,
and Arnold Stofile, Treasurer-General of the ANC. Philip Dexter, MP, SACP
provincial secretary in the Western Cape, was part of the delegation, and
he reports on it here.

To many observers of the capitalist variety, China is both an irritation
and a threat.

A country that has refused to deviate from the socialist path in the
post-1989 period would be regarded as problem enough. However, China has
been experimenting with the market within the socialist framework. The
Chinese people, led by the Communist Party of China, are clearly determined
to resist attempts to turn the programme of "reform and opening up"
into one of wholesale bourgeois liberalisation. The people are committed
to uniting their country. All these facts continue to both irritate and
threaten the imperialist countries to the west.

The SACP delegation was left in no doubt that the objective of the Chinese
people and the CPC is to build socialism in their country. The economic
growth experienced by China is clear evidence that reconstruction and development,
if it is to be successful, must be driven by the government and the people.
While there is clearly a role for capital in such a process, the responsibility
for the success of such an endeavour rests with the masses and a popular
government.

No amount of ideological rhetoric by the forces of capital in the rest
of the world can counter the jobs, housing, roads, railways, water, and
many other services, that have been delivered as a result of the policy
of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Most striking was the
manner in which public enterprises have been efficient and profitable engines
of development in the economy. Those who would argue for privatisation
of state assets should think again, and consider the example of China.

Within this success story, it is easy to identify the critical role
of the Communist Party of China. The CPC is a growing party that has developed
and implemented the policies that have led to the economic growth of the
People's Republic.

The party has had vigorous debates about how to deal with the obvious
contradictions that these policies have brought with them: the corruption
of certain individuals in society, the creation of some wealthy individuals,
and the attempts to turn the reform process into a counter-revolution,
for example. The emphasis on ideological development of cadres and on the
moral and ethical aspects of socialism are central to resisting these potential
deviations.

The history of China includes its own unique experience of colonialism
and of imperialist intervention in the affairs of the Chinese people. The
territories of China that are soon to be united with the mainland, Hong
Kong and Macao, are already preparing for the inevitable event.

It is in relation to the island province of Taiwan that most problems
are being experienced, largely due to the continued meddling of the aggressive
capitalist countries in this sensitive domestic issue. What is striking
is the patience of the Chinese government and the CPC on this issue. A
country which can boast a military force such as the People's Liberation
Army could easily be tempted to find a military solution; but the People's
Republic of China has engaged in continuous dialogue and debate to try
to resolve the matter.

Such a commitment to peace should be welcomed and supported by progressive
forces the world over. All recognition of Taiwan should be ended, as it
will only serve as a form of encouragement to those who seek independence
for this province of China.

China is a vast country with an enormous population, diverse cultures,
religious, and huge regional differences. What we saw of China, a fleeting
glimpse, was an inspiration. There can be no doubt that the challenges
and contradictions that the Chinese people, led by the CPC, will face,
will be full of difficulties and unenviable choices. But South Africans
in general, and South African socialists and communists in particular,
can benefit immensely from Chinese experiences.

We must build greater links of friendship between China and South Africa,
to ensure that this takes place.

WORKERS' PARTY OF KOREA VISIT

Two representatives from the Workers' Party of Korea paid a fraternal
visit to South Africa, from the 17th-21st May.

In Johannesburg, they met with the SACP Secretariat, and with Walter
Sisulu, former Secretary-General of the ANC.

In Cape Town, they met Raymond Suttner MP, in his capacity as Chairman
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, as well as other MPs from
the ANC and SACP.