Immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, communists spent endless nights analysing what it was that had brought the
Soviet Union to its knees. A number of causes were found. Chief among them was the realisation that with the act of nationalising the economy and removing it from the hands of the bourgeoisie, the Soviet Union did not socialise the economy but replaced the bourgeoisie with what was later clearly state capitalism — exploitation from above!
In the article “Has Socialism Failed?”, Joe Slovo put it thus: “The unavoidable inheritance from the past and the most serious distortions of socialist norms in most of the socialist countries combined to perpetuate alienation, albeit in a new form. Private ownership of the main means of production was replaced by state ownership.”
The realisation by this communist revolutionary, and many in the early 90s, was that nationalisation in itself was not the sum-total of de-alienation and the destruction of exploitation and stratification. It takes a much more protracted and sophisticated process. In fact, nationalisation in the Soviet Union served as an instrument for the accumulation of an elite seated in the upper echelons of the Soviet state. Therefore in the case of the Soviet Union, nationalisation was used for reactionary ends rather than in the interests of the ordinary Soviet. This experience makes the debate on nationalisation open and complex and a source of much disagreement among the Left.
Surprisingly, those who have dared to differ with the ANCYL’s call for nationalisation have unofficially been branded reactionary. This has muddied the discussion rather than enlightened it. This was not done by the ANCYL leaders but by cadres that have apportioned themselves orthodox supporters of the league and its leadership — on Facebook, on the YCLSA discussion forum and many other platforms. In the face of this, it is necessary to probe whether support for nationalisation or its rejection is the correct yardstick to measure progress and reaction? If a state qualifies to be branded as Left or Right simply on the number of entities it has under its control, we should all be aware that the apartheid state would have collected more accolades based on the number of companies it had under its wing compared to the modern ANC-led government.
Despite the fact that the apartheid state had substantial control of a number of entities — Sasol among them — proceeds from those entities were used to finance the lavish lifestyles of state bureaucrats and segments of capital. Sasol served a different kind of alienation and exploitation to the traditional capitalist form. Today the state has shares in entities like Eskom and for years proceeds from these entities have been used to finance the capitalist lifestyles of bureaucrats and cronies in the form of bonuses and salaries. Instead of benefiting the public, they have been subjected to tariff increases.
In light of this experience, the question needs to be posed: “Who will benefit from a state-owned mine company mooted by the ANCYL in South Africa?” Without attempting to play the role of a prophet, if the current accumulation path is anything to go by, any state entity that would arise out of the government’s need to play an active role in the economy will service the already consumerist lifestyle of the ruling elite. And by ruling elite I do not mean just government officials, I am also referring to bureaucrats.
By the way, I support the ANCYL’s call for nationalisation but believe that if it is done glibly, for the sake of it, we may be creating once more another entity that will be the source of bickering between contending platforms in the ANC vying for its control so as to accumulate through it. Creating any mining entity must be on the understanding put by Slovo that “the destruction of the political and economic power of capital are merely first steps in the direction of de-alienation. The transfer of legal ownership of productive property from private capital to the state does not, on its own, create fully socialist relations of production, nor does it always significantly change the work-life of the producer”.
There is of course an inherent problem in communism. Stratification will always occur in technical processes, because of the specific skill sets required to make informed decisions one cannot run a mine on democratic principals, and similarly one cannot expect a person with a doctorate in geology to earn the same as someone at the coal face.
There is also the issue of remaining competitive in a global market. Socialism has only proven effective where the market is the local population. Socialism and competitiveness are diametrically opposed ideals, and there is no example on earth where the two have worked together over an extended period of time.
“By the way, I support the ANCYL’s call for nationalisation”
I am most interested to see the business plan. No doubt some innovative business practises will be required since nationalisation has never worked elsewhere. Perhaps these innovative business practises should be tried out on entities already under state control to see if they really work.
Or is this just another form of ANC theft?
Let’s just rewind a little…
Where in the world has nationalisation of a business succeeded. I cannot think of one in the several thousand I have seen. Maybe you can show me JUST ONE.
Where has the ANC succeeded in running our government efficiently. Once again, please show me ONLY ONE
So we want a dipodic and corrupt government to run a failed and useless business model
Get that right first. I’m tired of seeing my tax money that should be being spent on the masses squandered by SABC/ESKOM/SAA/Telkom/Transnet/Post Office/Port authority etc , etc…
@ Peter
In my article I said; “if the current accumulation path is anything to go by, any state entity that would arise out of the government’s need to play an active role in the economy will service the already consumerist lifestyle of the ruling elite”.
In this statement I acknowledge that there is a tendency to accumulate through state entities by some sections in the state, however I would not call this “ANC theft” because the ANC has no such policy that encourages this opportunism and must be absolved. It is just a group of individuals who are problematic!!
Lazola, this is a brilliant article. Initially when the ANCYL made the call for nationalization there was no substance attached to the proposal. Over the last week and as late as yesterday, the ANCYL apparently released a “position paper” detailing its plans on the subject; needless to say substance remains elusive. So far the ANCYL wants to save jobs in the mining industry and to use proceeds generated from these mining operations to fund government programmes such as the provision of free education, universal health insurance plans, public works programmes and others. Much of these remain high level fantasy without a viable business case. As the FW De Klerk Foundation, NUM and other commentators indicated, the government will have to pay market prices on a willing buyer willing seller basis to take up equity of the entire mining industry; something in the tune of between R1.2 – R2 trillion; and will have to pour more funds for capital expansion programmes. There is also a small matter of human resources capacity both in the form of business management skills and technical skills. A lot of these may be lost to other jurisdictions lured by lucrative salaries (unless the government is able to match these at incredible cost to the fiscus). In a suppress commodity prices environment, the government may be loathed to lay off workers, thus burdening its cost base, contracting its revenues, leading to insignificant contribution to the fiscus, both in terms of taxes and profits (dividends). This may inevitably lead
This may inevitably lead to the basket case that is the SABC, Eskom, SAA etc….a never ending spiral of bail-outs.
The question that arises is: if a business case is not forthcoming or can not be made in favour of nationalization, what then is the real motive behind the call? I this a political chess move? Or is this attempted looting by other means? These questions begs the answer, otherwise we will continue to have a false discussion.
Fitch, yesterday downgraded Anglo Ashanti because of labour legislation and right of tenure in SA. We are not a favourite investors destination and our mining industry are in dire straits. The people who got us there wants to take over. How will that help…where will the money come from?
There is an article, titled “Stealing Mines” also read “Death of an Industry” it will cause you to weep. Read it at
http://gannandale.wordpress.com/
We must nationalies comrades. Anybody who does not want nationalisation is a counter revolution and wants apartheid back. Viva the struggle. Viva comrade Julius!
In a class struggle, those who consider themselves revolutionary should not be on the fence. The ANC says the debate is open, and we are in the process of providing modalities of how nationalisation should be approached. I think all inputs should be directed towards that instead of asking unnecessary questions. Instead of asking, “Who will benefit from a state-owned mine company mooted by the ANCYL in South Africa?”, you should be saying that “the kind of nationalisation the ANC YL calls for should benefit all people, particularly the working class and the poor”. We have got lots of work in the public discourse to counter those who are reactionary and opposing nationalisation, and we honestly do not have time to attend to those who are within the organisation, and ostensibly agree with nationalisation, but asking rhetorical questions.
KC, I’m all for a more equal society and a far more equal spread of the profits of free enterprise. However, nationalisation is a populist and short term option to address issues of equality and fair distribution of economic assets. But history has proven that it is costly and will create many medium to long term problems for the entities concerned, not to say anything of the short term reactionary problems for the rest of the economy. Besides, we are too much of a capitalist society for nationalised entities not to be exploited by greedy individuals, no matter how much controls and regulation we put in place. The levels of corruption, robbery, price fixing, etc are examples of how greedy we are.
I guess the unpublished reason for such a proposal is for a much greater part of SA society to be owners of the productive assets of the country in a fairly short space of time given the concentration of wealth from past BEE initiatives. Besides, the BEE model is dead since past BEE deals have relied on support from private funders, but the latter has dried up in the current economic crises. Summarised: the new elite wants a share of the economic pie and nationalisation is the fastest and least costly for them.
Why don’t we learn; if someone suggested going back to failed Apartheid strategies/practices there would be an understandable uproar.
So why dabble about going back to failed Marxists practices, not only economically but socially – Soviet central planned states were social and environmental hell holes which the people who suffered for over 50 years overthrew.
Currently in SA state owned companies/sectors are failing and are protected centers for the political elite to flourish. So why add two more sectors onto a failing public sector, at least fix up what is brocken before adding to.
Nationalising only helps the political elite never ever (history shows this over and over) the working classes and the poor – this is fact not opinion.
Brent
PS – when Governments own everything there is no watch dog/counter balance and history shows that excesses/power abuse ALWAYS occours. All private ownership assests are regulated/watched by Government, providing the checks and balances society needs.
For this service Government recieves vast tax resources to spend on the poor, ie not wasting its time and resources trying (mostly badly) to run companies – seems to me a win/win.
Brent
I like this and appreciate that you had to invoke Slovo’s plea copping about the failure of the USSR. ‘Good arguments all the way, until your declared support “nationalisation” IF it is done correctly, i.e., if it doesn’t serve only the exclusive elite and ruling party). Is that an explicit demand for a feasible plan and a schedule with measurable economic returns and plan B’s ? Hardly !
When ANCYL and others say they support it; they support it on ideological reasons. They don’t have to furnish a plan. They quote the need for economic redress and Freedom Charter as justification and thus nationalization is the end which justifies the means. Just good intentions. No plan needed.
People want these contentious state interventions purely for ideological reasons. They want them indefinitely. Then when these plans fail, as they most often do, they make excuses, like Slovo did on Socialism. We need to move away from supporting mere ideological frameworks based on good intentions. History has taught us enough now.
Instead, let’s pursue discrete and well debated plans and blueprints, which should be subject to the market and strict, periodic performance evaluations. We need to be explicit and uncompromising about these. I have no confidence that anybody in the ANC,the YL and the alliance have a clear plan for this. None of their plans work, so why will this one be different ? Why even consider, “if done correctly”, when in a few examples it has clearly NOT ?
It is opportunistic for people to applaud me when I say I disagree with abuse of state resources but quickly object when I say I support Nationalization.
Seemingly, all that is permisible here on thoughtleader is what elites agree with. And it is not going to happen with me. I will put my views regardless of the intolerance!
I understand the utopia (I think) and/or the need to fashion it by nationalising mines, but, like Peter Vlietstra, I want to see the business plan. Unlike Lazola Ndamase, I’m neither for nor against nationalisation until I’m convinced that is not based on “economic illiteracy”. I appreciate the dialogue though!
Blah blah blah, the point remain Communism failed because (to name the few) everyone else was hostile towards countries practicing it…Btw that economic system (Communism/Socialism) did not fail because it was wrongly implemented– China is still the success story, so is norway, sweden and cuba & others–No, it failed (where if it had, anyway) because you (free-market fundamentalists) had been brainwashed by Americans to believe that Governmnet intervention is wrong & immoral. In fact, I could see that Many of you read the first chapters of Adam Smith’s Wealth of the Nations, and ignored the last chapters where he talked about government involvement in the economy.
Unlike communism which had been driven to extinct by cruel right wing media, the Ruperts Muldoch of this world, Capitalist fundamentalists, neo classical economics, conservative politicians & brain-washed beings like most South Africans, Capitalism failed with no pressure whatsoever; it worn out. It’s destroying every living being left; poor countries are getting poorer by the day, so are rich countries. But none dares to admit that, instead those who dare to stand up & ponit out the weaknesses of the free-market economic system, s/he gets referred back to 1989, or ridiculed as if he’s some imbecile who doesn’t understand ussr.
So much for calling ourselves open minded society–scrutinizing all available economic systems in a moving forward fashion.
Nationalisaton, yes I say: Vividly!
The Sugar, Sunfoil & Miling industry as well, should be nationalised!
@ Lazola,
Interesting thesis…
@ Siphiwo,
Since when have Scandanavian countries been socialist. I think you’re confusing govt social spend with socialism.
Luzuko
You’re not naive in economics. You don’t know that economics exists and haven’t a clue what the study of economics is all about. (Nativity assumes that one knows something exists but understands little about it – Luzuko is unaware that there is a study of how economic systems succeed or fail so he can’t be labelled naive)
Luzuko – Homework for Economics 101. Please find me ONE world class STATE enterprise anywhere in the world, Just one! If you can’t, then find one that has really succeeded. Now I’m not talking just profits here, I will accept social responsibility, contribution to their community or even technological achievement.
Having failed your Economics 101 homework, ask yourself “why should South Africa pursue a system that has a 100% failure rate?” and “Does South Africa deserve to be robbed by our politicians?”
Understand the words you say so glibly. ALL South Africans deserve to benefit from our rich country, not just those with ANC membership cards. Mines need to produce minerals, make profits, employ workers, generate income in the community and make our country a better place.
Let’s find the system does this most efficiently and adopt it. Remember, we’re playing in the international market, our competition isn’t the white man, it’s the bright, industrious little yellow or brown guy. He cares little for Africa and our plight so if we don’t get it right, he will trample us while the world looks on!!!
I’ve just realised there is one good example of a World Class Company that was once STATE owned. It has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams and we could use it as a model for all our state owned enterprises.
At the end of WW2, the State of Saxony found that it owned a failed auto company called Volkswagen or as they now prefer VW. They quickly and wisely decided that the State could not run Successful Business.
They asked many people and organisations to help them including Lord Nuffield who owned the HUGE Wolsley Car Company. Everyone declined. Later the British Government nationalised Wolsley and the company went bankrupt (as all State owned business do). VW still exists, Wolsley doesn’t.
Eventually, they offered it to the Porsche and Pieche families to run, the State would only retain a small share. Well, VW has become the most profitable Automotive manufacturer in the world and will soon be 2nd largest. It is a truly free market company, even thought one of its shareholders just happens to be the State. The State has never intervened.
So why not follow Saxony’s lead and just give our state businesses away to those people MOST CAPABLE of running them. Obviously, no ANC member would get one and most would go back to those disgusting white men from the old regime but just like Germany, South Africa would become a better place…
OUCH – what a reactionary suggestion!!!
The ANC is not socialist or communistic by any degree of the imagination. Governments are not necessarily in the business of creating jobs, it is mainly the private sector that does that. Affirmative action and BBBEE has failed even before they can be implemented. I know that there are those that believe that we have implemented the two; I dare you to prove that. Taking a Cyril and a Tokyo and putting them on some board because of their political connections does not amount to any of the two.
1.The country needs to create jobs; we are not going to create jobs by robbing Peter and giving to John.
2.Our constitutional framework makes such utterances as the Malema once ridiculous and even funny.
3.20 Years ago we were exporting shoes now we import shoe cause we are not competitive.
4.There has not been a new business model or idea that is new in SA for a long time. The middle class are mostly government employees and are not interested in creating wealth and or jobs themselves instead they are creating more debt cause the banks entices them to.
5.SA needs new ideas/innovation and government should try to fund those with brilliant idea without looking at who you support
Interesting debate; when I was at high school/varsity I had a lot of time for socialism/Marxism. It seemed the most fair and equitable system. And I used to rage against my parents for being bourgeoisie… Now in my 30s with 2 kids and a bond, I’m considerably less committed. I do not want to be told where to work, how to think, to look at the community over the individual, to not aspire to more than that which is absolutely necessary, etc. I want to be able to aspire, to work harder to achieve more, to develop an idea, get funding and reap the benefits. To travel, etc.
But I would feel a whole lost less guilty about such avarice if we all could afford to dream so. But we can’t. Entry requirements for this lifestyle include good schooling, top varsities, a middle class family background, etc. But is communism the answer? C’mon, who really wants to queue for bread, work in a factory your whole life and live off a monthly stipend? Horizon of a coal miner! What about the Scandinavian model (or even German) where access to quality education is free, children from poorer households are not disadvantaged – they get to go to the best universities (on performance) for free, etc. At least the this has some self expression and opportunity about it. By comparison, Marxism appears like the last refuge for those who don’t want to compete.
Chief, i have never felt soo well-represented on this issue. I agree with your article entirely, including the fact that 1. there’s a problem of patronage and 2. there is, regardless of all these problem, a need to nationalise.
S2
Hmm, using Cuba as an example of a ‘success’ story just makes you look a trifle daft.
You might want to visit China yourself to determine how much of a success story it is as well, i.e. at what price success? Price re: freedom, quality of life etc.
Might open your mind a bit…
@Siphiwo – capitalism has not failed. It’s core strength is that people are self-motivated to build better industry because they benefit personally.
As noble as the socialist ideal is, it fails (or does not achieve true potential) because you expect the few more qualified to work for the benefit of the many less qualified.
How will you ensure that the mines achieve the best results if the owners and employess have no real driving motivation to do so? Problems? Government will sort it out…
Rather than trying to start from scratch and risk losing everything, South Africa needs to build upon what it already is – a wealthy capitalist state with the potential to do MUCH better. By all means change the bias to being more socially minded (like the UK) but simply nationalising industry will achieve nothing.
Dear Siphiwo,
Communism was ‘driven to extinct by cruel right wing media’? Can you unpack that a little – the New York times was the reason for the collapse of the USSR, even though all media except Pravda was banned in your socialist paradise? So if there had been no newspapers, the USSR would be flourishing today? Here’s another thought …How about a social experiment. Nationalise half of SA and privatise the other half. People of all races, classes, beliefs and persuasions will be free to live in whichever half they prefer – a bit like East and West Germany was before 1989, except people from the East weren’t allowed to decide anything as Big Brother decided everything for them. 10 years later, let’s see who’s starving and who has succeeded? I fear like the Germans it would take 30 years for the winners to help the losers dig themselves out of the hole they buried themselves in. On a more serious note, there should be enough historical evidence from the 20th century to avoid our having to repeat this experiment and deal with the undoubtedly devastating consequences thereof.
Communists like to refer to themselves as the vanguard of the social movement. That very phrase reveals a profound self-serving egotism at the heart of their ideology. They are, themselves, classifying themselves as the untainted, by capitalism, liberators of ‘the people’ from the thralls of capitalism. In other words they see themselves as an elite and as history has shown time and time again like any any elite they will seek to appropriate to themselves any benefits from the system that they are advocating, in this instance ‘Nationalisation’, that they possibly can.
The Afrikaner Nats did most definately NOT have a lavish lifestyle. They were conservative Calvinists, and when corruption was found the person was fired. The mind boggling salaries the ANC pays Civil Servants and politicians and persons running parastatals did not exist then
Also you had to be qualified to hold down a job, NOT just a Nat or a Broederbonder.
My uncle was head of the CSIR, my husband’s counsin second in command of the navy – and neither were Nats, both were supporters of the opposition party.
The present uneducated and unqualified, overpaid ANC loyalists should not be let near something as complex as a mine.
And the reason that Sasol etc did work under the Nats – they were NOT communists.
I suggest that Julius Malema and his ANCYL must open New Mines so that they can practice their ideas. We have abundant coal reserves and choosing mining sites will not be a problem. Party cadres will be the managers for these mines and the employment problem will be solved!
The one lasting lesson from all this, the one legacy our grandchildren will inherit from the ANC (or Zanu PF in Zimbabwe or Dos Santos in Angola) is how it is quick and easy to destroy the economy for quick personal benefit but it takes several generations to rebuild it afterwards. The legacy will survive another 20 to 30 years.
Recognise the ANC for what they are; does this reflect your core values? Will you be able to say to your grandchildren “I fought against this madness”? Will you be able to say “I am a true fighter for the freedom of my beautiful country”? Alternatively, will you be like the Germans after WW2 who, when asked about the murder of the Jews said “I didn’t know it was happening, I just didn’t see it”.
I have fought both for and against this despotic ANC. It is my shame at been duped by this evil monster that motivates me to fight against them with increased vigour.
ja pull the other one Lyndall – I am sure the NATs followed a strict policy of employment equality that had nothing whatsoever to do with party alignment and home language…
john Bond
After having detected my ignorance, as a student, I’d expect you to do the next best thing. To peel it from my ‘eye’, instead, you chastise me for not knowing “Economics 101″. As for the ‘homework’, I invite you to save me the trip.
Nationalising mines has a rich legacy in a variety of countries under a variety of economic and social conditions. The conclusion is always the same. Countries that nationalise mines or attempt to set up state owned mining destroy the very industry they are attempting to subvert.
The obvious example could be the mines of Eastern Europe that were nationalised in 1946. They have all been destroyed, even those Czechoslovakian mines with rich deposits that the world of 1936 believed were impossible to mess up. However, none match the superb failure and amazing cost to humanity caused by the mines of the USSR.
Trotsky in his book “Stalin’s Secret War” devoted just 5 pages to the million Russian people who died mining for the state. Political prisoners were assigned to mines because of the low survival rate. In 1945, some mines did not have a single living miner from those assigned to them in 1938. On average 25% of miners died each year from 1943 until 1945. In the winter of 1943, the death rate was so bad that Stalin gave the command that a mine should not bury their dead until it had been assigned a bulldozer to do the task. On some mines, the bulldozer didn’t arrive for 18 months. Some mines had 2000 bodies piled up.
Don’t worry guys, the ANC will assign journalists and us counter revolutionaries to work in these State mines…
Arent you just dying to join me!!!
There is also the States incredible inability to grasp technology.
Take for example Telkom. They maintained big stand-by mechanical (pulse) telephone exchanges in FULL working order in Mandeni and Kwa Dukuza (and elsewhere in the country) until last year. They had to train special technicians to maintain these dinosaurs because the technology isn’t even mentioned in most modern electronic text books. It was only when someone realised that these exchanges were unable to handle tone decoding, used on ALL South African phones since 1994 that they appreciated the uselessness of their actions. (I got some amazing antique – 50+ year old electronic equipment in perfect working order when Telkom finally scrapped them!)
Telkom had maintained equipment for use in emergencies that was unable to do anything what-so-ever,iIt was totally useless.
I appreciate that the ANC government is much less capable than most governments but all State Enterprises suffer the same fate to a greater or lesser degree…
The Freedom Charter
Adopted at the Congress of the People, Kliptown, on 26 June 1955
——————————————————————————–
We, the People of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know:
that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people;
that our people have been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty and peace by a form of government founded on injustice and inequality;
that our country will never be prosperous or free until all our people live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities;
that only a democratic state, based on the will of all the people, can secure to all their birthright without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief;
And therefore, we, the people of South Africa, black and white together equals, countrymen and brothers adopt this Freedom Charter;
And we pledge ourselves to strive together, sparing neither strength nor courage, until the democratic changes here set out have been won.
The People Shall Govern!
Every man and woman shall have the right to vote for and to stand as a candidate for all bodies which make laws;
All people shall be entitled to take part in the administration of the country;
The rights of the people shall be the same, regardless of race, colour or sex;
All bodies of minority rule, advisory boards, councils and authorities shall be replaced by democratic organs of self-
EXTRACT FROM -
The Freedom Charter
Adopted at the Congress of the People, Kliptown, on 26 June 1955
“The People Shall Share in the Country’s Wealth!
The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people;
The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the Banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole;
All other industry and trade shall be controlled to assist the wellbeing of the people;”
The Freedom Charter is a dog’s breakfast — parts are hardline Marxist, others hardline capitalist. It was always little more than a wish-list rather than proper policy and it is half a century old and as dated as Brylcreem.
Please note: “The tragedy of the commons”, which explains that all valuable resources held in common will be plundered to extinction. Since all have an equal claim, all must grab as much as possible. This concept explained why sheep-herders quickly denuded “common” grazing areas of grass in Britain. The grass was free, so herders grazed as many sheep as possible as long as the grass lasted, which wasn’t very long. Later the “enclosure” movement, which was opposed by the sheep-herders, restored the commons. The lesson was clear —-— common resources would be plundered to extinction.
But, private property is not plundered; instead its owners capitalise it in order to secure the most value over the longest period of time.
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”-P.J. O’Rourke, Civil Libertarian
Those who are calling for nationalisation of mines are under the illusion that their call will also result in the nationalisation of the the modern technology, business brains behind mininng and the markerting strategies required for successful mining. What they do not know is that they will eventually remain with worthless and unproductive sinkholes.
“Union did not socialise the economy”
what do u mean? i think you are confusing socialisation and socialism