By
Christabel Addo
Ghana
on Monday received commendation from a 10-Member International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) team of Experts, for the successes in the progressive development
of its nuclear power infrastructure.
The
team said they were impressed with the high level of commitment and hard work
done by their Ghanaian counterparts, which had culminated in the successes made
so far with regard to the near achievement of all the 19 infrastructure issues
to be considered in the development of a Nuclear Power Programme (NPP).
The
IAEA team of experts, who form the first Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure
Review (INIR) mission, have been on an eight-day assignment to review the
country’s infrastructure development for a nuclear power programme, and
successfully concluded its work in Accra on Monday.
The
INIR team concluded that Ghana had made considerable progress in the
development of its nuclear power infrastructure, and had established effective
mechanisms to involve a wide and comprehensive range of national stakeholders
in the relevant activities.
It,
however, said although the country had already completed and initiated a
significant number of studies, further studies on some key issues remained to
be completed in order for the Government to make a knowledgeable decision on an
NPP.
The
team, therefore, made some recommendations aimed at assisting the country to
progress its nuclear infrastructure development.
Mr
Anthony Stott, a Senior Nuclear Engineer with the IAEA’s Nuclear Infrastructure
Development Section, at the closing ceremony said: “The INIR mission was
conducted in a cooperative and open atmosphere. The Ghanaian team was very well
prepared for the mission, and managed its participation in the review
effectively”.
He
explained that the INIR mission reviewed the status of all the 19 nuclear power
infrastructure issues, using the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Technical Report
(NG-T-3.2 Rev.1) Evaluation of the Status of National Infrastructure
Development.
He
said prior to the INIR mission, Ghana had prepared a Self-Evaluation Report
covering all the infrastructure issues using this evaluation methodology and
submitted the report and 168 supporting documents to the IAEA.
Mr
Stott said some of the areas highlighted by the INIR team for further action
included the completion of all the studies needed for the government to make a
knowledgeable decision on an NPP and the assessment of its legal framework to
ensure its adequacy for nuclear power.
They
said the preparation for the early second Phase activities, including
discussions with vendors and other operational partners must also be carried
out.
He
said the team also identified strengths in Ghana’s processes such as the
establishment of an effective Technical Body by the Ghana Nuclear Power
Programme Organisation, (GNPPO), which had been given a strong programme
management function and mechanisms to involve a wide and comprehensive range of
stakeholders.
This,
he said, ensured an inclusive process in the studies required for the
government to make a knowledgeable decision that would also benefit other
countries considering the introduction of nuclear power.
Professor
Benjamin Jabez Nyarko, the Director-General of the Ghana Atomic Energy
Commission, welcomed the outcome of the INIR mission, saying Ghana was
committed to the careful step-by-step development of its nuclear power
programme, therefore, the gaps identified by the Mission, would be tackled in
earnest to enable the country to make a knowledgeable decision in 2018, as per
its roadmap for nuclear power development.
He
explained that having been grappling with serious energy crises over the years
that severely hampered its economic development, Cabinet in 2008 took a
decision to consider a potential role for nuclear power in the country’s energy
mix.
Nuclear
energy was thus included in the National Energy Policy and Strategy in 2010;
and in 2012 established the Ghana Nuclear Power Programme Organisation (GNPPO)
to coordinate the government activities to prepare to make an informed, long
term commitment to developing a Nuclear Power Programme (NPP).
The
INIR Missions, enable IAEA Member-State representatives to have in-depth
discussions with international experts about experiences and best practices in
different countries, and in developing its recommendations, the INIR team takes
into account the comments made by the relevant national organisations.
The
implementation of any of the team’s recommendations is at the discretion of the
Member State to develop an action plan to fill any gaps, which in turn would
help the development of the national nuclear infrastructure.
Editorial
GHANA’S NUCLEAR
PROGRAMME
The
commendation of Ghana for successes in the implementation of the country’s
nuclear programme by experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
is heart-warming.
The
Insight is convinced that given the current energy challenges faced by Ghana,
it is almost imperative that we shift to nuclear power generation.
The
problem had always been how to meet safety standards and the availability of
experts.
However
from the reports of experts from the IAEA it appears that Ghana has already
made giant strides in the search for nuclear power.
We
urge the government of Ghana to vigorously pursue the agenda of exploiting
nuclear power as soon as possible.
‘I didn’t know I was
being watched’- Collins Dauda
 |
| Alhaji Collins Dauda |
By
Benjamin Mensah
Alhaji
Collins Dauda, the Member of Parliament for Asutifi South Constituency and
former Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, was on Friday
presented with the ”most dedicated communal servant of Ghana 2016” award.
The
Confederation of Governance Assessment Institute (COGAI) organized the
Pan-African Eminence awards last year and its representative, Dr Henry Brenya,
presented the award, in the form of a trophy at Alhaji Dauda’s office at the
Parliament House in Accra.
The
elated legislator said “I did not know I was being watched. It is
necessary to put service first. You’ll attract the necessary recognition later.
I cherish this award so much.
“I
thank Allah who created me for this opportunity, President Mahama who nominated
me as his Minister and the people of Asutifi South for always electing me as
their Member of Parliament.”
Alhaji
Dauda used the occasion to urge colleague politicians and leaders to give off
their best, since they did not know who might be watching their performance
behind the scenes.
The
laureate was grateful to the awarding institution for the honour done him and
said he would be encouraged by it to be more people centered.
Alhaji
Dauda promised to initiate more developmental projects and social intervention
porgrammes to enhance the standard of living of the people of his area.
The
Osagyefo Pan-Africa Eminence Awards 2016, is an event organized by the
Confederation of Governance Assessment Institute (COGAI), that brings together
deserving people, corporate institutions and dignitaries of African descent to
be awarded for their meritorious works in the variety of fields they find
themselves.
The
event is designed to promote Pan-Africanism and socialization with people of
different backgrounds, to motivate and award people of African descent to
achieve excellence in their various fields.
German companies
want to invest $12bn in Iran's oil industry
 |
| A worker prepares to transport oil pipelines |
Several
major oil and petrochemical companies from Germany have expressed their
interest in investing in the Iranian oil sector.
The
companies including BASF say they are ready to invest a total of $12bn in Iran.
BASF has
offered to invest in a six-billion-dollar project to establish petrochemical
sites in southern parts of Iran.
The
company’s managing director was a member of an official delegation that visited
Iran in 2016 headed by German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel.
Wintershall
Holding GmbH, Germany's largest crude oil and natural gas producer and a wholly
owned subsidiary of BASF, has already signed a memorandum of understanding
(MoU) with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to conduct research on four
oil fields west of Iran.
South Africa and the Changing Possibilities for the Left
By
Leonard Gentle
With
the claims that a new trade union federation will be launched in March 2017, it
is appropriate to draw up a balance sheet of the labour movement in South
Africa, and ask whether the optimism of many that a new Left force is going to
be unleashed is justified.
Or
whether the possibilities for a force of revolutionary working class politics
lie elsewhere.
With
the claims that a new trade union federation will be launched in March 2017, it
is appropriate to draw up a balance sheet of the labour movement in South Africa,
and ask whether the optimism of many that a new Left force is going to be
unleashed is justified. Or whether the possibilities for a force of
revolutionary working class politics lie elsewhere.
The
period framed by the Marikana massacre of August 2012 and the December 2013
Special Congress of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA)
– a congress in which the union formally broke with the African National
Congress’ (ANC) Tripartite Alliance – was one in which, so it seemed, a political
rupture occurred. Marikana represented the end of the old anti-apartheid
movement and NUMSA’s political break seemed to prefigure the rise of a Left
project anchored on the largest trade union in South Africa. NUMSA’s
resolutions of a United Front, a Movement for Socialism and even the
possibilities of a Workers’ Party seemed to promise so much that its political
break was dubbed “the NUMSA Moment”- signaling a new politics, much like the
1973 Durban strikes. Its aftermath was dubbed the “Durban Moment” as it
appeared to be a break with a left politics defined by the then ANC’s political
mix of national liberation based on liberal constitutionalism and guerilla
warfare and the South African Communist Party’s (SACP) sanctification of this
under the two-stage “National Democratic Revolution”
Now,
at the end of 2016 – on the eve of the next NUMSA National Congress, and with
the claims by NUMSA’s union cohorts and expelled ex-Congress of South African
Trade Unions (COSATU) General-Secretary, Zwelenzima Vavi, that a new trade
union federation rival will be launched in March 2017, it is appropriate to
draw up a balance sheet of the labour movement three years later, and ask
whether the optimism of many that a new Left force was going to be unleashed
there, was justified. Or whether the possibilities for a force of revolutionary
working class politics lie elsewhere.
So
far, the evidence for optimism for a trade union focus doesn’t look good…
·
At the beginning of
2015, the state announced reforms in labour legislation that amounted to a new
terrain of struggle for the largely precarious majority of the working class.
COSATU – who had been in the National Economic Development and Labour Council
(NEDLAC) negotiating these with its “social partners” - and all its affiliates,
responded with a resounding silence. This reflected its social distance from
the precarious working class majority.
·
Then, in the middle of
2015, COSATU had its long-contested Special National Congress – which proceeded
to consolidate the victory of its decrepit bureaucracy and confirm the
expulsion of NUMSA. This was followed by an end of the year national congress
which served only to confirm its struggle against irrelevance.
·
Then, the tertiary
student struggles in the second half of 2015 raised the demand of the end of
outsourcing and it was to the students that the workers turned, and university
management grappled with who to talk to as the National Education, Health and
Allied Workers’ Union’s (NEHAWU) distance from workers got exposed.
·
Then, at the end of
2016, the NEDLAC committee of experts appointed to come up with a proposed
figure for a minimum wage of 20 Rand per hour - with farm workers and domestic
workers exempted - at the same time as NEDLAC mulls a new law to limit the
right to strike. These measures come after a ruling class and media
hysteria-inducing campaign that South Africa has to be saved from a rating
agency downgrade. COSATU and NUMSA commented on the figure proposed for the
minimum wage, but are scrupulously silent on the new limitations on the right
to strike and COSATU joins the initiatives to assure the rating agencies.
Here we will argue that the Marikana massacre – in signaling the end of the old
anti-apartheid movement - also signaled the end of the necessary relation
between 1970s-style trade unions and the fighting battalions of the working
class. To the extent that the “NUMSA moment” was, albeit important, a
rhetorical break with the ANC but not a rupture with the politics, tactics and
organizational forms of the Tripartite Alliance, the most important evaluation
of that moment is to note the continuity with those politics – as is also the
case with the promised new federation. In this regard we seek to find the
sources for that continuity, despite the laudable formal break with the ANC and
the SACP.
COSATU
has sunk into a terminal quagmire and has become a caricature of itself. Its
biggest affiliate – NUMSA – has been expelled for breaking with the ANC, and
food union, Food and Allied Workers’ Union (FAWU), has disaffiliated. Nine
affiliates were originally part of NUMSA’s call on COSATU’s president to convene
a special congress in 2014 (some of these are now part of an initiative to form
a new trade union federation, first announced in 2015, and now scheduled to be
launched in March 2017).
In
2014, workers and staff of the municipal union, the South African Municipal
Workers’ Union (SAMWU), occupied its head office in protest at allegations that
over 160 million Rand had gone missing. Teachers’ union, SADTU, expelled its
president, deemed to be too close to erstwhile COSATU General Secretary,
Zwelenzima Vavi. Vavi was charged with securing sexual favours from a COSATU
employee and also faced an enquiry into the selling of COSATU’s old building
and the buying of the new one – the process conducted by the then head of
COSATU’s investment arm Kopano ke Matla, Colin Matjila, who then moved on to
head up the parastatal, the Electricity Supply Commission
(Eskom).
COSATU’s
ex-biggest affiliate, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), has collapsed in
the platinum sector and only holds on to gold workers by dint of centralised
bargaining arrangements with the Chamber of Mines. Chemical and paper union,
CEPPWAWU, is threatened with de-registration by the Department of Labour for
failing to submit regular membership updates and not holding congresses, and is
only saved by a cosy relationship with the minister of labour. Transport union,
SATAWU, communications union, CWU, and teachers’ union, SADTU, have experienced
splits with accusations about corruption around their investment company (in
the case of SATAWU) and jobs-for-pals in the case of SADTU.
In
2016, it is revealed that the incoming NUM leadership received money from the
Guptas family (of “state-capture” notoriety).
Only
NEHAWU has a substantial membership, and that is due to its being a public
sector union of white collar beneficiaries of affirmative action in the public
services.
This
demise of COSATU is no cause for celebration or indifference.
Forged
in the cauldron of thousands of strikes and campaigns, and rightly celebrated
for both being at the centre of the resistance movement against apartheid and
for being the first within the mass movement to begin to formulate new policies
for a transformed South Africa, COSATU’s history is a noble one written in the
blood of workers.
And
yet, in 2013 the country experienced a national strike wave and an
unprecedented farmworkers’ strike; and in 2014 we had the biggest and longest
strike in South Africa’s mining history – both sources of renewal for the
working class, and both waves passed COSATU and its affiliates by. Even worse,
NUM actively tried to break the 2014 strike, but didn’t even have the credibility
and muscle to do so.
We
have had nearly 15 years of working class communities being in what has been
called everything from “service delivery” protests to a “revolt of the poor”.
And these too have passed COSATU by.
Far
from the demise of COSATU occurring in a period of a lull in mass politics, or
a new defeat of the working class, it is occurring when a new movement is on
the rise. It is just that COSATU is not part of this new movement.
That
it should implode is tragic. That it should disintegrate in this inglorious way
is farce.
There
are three sources for this disjuncture between the demise of COSATU (that
includes the failure of the “NUMSA-moment”), and the rise of a new movement:
·
Firstly, the implosion
of the Zuma-alliance as the most immediate.
·
Secondly, and at a
deeper level, the insertion of COSATU and all its affiliates into the new
industrial relations order after 1994 – a process that will reveal both the
moral corruption of COSATU as well as the source of the new mass politics of
today.
·
Thirdly, at the deepest
level, the disconnect between a restructured working class after nearly 25
years of neoliberalism – both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of
reproduction – and the shifting demographics of COSATU as an organisation of a
new middle class, while this restructured working class takes to the road of
mass struggle .
It
was to NUMSA’s credit that it saw the need to address the first source by
breaking politically with the Tripartite Alliance (particularly the
stranglehold exercised by the SACP). But its failure to have any serious
engagement with the second and third sources (except in the rhetorical form of
its “United Front”) has dashed the hopes of many that a new Left project would
emerge out of the “NUMSA moment”.
Late
2016 saw the announcement of a range of restrictions placed on the right to
strike – compulsory balloting, the setting up of compulsory advisory mediation
and the declaration of the ending of violent strikes – taken at NEDLAC with the
full compliance of COSATU. And, yet, presented as a victory, because the panel
of experts had recommended a national minimum wage – set at 3 500 Rand, but
with a number of exemptions – domestic workers, farmworkers and with provision
for employers to win further exemptions.
This
agreement takes place without a whimper of protest from COSATU, not even
bothering to inform its own members, let alone galvanising them.
At
the same time, the shell of COSATU begins to meddle in the ANC’s chaos with its
central executive committee championing Cyril Ramaphosa – he with the blood of
the Marikana workers on his hands.
As
2016 draws to an end, there is a forthcoming NUMSA Congress from 13 December.
But already there are signs that NUMSA and its allies are part of the same rot
bedeviling COSATU.
The
hoped for alternative federation continues to flounder. NUMSA too has attacked
the figure proposed for the new national minimum wage, but remained silent on
the new proposed restrictions on the right to strike. The opportunity for the
new federation to base its case on a defining mass struggle – such as the
proposed restrictions on the right to strike - has not, to date, been prioritized.
NUMSA’s
proposed United Front – spoken of since late 2013 - has not had a single
instance of joint struggle, either with the working class communities active
for 15 years, or with the iconic platinum mineworkers’ strike of
2014.
And
NUMSA announces a three-year deal with the retail motor employers – backing
down from its original demand for a super-bargaining council. NUMSA has just
backed down on all its demands in each of its three core sectors – engineering,
auto and now retail motor – without a strike or any testing of the waters of
its own members.
The
sources for COSATU’s demise
The
immediate, first level, can be traced to the make-up of disgruntled forces
which overthrew Thabo Mbeki. The SACP, COSATU and the ANC Youth League (ANCYL)
were a coterie of conspirators which made a pact with Jacob Zuma that, in
return for seats at the table of the state, they would champion a deeply-flawed
individual into the highest office.
That
agenda had little to do – as we now know - with some kind of Left-Right
programmatic tension within the ANC, or that Zuma, as against Mbeki, was a more
“pro-poor candidate”, but was about a series of manoeuvres to get into
influential positions in the state machinery. COSATU is now reaping the
whirlwind from that Faustian pact. It is to NUMSA’s and its allies’ credit that
it sought to belatedly break with this pact.
But
the second reason is one which has deeper roots - the growing corruption and
the nature of the industrial relations framework that emerged after 1994 (a
scenario which envelops NUMSA as well).
South
Africa’s Labour Relations Act (LRA), Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA)
and their associated institutions of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation
and Arbitration (CCMA), the Sector Education Training Authorities (SETAs) and
National Economic, Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) came out of a series
of engagements around the National Economic Forum, the Labour Market Commission
and the National Training Board between 1990 and 1995. Like the World Trade
Centre negotiations at Kempton Park, which shaped South African political
compromises, there was a similar set of trade-offs being enacted within the
labour market sphere between Labour (essentially COSATU) and Big Business.
The
whole system presumed a scenario whereby Big Business would get the benefits of
labour flexibility, industrial peace and skilled labour and Big Labour would
get skills, job security, higher wages and a seat at the table of all labour
market institutions.
But
neither the state nor Big Business kept their side of the bargain. Whereas the
LRA, the SETAs and NEDLAC were unveiled during the period of the Reconstruction
and Development Programme, the government unveiled Growth, Employment and
Redistribution (GEAR) and its neoliberal prescriptions, without any
consideration of its Big Labour “partner”. And Big Business, instead of seeking
beneficiation and skilled labour, took the gap – at least the biggest South
African monopolies did - unbundled, financialised and then jumped ship to
London, New York and Melbourne. Making money via releasing “share-holder value”
on global stock markets was so much more profitable than extending employment
and promoting skills, let alone hanging out with its “social partners” in
NEDLAC.
That
left COSATU with nowhere else to go. After responding with anger in the early
days of GEAR, the federation was very happy – at least in the Mbeki years - to
slag off the betrayals of its tripartite partner, the ANC, while its leaders,
organisers and even shop stewards raked in the money involved in attending
NEDLAC, SETAs and the myriad other tripartite and centralised bargaining fora.
And each COSATU union, including the now departed NUMSA and FAWU, used workers’
retirement funds and Black Economic Empowerment niches to set up investment
companies and serve on the boards of retirement funds.
This
amounted to no less than the corruption of the labour movement – from senior
leadership down to its battalions of shop stewards.
But
at its deepest level, the underlying causes for the demise of COSATU (which
account for the failure of the “NUMSA moment”) lie in the major structural
changes that have happened to the working class over the last 20 years of
neoliberal capitalism and the re-alignment of COSATU’s membership.
In
that period, the neoliberal attacks on the working class have seen a shift away
from full employment and fixed employment towards casualisation,
informalisation and unemployment in the case of the world of work, and the
abandonment by the state of the sphere of reproduction of the working class –
from apartheid brick houses in townships to shacks in informal settlements;
from Bantu education to no education or privatised education; from
discriminatory services to no services or commodified services – beyond the
reach of the poor. As a result, the working class in South Africa is now
largely an unemployed, casualised, semi-homeless mass.
Neoliberalism
was above all a strategy on the part of capital to respond to the crisis of
over-production and over-accumulation which threatened profitability from the
late 1960s and early 1970s.
Much
has been made of the features of this form of capital accumulation – mobile
finance capital, accumulation by dispossession, new roles for the state, etc.
Many of these features are being sharply illustrated by the ongoing global
crisis. But the restructuring of social relations that is neo-liberalism also
included quite fundamental changes to the labour process: from millions of
workers being driven out of the labour process itself (into unemployment), to a
variety of forms of externalisation and labour flexibility, part-time work,
home work, casualisation and outsourcing. These changes have also seen work
become increasingly feminised and more vulnerable sections of the working class
– immigrants and refugees for instance – being particularly susceptible to the
most extreme forms of labour flexibility.
Frequently,
in cases such as outsourcing to home workers, the point of production has
become blurred with residential spaces.
Many
trade unions were formed in an entirely different period of accumulation
characterised by higher degrees of permanent, industrial employment. In South
Africa, for instance, we have a model of national industrial unions defined
along sectoral lines, which successfully served to build a high degree of
worker unity in the 1980s. Our labour laws after 1994 explicitly championed
this model, and trade union organisers are well-versed in methods of organising
based on signing membership via stop orders on company payrolls, sticking
closely to the notion of one-industry-one-union, and decision-making processes
which work through vertical national structures.
And
neo-liberalism has equally been about the restructuring of the sphere of
reproduction of the working class. The cuts in public services and social
spending on public health, education and housing, and the commercialisation and
privatisation of water, energy, housing, and so forth, practised by almost all
states across the world, have cast the burden of reproduction of the working
class largely back onto the working class itself, particularly working class
women.
These
changes in both the sphere of production and the sphere of reproduction have
engendered something quite fundamental – a change in the composition of the
working class, and a shift in the centre of gravity of struggles.
COSATU
in the meanwhile has also changed in composition – from a largely blue-collar
working class formation in the 1980s and 1990s - to the largely public sector,
white collar federation it is today. This is reflected in studies done by its
own research arm, the National Labour and Economic Development Institute
(Naledi), as well as by the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE). Until
Marikana, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) was the biggest single union,
but NUM has moved on from a union of coal-face workers, to a union of white
collar above-ground technicians. The bulk of COSATU membership is now drawn
from NEHAWU, SADTU, CWU, SAMWU, POPCRU, etc. Nearly one-third of COSATU members
now have degrees.
This
changing composition of COSATU has seen the centre of gravity of mass struggles
in South Africa today shift towards the township poor, who are those who have
been waging service delivery struggles almost unabated for the last 15 years.
These have been struggles largely waged by sections of the working class who
are unemployed, the never-employed, the youth and women carrying the burden of
reproduction of the class.
How
should we regard COSATU’s demise?
With
the ongoing morass within COSATU, there is amongst many on the Left a sense
that some kind of moral nadir has been reached. COSATU - the radical voice of
the organised working class and the beacon of struggles in the 1980s and 1990s
– particularly after the United Democratic Front (UDF) was banned in 1987 by
the apartheid regime, has been reduced to a series of internecine squabbles
about corruption and sexual power games.
Some
might claim that the criticism that COSATU is not representative of the now
largely unemployed, precariously-employed working class is unfair. Indeed,
there are countless COSATU resolutions taken at congresses committing unions to
organise casual workers, to force the state to ban labour brokers. There are
initiatives of COSATU to research and possibly even set up structures to
recruit informalised workers, etc. Some would even assert that what is required
is the political will on the part of the industrial unions to tweak their
structures and embrace new forms of organising, which would be more appropriate
for this changed working class.
But
all of these initiatives presume a kind of “managerial” approach to struggles
and fail to understand how the working class generates its various
organisations, including the trade
unions.
In
this, there are those who wish to put the issue of politics at the centre but
with two divergent paths to their critique and possible remedy. On the Right,
the story goes that the COSATU unions have been too political and have
sacrificed workers’ interests for political gain. From this side, the call then
goes out for union to go “back to basics” – meaning focusing on “pure”
collective bargaining and servicing members. On the Left, on the other hand,
the analysis is that COSATU has adopted the wrong politics – kowtowing to the
ANC’s neoliberal policies. It’s not a problem of COSATU being too political,
but not being political enough. From these quarters, the answer is that if
COSATU were to embrace revolutionary politics, then the problem of worker
disaffection would be solved.
With
COSATU in terminal decline, this optimism was simply transferred to NUMSA after
its 2013 Special Congress’ decision to break from the Tripartite Alliance -
forge a “United Front”, a movement for socialism and explore a new party.
But
NUMSA itself was caught in this conundrum – on the one hand, pitching its tent
on the ground of the United Front – an initiative of seeking common ground with
the hundreds on instances of existing working class struggles in communities
and workplaces. And yet it was held captive by the need to honour its
obligations to save COSATU from itself. Having done so much to inspire
activists with its special congress resolutions of December 2013, it misread
the mood in the country amongst working class militants as it kept its focus on
the rot in COSATU – whether Vavi gets his job back, whether a special congress
will be held, etc.
In
a way, it was caught in a very traditional notion on the Left – that the trade
unions are the very stuff of working class life and that any hope of taking the
next step towards socialism depends on privileging the trade unions as the most
organised force of the working class,
etc.
Which
takes us to, probably, the most existential question of the lot: Is the
necessary issue of a working class organised to facilitate social change a
trade union question? Does the question of working class organisation even have
to privilege trade unions at all?
It
is not a given that the building of a mass working class movement privileges
trade unions
There
are no lack of instances of oppression and unfairness in contemporary society –
and always when people of whatever social category experience such oppression
they don’t just accept, but contest this oppression.
Traditional
liberal perspectives give moral legitimacy to these struggles as that of
competing “interest groups” and seek mechanisms to allow for their mediation
and resolution.
The
starting point for a Marxist perspective is the notion of the central role of
the working class in a theory of history and the possibilities of social
justice.
We
lay claim to the idea that the working class - uniquely amongst all classes –
is not just another “interest group” and that in pursuing its daily interests
it is compelled to shake up the whole edifice of society, and open the way to
revolution and human emancipation. But the working class, in order to act in
this capacity, needs organisation in order to act as class for itself.
Traditionally, many on the Left have privileged trade unions as that exemplar
of working class organisation which may play that potential role.
Why?
Some would argue because the trade unions organise workers as a collective at
the point of production, and because trade unions, as collectives of workers
doing bargaining about wages and working conditions, contest the social
surpluses produced by the working class, and thereby contest the terms of
exploitation of the working class. In this sense, trade unions objectively
school workers for more radical projects of political power and social justice.
But
this logic presupposes a long chain of causality which is not necessarily true,
and can be shown to be conceptually, historically and empirically questionable.
Over the course of its formation and history, the working class has thrown up a
plethora of different kinds of organisations – from benefit societies, to
clubs, cultural groups, co-operatives and trade unions, to political parties
and social movements. In no country in the world are the trade unions, taken as
a whole, the majority organisational expression of workers, even of the
employed workers. To be sure, South Africa has a relatively large trade union
density – at some 30% - but in some major industrialised countries – like the
USA - this can drop to less than 10%. Nevertheless, despite this “numbers
question”, many on the Left have argued that trade unions are unique amongst
all the different forms of working class organisation in that they contest the
terms of exploitation of the working class, so their social weight and
significance are far greater than their numbers.
But
is that always historically true? That trade unions have played this role more
than other organisational forms? Far from these being less about contestation
of the exploitation of the working class, some have at various times played a
greater role than trade unions in contesting that exploitation. In Britain, at
the turn of the 20th century, workers who had set up trade
unions, but had no political party, set up the Labour Party. And then, as the
parliamentary party shifted towards the centre, the trade unions – with
membership greater than the Labour Party – often occupied a space to the left
of the party. In Germany, however, the original Social Democratic Party
preceded the trade unions and vastly exceeded them in terms of membership. There,
the trade unions occupied a space on the extreme right wing of the party. In
Brazil in the 1980s, the trade unions set up the workers’ party (PT). When Lula
came into power and shifted the PT to the right, the labour unions of the CUT
(Unified Workers’ Central) were dragged rightwards with Lula. It was a social
movement, the MST (Landless Workers’ Movement), which became more
representative of the working class.
In
South Africa, for the last 15 years, community-based social movements have been
at the forefront of working class struggles while the trade unions have largely
stuck to Labour Relations Act-regulated wage struggles and generally insured
labour peace. In the South Africa of the 1920s, it was the Industrial and
Commercial Workers’ Union (ICU) which was most representative of the working
class, although it was only nominally a trade union and was rather, in today’s
language, a social movement of the urban and rural poor. When it was compelled
to become a “proper” trade union under the advice of William Ballinger in 1929,
it collapsed.
So
there is no consistency in the historical record that suggests that trade
unions are the primordial organisations of the working class or that they are
the ones most devoted, by their very nature, to contesting the exploitation of
the working class. And yet, despite this evidence, so many on the Left would
argue the centrality of the trade unions from “first principles”, from Marxist
theory, because they, falsely, conclude that the exploitation of the working class
occurs “at the point of production”.
The
notion that the exploitation of the working class is a matter of the “point of
production” is a false one – at least from the perspective of Marxist theory.
There has unfortunately been no lack of Left critics of capitalism who have
responded to economists’ focus on relationships of exchange – as in, for
instance, the notion of price being determined by the relation between supply
and demand by bending the stick the other way, and focusing on production and associating
this with Marx. By so doing they separate what needs to be unified, and thereby
do disservice to Marx’s critique of classical political
economy.
Marx’s
critique of political economy was broad-ranging. But for our purposes, let us
focus on three strands. One strand was Marx’s critique of classical political
economy’s labour theory of value as the idea that value is about the amount of
labour time spent in production. This led to the obvious rejoinder that
capitalists would favour lazy workers. Instead, Marx amended this position to
the notion of “socially-necessary” labour time. While labour produced value, it
was only possible to give expression to this process in a world of competition
between capitalists for the sale of commodities, which would reward the process
by achieving a sale in the context of this competition – meaning that labour
was only productive labour in the capitalist sense when it was able to realise
value in the form of consumption/sale. So production and consumption had of necessity
to be related.
A
second strand is his notion of surplus value - that is the difference between
the value produced (as realised in a sale) as against the value of the workers’
labour power. Increasing surplus value can be done either by extending the
value creating period – what Marx called absolute surplus value, or by reducing
the value of workers’ labour power – relative surplus value. Capitalists
exploit workers both by commanding their labour power in production and by
suppressing the value of their labour power in reproduction. So the
exploitation of the working class is both about the production of value by the
worker and the issue of the reproduction of the working class. In the case of
the Keynesian welfare state, the cost of reproduction could be transferred onto
the state rather that the individual capitalist, but under neoliberalism this
has reverted, largely, to the extended families of the working class.
A
third strand was to insist on the notion of the necessary unity of the circuit
of capital – from reproduction, to production and the realisation through
sale/consumption. A break in this virtuous cycle is the source of crisis for
capitalism.
Without
this understanding – of the relation between production, reproduction and
consumption - we cannot understand exploitation, the working class and
capitalism itself. It is false to see the working class as defined solely by
the sphere of production. And therefore, the class struggle is waged both
across the whole circuit of capital and certainly both within the sphere of
production and the sphere of reproduction.
With
this understanding, we can liberate ourselves from the class struggle being
seen as a “trade union” question par excellence, and focus on which working
class elements are actually struggling and which organisational forms are
emerging, concretely.
Self-organisation
and struggle is the key
When
the wave of working class community protests first emerged at the beginning of
the 2000s, the media termed them “service delivery” protests, whilst Left
intellectuals close to some of the early protests dubbed them “new social
movements”, and then borrowed the language and concepts of new social movement
theory – which sought to emphasise an apparent break with “Old Left theory” to
characterise them. Other academics merely trotted out the figures for protests
and the police records to claim that South Africa was the “protest capital of
the world”.
More
recently, there have been two different views: one from University of
Johannesburg that these protests constitute a “rebellion of the poor” and
others at Wits University dubbing the protests “insurgent citizenship”.
Underlying all of these is an attempt at a creating a binary – working class
activists are either rebelling against South Africa’s version of bourgeois
society or else seeking to negotiate the terms of their access to bourgeois
democracy. And the question can be settled by doing interviews and getting
closer to what activists actually articulate.
But
this misrepresents the peculiar dialectic of the working class and its location
in society. The working class is not revolutionary because it rejects bourgeois
social relations and wants socialist revolution. It is revolutionary in seeking
what is on offer within bourgeois society, but its location within the
bourgeois order compels it to overturn all the strictures of bourgeois society.
South
Africa’s working class community activists “only” want houses, water,
electricity and other services. But when they act collectively to get these
services, they expose the whole edifice of neoliberal capitalism. They “only”
want to be consulted on decision-making in their communities and hold
councillors accountable, but when they act in collective action they challenge
the whole moral construction of the Kempton Park order.
Of
course, saying so does not settle the question as to whether these struggles
are in the ascendancy or in retreat, whether the activists are deeply-rooted in
their communities or what the consciousness of the leading layers is, or
whether the balance of forces with the ruling class has changed significantly.
But
our starting point is to characterise this as a New Movement. We have been
characterising it as such in three senses:
·
It is self-generating
and not the work of professional activists, political parties or Left groups
who “punch above their weight”.
·
It has begun to straddle
different moments in the life of the working class – from initially being in
the sphere of reproduction and then, before and after Marikana, moving into the
sphere of production.
·
It is being conducted
outside the sphere of the leading layers and organisations of the old
anti-apartheid movement – the ANC, COSATU, the SACP and SANCO (South African
National Civic Organisation) - that are now thoroughly discredited and are seen
as the perpetrators of the neoliberal order.
The
rise of the new movement is the single most important feature of this
conjuncture and poses both opportunities and challenges to the Left.
The
tertiary student uprising of the second half of 2015, and again in 2016, is
another addition to a growing new movement in South Africa. But having located
the centrality of this new movement to understanding class struggles in South
Africa today and the possibility that this represents to revolutionary Left
politics it is important also to note that there are key unresolved challenges
presented by this conjuncture of a new restructured working class and
out-of-synch trade union organisations…
The
organising role of capitalism itself and new questions for the movement
Classically,
capitalism itself organises the working class, and, objectively, in its own image.
The concentration and centralisation of capital over some 100 years found its
alter ego in the concentration of the working class – in mass factories,
industrial areas and residential estates and townships, etc. Capital’s need for
the reproduction of the working class saw mass public education and mass public
housing (its apogee being the Keynesian welfare model – where even
Apartheid became a racial variant by the 1950s/60s) provided grounds for
the intellectual life and the material survival and development of the class.
Capital’s
need for a working class provided the weapons for the organised formations
which emerged amongst the working class to contest the terms of incorporation
into their own exploitation – e.g. trade unions and other forms of collective
bargaining. These forms even gave rise to other forms of organisation concerned
with the question of political power – e.g. mass parties of the working class –
and even provided spaces for bourgeois parties to seek voters in trade-offs
with working class formations. Taylorist/Fordist/Keynesian capitalism organised
the working class in its own interest and yet on this basis the working class
was able to form a movement against capitalist domination with all its
regional, national and local peculiarities.
But
how does this role played by capitalism itself look in the case of neoliberal
capitalism, given the nature and extent of the restructuring of social
relations that it is responsible for?
Let
us look at five key changes under neoliberalism and their related unresolved
questions:
·
From the production of
surplus value in the mass production of industry/ manufacture to the
contestation amongst capitals over the distribution of surplus value through
financialisation.
·
From the mass factory/industrial
area/mass reproduction and its role in forging a collective consciousness of
the working class, to the casualisation, outsourcing, homework, precariousness,
unemployment, homelessness and the dismemberment of the class? And not just as a
temporary phenomenon. Including the sense that many strata amongst the working
class do not even self-identify as “working class”?
·
From the wage relation
as the source of livelihoods - providing a basis for the working class fighting
its exploitation whilst “enjoying” these livelihoods, so that the moral and
intellectual life of the class is built on this basis - to the class having to
seek ‘self-initiatives” for livelihoods, including living in a state of
indebtedness?
·
From the state as the
collective organiser of the capitalist class, ensuring the most general
conditions for capital accumulation, to the state particularising financial
capital, devolving functions to local states and cities, outsourcing state
functions, transferring functions to other networks of states – so that the
unifying quality of political power for the dominated classes becomes far more
diffuse.
·
From public services,
education, health, and so forth, being provided by the state and therefore a
source of direct political contestation, to the provision by private providers
and by the class itself, particularly women, in which the state does not appear
to be involved. So that the question of a political focus for organising
becomes more abstract.
In these senses, and
others, neoliberal capitalism is organising the class, objectively, differently
to that of most of 20th century capitalism. And so the forms of
organising within the new movement will also be different.
But,
seeing that the victory of neoliberalism was predicated on a profound defeat of
the dominated classes since the 1970s and 1980s, the existential question
arises: How does the class which is being organised differently, objectively,
out of DEFEATS by this form of capitalism yet find ways to forge a movement
which is an expression not of defeat, but of new capabilities able to turn the
historic defeats into new victories?
To
do this the class is experimenting with new ways of organising. But this is not
a “pure” organising question, but a political one of finding within these
experiments new ways of how to re-assert the need for unity, for political
power and for emancipatory practices, both as a vision for Left politics, for
movements as well as practices within movements.
Any
Left worth its salt needs to be part of these processes - grappling with the
strategic, tactical, organisational and political questions that they throw
up.
* Leonard Gentle is a long-time South
African political activist and trade unionist, and is the retired director of
the International Labour Research and Information Group (ILRIG).
Life Without Bees:
The Effects on Food
By Jennifer Forbes
Due
to climate change, the increased use of pesticides and a range of other causal
factors, bee populations have decreased steadily over the past years. This
could result in a huge impact on our food supply and indeed, our health.
As a matter of
fact, one in every three bites of food consumed around the world depends
on pollinators, bees in particular, for a successful crop, and
without these hard-working insects most of our favorite foods would sadly not
exist.
Furthermore, bees are responsible
for the reproduction of alfalfa and clover, which feed cattle and other grazing
animals, so without them we would lose a significant portion of our milk,
cheese, butter, yogurt and ice creams.
There is no doubt that
without these delicious foods, our lives would become duller. Yet, there is an
even more frightening reality. With the decline of bees, not only would the
foods we love disappear, but also the food we need. Some of the most vitamin
and mineral-rich foods are dependent on insect pollination. Deficiencies in
these nutrients can have devastating effects on human health, with an increased
risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease, as well as malnutrition and
mortality in less-developed regions.
Below we have taken a
look at foods that are under direct threat if we do not save the bees, and it
is not just honey.
Almonds (granola)
Almond blossoms rely
entirely on pollination by bees, and it is not just the almonds that need the
bees for survival; the bees need almonds. The blossoms provide the first good
pollen in California (where 80% of the world’s almonds are harvested), and this
source is hugely important for the bees as it gives them valuable strength at
the start of the season.
Blueberries
90 percent of all
blueberry crops are pollinated by bumble bees and blueberry bees, which means
that scarcity would drive skyrocketing prices for these antioxidant-packed
super berries.
Coffee
The coffee plant is
self-pollinating but still needs cross-pollination from bees to develop healthy
yields. The flower of the coffee tree is only open for pollination for three or
four days, and if it does not get pollinated in that short window, the crop
will become weaker and more prone to disease. Although coffee would be likely
to exist without bees, it would become very expensive and rare.
Orange juice
90 percent of orange
trees depend on pollination by bees. There are, however, some varieties that
are self-pollinating types, such as the Navel Orange.
Pumpkin seeds
(granola)
Pumpkin seeds contain
high levels of magnesium, which is beneficial for your blood pressure and can
help prevent sudden cardiac arrest, heart attack and stroke. These nutritional
power seeds are heavily dependent on squash bees and it is estimated that 90
percent of crops would disappear without them.
Rapeseed (oil) spread
Both rapeseed
(including canola) oil and spread are at risk from the decline of bees. The
furry pollinators benefit vastly from the nutrition of these bright yellow
flowers, but sadly the crops are often heavily treated with pesticides.
Raspberries
Raspberries require
insects to insure pollination as the crops otherwise would be misshapen,
smaller and fewer. These powerful berries can help reduce the risk of
cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.
Strawberries
Bee pollination is not
essential, but many farmers use bees to complement wind pollination as insect
pollination can help produce berries of higher quantity and quality.
Sunflower spread (oil)
and seeds
The heavy and sticky
character of sunflower pollen requires it to be carried by bees and other
pollinators rather than wind. If you are using sunflower spread on your
sandwich or eat granola with sunflower seeds, you might need to switch to an
alternative if bees die out.
Lunch / Dinner
How your Lunch /
Dinner is affected
Cucumbers
Without bees, the
majority of cucumber crops would not exist (so no more pickles on your burger).
It has been reported that cucumber farmers have already seen a significant
decrease in their crop yields.
Mustard
One third of all
mustard plants require bee pollination, meaning a significantly smaller dash of
mustard to go with your meal. Mustard is not solely used as a condiment; the
seeds can help treat inflammatory conditions such as arthritis.
Onions
Onions are harvested
before blooming and only require pollination when grown to produce seeds. Fewer
bees would make it difficult and expensive for farmers to acquire seeds, which
would result in a diminished supply and increased prices.
Peppers
Bees are not entirely
necessary to pollinate peppers as wind tends to circulate the pollen, but the
quality and quantity is significantly improved when pollinated by insects.
Today, bees are often used to pollinate peppers growing in sheltered locations
or greenhouses, which means we are able enjoy locally-sourced peppers, even out
of season. That would change without bees.
Potatoes
Although the potato
plant does not require bee pollination to produce, it needs to be pollinated in
order to breed, which means supply would most likely decrease significantly.
Sesame seeds
More than 80% of all
pollination is performed by insects, and bees comprise nearly 80% of the total
insect population. Due to their rich nutritional value, sesame seeds play an
important role in many people’s diets. A decline in bees would not only result
in seed-free bread for your burger, it could, more importantly, lead to
increased malnutrition in some of the world’s poorest countries.
Tomatoes
While most tomato
types are self-pollinating, bees can help increase fruit production and quality
significantly. Hence, without bees, the supply of one of our best-loved
vegetables would sadly diminish.
Dessert
How your Dessert is
affected
Apples
Apples are heavily
reliant on cross-pollination and are one of the foods that would suffer most if
bees disappeared. An absence of bees would result in a drastic price increase
as well as a lower quality of crop, taste and nutrient profile.
Blackberries
These delicious summer
berries are dependent upon bees for pollination. If bees died out, the
effectiveness of pollination would drop and plants would produce significantly
fewer seeds.
Kiwi
Bumblebees are
especially effective pollinators of kiwifruits as their large and furry bodies
carry a great amount of pollen. Without bees, these vitamin C rich fruits are
at risk.
Pumpkins
Massively dependent on
pollinators, it is estimated that 90% of pumpkin, squash and gourd crops would
disappear with the bees. That means no pumpkin carving or pumpkin pies.
Conclusion
In a world without
bees, our food would not be as tasty, nutritious or plentiful. Some of our
favorite foods would disappear completely whilst others would be scarce and
expensive. Here we have highlighted the vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds that
are dependent on bees, but even meat and dairy products would be at risk as
many cows’ diets consist mainly of pollinator-dependent alfalfa and clover.
No comments:
Post a Comment