Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Reflections on the Mayoral Debate

Reflections on the Johannesburg Mayoral Debate: 
Floyd Shivambu 
One of the greatest achievements of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has been its ability to set and define discourse on key issues that were considered no-go areas in the past. There are many pertinent issues such as nationalisation of mines, land expropriation without compensation, the powers of the Public Protector, profit shifting, tax avoidance and transfer pricing, and many other issues which we brought into the national discourse and somewhat influenced policies, which point to a responsive, yet incorrect direction.
Whenever we lead the discourse, the media lags behind because of the deeper lack of sophistication and intrinsic understanding by members of the media on any topical issues. Media often looks for sound bites and source information with the aim of capturing sound bites. There are very few or no media practitioners in South Africa who pay detailed attention to any specific topic. This is despite attempts and offers, for instance, by progressive global Organisations such as the Tax Justice Network to train and induct media practitioners on key issues around tax avoidance.
Media practitioners’ lack of deeper understanding on topical issues or even appreciation of key economic developments in the world deprives society of an opportunity to be exposed to new and alternate ideas and information. This is starkly illustrated by Stephen Grootes’ sorry interpretation of the discourse of “cityness” and the role of metropoles we introduced during the Johannesburg mayoral debate at The Gathering, which can be a great platform for ideological and political discussions. I had initially given Grootes the benefit of the doubt and blamed his line and quality of questioning on time constraints, but now that he has written his observations, it’s apparent that we should respond to the ignorance, and enlighten society.
In my opening remarks to the mayoral debate, I spoke about the historical role of cities and metropoles all over the world and made specific reference to the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone in China, and highlighted the fact that cities should be spaces and places of labour absorptive production, not just consumption spaces. I then drew the link that what Johannesburg’s outgoing mayor claims are achievements, are actually infrastructure for the rich and malls (consumption spaces) that do not create quality jobs, but reproduce the spatial inequalities designed by apartheid.
Now, the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone in China is the most successful city development and growth metropolitan region in the world, which heralded the most decisive developments, jobs and economic expansion. The zone includes Guangzhou, Foshan, Shenzhen and Dongguan and covers a space geographically smaller than Gauteng. Despite this reality, the economic zone accommodates 42-million people in a space of 7000ha in a dynamic skyscraper environment, with excellent infrastructure which is better managed than the city of Joburg.
The Pearl River Delta Economic Zone accounted for close to 20% percent of China’s economy and close to 40% percent of total trade in 2005. What defines this zone are jobs for the people in the productive sectors and small scale trade. The interplay between manufacturing, services and consumption in this region makes it one of the most dynamic economic regions in the world.
Due to its historical development and growth, Johannesburg, in the context of the poorly conceptualised city region, could play a leading role in the growth and sustenance of Gauteng and South Africa as a whole. It was therefore within context to speak about the role of Johannesburg in the economy of Gauteng and South Africa. A debate about Johannesburg cannot and should not be reduced to typical municipal functions of robots switching off, but to the dynamic of labour absorptive economic expansion, which is beginning to be evasive in the age of what the World Economic Forum called the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. 
Instead of asking the fellow panellists about Johannesburg’s role in the region and country’s economic development, the moderator, Stephen Grootes, resorted to the lazy thinking false discourse about exploitation of workers in China, which I illustrated is a separate discourse. The principal question is on what economic development model does Johannesburg adopt to be the productive space in South Africa’s economy and how state strategic control and ownership of mineral resources and land link to that. The question is how many jobs does the city create and sustain.
Like all economic zones in the world, the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone has a set of specialised trade rules and regulations, designed to attract more productive industrialists and investors instead of consumption led investors. As a metropolis with the highest population in South Africa who need jobs, it is incumbent on Johannesburg to utilise existing infrastructure, legislative frameworks and strategic support to set trade rules and regulations that will create maximum employment to those without jobs.
Now Johannesburg is a neoliberal city where finished goods and services are dumped for consumption. This deprives the city of its “cityness”, with dynamic interplay between production, manufacturing, services and trade. Johannesburg under the ANC is modelled on the lines of the City of London whose expressed mission is to be a financial and services capital of the world.
This explains the bicycle lanes, which form part of a very dynamic and possibly the most successful public transport system in London, which links rail, bus rapid transit, airports and bicycles. The city of London bicycle lanes are within context because the city provides bicycles at virtually all major intersections and a significant number of people who work in the city reside on the immediate outskirts of the city of London. It is therefore sensible to provide bicycles because those who need the bicycles use them for reasonable short distances, and will not be delayed in the heavy traffic congestion.
In Johannesburg, the bicycles lanes in the city and in the upmarket Sandton are not utilised because they are not integrated to areas where the people live. It’s decidedly preposterous to expect residents of Ivory Park, Orange Farm, Diepsloot, Soweto and many other areas where commuters stay to rely on bicycles and the city does not provide bicycles in the same way the city of London does. Johannesburg’s adaptation of City of London bicycle lanes is the most foolish and also insensitive decision to be taken by a metropolitan council.
It is an insensitive decision because Johannesburg accommodates South Africa’s biggest number of landless slum dwellers in Alexandra, Soweto, Diepsloot, Zandspruit, Orange Farm and many other areas. It is an undeniable, irrefutable fact that people live like pigs in Stjwetla, in Freedom Park, in Hopefield and many other areas of Johannesburg while the city is busy spending money building bicycle lanes. Where is the logic in doing such? The EFF’s call is that we should build decent houses for our people and, in areas where the space is limited like Alexandra, housing should be provided in the form of decent and safe skyscrapers in the same way successful city regions have.
The RDP houses that have been provided by the provincial government are situated in areas where electricity supply is not reliable, roads and stormwater systems do not exist and basic amenities are not provided for. Johannesburg must invest in quality sewerage and sanitation to give all its residents access to flushing toilets in the city and its outskirts.
All these basic services must be provided in the context of provision of quality jobs for our people. That’s the point we made in the mayoral debate, that the city should maximally use the constitutionally provided power to regulate trade in Johannesburg. Instead of celebrating consumption spaces for rich people like Steyn City, Mall of Africa and Modderdontein, the city should be establishing and celebrating productive and protected economic zones that give jobs to our people.
The current legislation on special economic zones permits cities and economic zones to enact laws that protect and support manufacturing. This is not the creation of “Little Venezuela”, as Stephen Grootes suggests. It is a permissible economic development model adopted by virtually all successful economic zones in the world. To reduce such a discourse to Venezuela is also a reflection of economic ignorance because Venezuela’s economic expansion model is not protectionist in the manner we suggested.
To understand these basic developments does not need anyone to go very far. There are already attempts and trials in South Africa through special economic zones to protect certain industries in Coega and the automobile support programmes. The challenge with the model under trial in South Africa is that it protects export-dependent and capital-intensive industries which do not create many jobs.
On the contrary, the EFF Manifesto makes a commitment on production of a minimum of 50% of goods to be produced within the boundaries of the municipality and these should be in labour absorptive sectors. Labour absorptive sectors include textiles and clothing, food economy, plastic products manufacturing, and indeed the manufacturing and assembling of electronic products (iPhones and iPads) and many other areas.
The City of Johannesburg must deliberately protect these sectors and that is what the EFF will do when we take over Johannesburg. The economically naive and factless moderators will not understand these commitments because they are trapped in the neoliberal logic that Africa and the underdeveloped world is a dumping site for finished goods.
The EFF’s vision for a municipality is not one that focuses on collection of rates, taxes and rubbish bins only. While the EFF will maximally collect rates and taxes from those who can pay, and keep our cities and all human settlement spaces clean, we will also play a leading and protective role in enhancing and harnessing the productive sectors of the economy.
Enhancing and harnessing the productive sectors of the economy does not mean that we should condemn black people into spaza shops that sell imported goods in the same way the poorly envisaged township economy of Gauteng envisages, but by creating industrial spaces for our people to be involved in production. This should be complemented by the creation of trade spaces and markets where the people sell their products. Currently, the relationship between street traders and the Joburg municipality is that of dispossessions, where the metro police special units dispossess poor street traders of their goods.
While world-class infrastructure must be provided, jobs must not be casualties of such provision of infrastructure. Under the ANC, Johannesburg has lost millions of jobs and the number of household that have reported no income at all is increasing. Expending R100-billion on infrastructure has not given our people jobs and jobless development and growth is meaningless. It’s worse in the city of Joburg because infrastructure is delivered through tenders which benefit the relatives and wives of the political leadership. The EFF will build capacity, train our people, employ capable and skilled project managers and deliver services directly.
These messages could not cogently be presented in the Daily Maverick mayoral debate due to the lousy and mediocre moderation of Stephen Grootes. Now that he has chosen to reduce his ignorance to paper, we must then respond decisively to provide context. Perhaps it is unfair to expect depth from a Stephen Grootes who wrote, edited and even sold a book with wrong facts. He admitted in the interview he did with Mac Maharaj that he was on the other side of facts and already he had benefited financially from lies. If he respected facts, he would know that basic economic education is not economic arrogance.
The EFF is our last hope for jobs and service delivery and the people of Johannesburg must give us an opportunity to run this city. Parks Tau, the man ordained as the “right man for the job” by Stephen Grootes, has spectacularly failed to provide jobs for the people of Johannesburg and all the statistics and reality on the ground confirm this. The less said about Democratic Alliance mayoral candidate Herman Mashaba, the better, because he’s a square peg in a round hole and his confusion was demonstrated with excellence. 
The EFF will take over Johannesburg and illustrate to the world that all successful economic expansion programmes need sound and logical ideological foundation – and our logic is superior. D
Floyd Shivambu is EFF Deputy President and a resident of Johannesburg

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

ON STATE CAPTURE: Ideological Reflections!

ON STATE CAPTURE: Ideological Reflections!

Floyd Shivambu

South African media has in the recent past made reflections on the question of State Capture, largely as a follow up to the factual reflections the Economic Freedom Fighters gave on the Gupta family’s influence, in the aftermath of the reshuffling of the Minister of Finance in December 2015. In that reflection, we said and correctly argued that “We should never agree as this generation to be puppet mastered as if there are no rules and principles that governs this country. We call on all South Africans to stand up against the Gupta kleptocratic syndicate because we will soon be left with no country. Now that their National Treasury capture has failed, they will resort to other means of looting”.

Before the factual revelations on what exactly happened with the removal of Nhlanhla Nene as Minister of Finance, the EFF had rung alarms to the reality that the replacement of Ngoako Ramatlodi with Mosebenzi Zwane as Minister of Mineral Resources was a Gupta mechanisation due to the latter’s close relationship with the Gupta family. Zwane previously redirected millions to the Gupta family and signed the invitation letter that landed the Gupta plane at the Waterkloof airbase. Few weeks after his appointment as Minister of Finance, Zwane accompanied the Guptas to Switzerland to negotiate a business transaction with another criminal organisation called Glencore, known for its tax avoidance scandals all over the world.

There are of course so many Gupta undue capture and influences on many aspects and parts of the State, but South African media’s lack of sophistication and utterly sluggish investigative capacity keep what are reachable secrets as secrets. There is adequate legislative framework that can guarantee ordinary South Africans and the media access to crucial information, yet no one genuinely pursues such because most parts of the media represent fractions of capital. The facts that Des van Rooyen arrived with Advisors at the National Treasury and that a contingent of National Treasury staff members almost resigned was first made public by the EFF, and media caught up very late. There are still many revelations we are going to make about the Gupta corruption, and we will do so at the right time and moments.

With the current pieces of legislation that guarantees media access to information, credible sections of the media should have identified and quantified the numbers of contracts Guptas companies and subsidiaries have with the State. Such must be revealed because there has never been one single business empire in South Africa that monopolises State contracts in the manner the Gupta family has done. This is where the question of State capture comes in, and we as revolutionary political activists provide thorough ideological analyses on what State capture is.

Ideologically and analytically, the question of State capture has not been sufficiently addressed, because of the obvious reasons that the ruling party lacks proper ideological tools of analysis and the less said about the other opposition parties, the better. So we take this opportunity to provide a proper ideological analysis of the phenomenon of State capture in a capitalist system, and hopefully such will enlighten society’s comprehension and understanding of State capture. This ideological characterisation of State capture is, like all previous reflections, not hubris, but a humble contribution to a discourse.

The correct Marxist-Leninist characterisation of the State is that it is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, and always an instrument of class domination by the ruling class. In any capitalist society, the state is an instrument of class oppression, utilised to minimise and eliminate any resistance to the capitalist accumulation path. Governments, in this instance constitute a vital and central role in conditioning the continued oppression and exploitation of the working class by the capitalists. Conspicuously, the state always seeks ways to legitimise itself and capitalist exploitation through non-cohesive instruments of class rule, such as education, media, religion, and narrow nationalism.

This Marxist characterisation of the State as captured in the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is important to highlight,
“Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class ... the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (Marx & Engels, 1848)

This characterisation perfectly defines the South African State since its emergence as a capitalist state that used racism and sexism to subjugate and exploit the majority for class interests. Capitalists in South Africa, particularly the Chamber of Mines in the early discoveries of precious mineral resources, captured the State and introduced racist laws which would guarantee them maximum profits to the exclusion of the black majority. For a considerable amount of time, the chamber of mines represented a fraction of capital, a section whose interests could only be served through racial segregation, deprivation of land and introduction of taxes for the black majority so that they are forced into wage labour.

Throughout history, various English fractions capital in South Africa largely in the minerals-energy complex played a central role in determining the agenda of the State, and was contested post 1948 heavily by the emerging Afrikaner Nationalist capital which sought to be replacement or genuine competition of what was characterised as predominantly English capitalist fractions. The core base of Afrikaner capitalist fractions was agriculture, and financial services, and their ideological arsenals were in the Broederbond, the Church and the Afrikaans speaking Universities. This was so for many years, and boosted Afrikaner racist egos, and of course determined the agenda of the State, including influence on appointments of key cabinet ministries.

Due to the fact that it suffered the most from the sanctions imposed on South Africa and its role in initiating the discussions that led to genuine political discussions which led to a negotiated political settlement (which is also negotiated economic subjugation), the mining capitalist fractions had a decisive say and influence over the content and form of the transition from political apartheid to continued economic apartheid. The interests of mining capital in the 1980s were best summarised by Clem Sunter, who held various positions in Anglo American wrote in a book defining possible scenarios of South Africa’s transition from apartheid to a post-apartheid system that Negotiation works. Rhetoric is dropped, reality prevails and in the end the companies concerned go on producing the minerals, goods and services (Sunter, 1987)”.

Towards the end of apartheid, various capitalist interests and fractions were largely united on the replacement of apartheid with a system that will guarantee continued capitalist exploitation. This reality is perfectly illustrated that towards the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and unbanning of political parties, F.W. De Klerk consistently consulted with both the Ruperts and Oppeheimer families. It is a recorded fact that Derek Keys, the last Minister of Finance under apartheid and first under the democratic dispensation was forwarded by the Ruperts family.

When President Mandela came out of prison, he too had constant engagement with various capitalist interests, and specifically engaged with the Ruperts and Oppeheimers on key political decisions. This is evidently reflected in the first cabinet of President Mandela. Derek Keys continued a Minister of Finance, Pik Botha was Minister of Mineral Resources and Kraai van Niekerk was Minister of Land and Agrarian reform. What this means is that the ANC inherited the state that was already captured by interests of white monopoly capital, and after they had converted key members of the then cabinet into their agenda, there was no more worries about continuation of the capitalist agenda that had captured the State. The successor to Derek Keys as Minister of Finance was Chris Liebenberg, who was seconded by the Oppeheimer family controlled Brenthurst Group.

The adoption of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) in 1996 under the ideological guidance of then deputy president Thabo Mbeki was manifestation of State capture by international capitalist interests, who in the period leading to the 1994 general elections had invaded South Africa to execute economic policy coup de tat. As a matter of fact, Derek Keys signed the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs on the 24th of April 1994.

Under president Mbeki, established white monopoly capital was comfortable with the Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel, who evidently had a relationship with the Oppeheimer family before the unbanning of the ANC. In his authorised biography, a dramatic record is given of how Trevor Manuel organised Vergelegen (Oppeheimers wine farm) as the first meeting venue of the ANC after the unbanning. Well, it looks like since the first visit to Vergelegen, the ANC and particularly Trevor Manuel still have not come back.

Now, despite these factual influences of the ruling capitalist class in South Africa, we should never believe that capitalist interests are always homogenous. The development of capitalism in South Africa and many other parts of the world reveals a reality that there exists intra-capitalist rivalry sometimes defined by the nature of business the capitalists are engaged in. Various fractions of capitalist interests always seek to exert hegemony over the State for their own private purposes. At all times, nonetheless, capitalist states are always hostage of the capitalist class. Captured States always protect the interests of the capitalist class, and the mass massacre of workers in Marikana in August 2012 was a manifestation of a captured State.

What South Africa is currently experiencing under Jacob Zuma is a form of criminal State capture by a family that is in business with Zuma. Jacob Zuma is a business partner of the Guptas and uses his son as a proxy on almost all businesses of the Gupta family. The Guptas then abuse the fact that they are in a corrupt business relationship with Zuma to bully government departments and state owned companies into illegally siphoning money from the state into their own pockets.

The extent of Gupta’s State capture is far much deeper and wider than has been reported in the less inspiring newspapers of South Africa. The Guptas control many government departments, provinces, and state owned companies in a manner that far exceeds any of the capitalist control in South Africa. Their attempt at capturing the National Treasury was a last stroke which would have affirmed South Africa as a Gupta Republic. The attempt to capture National Treasury is informed, amongst other things, by their taking billions of Rands outside the country.

Of course, other fractions of capital, particularly the established white monopoly capitalists, are not pleased by the activities of the Guptas, hence they used their power to instruct Zuma in December to unappoint Desmond Van Rooyen as Minister of Finance. The established white monopoly capitalist hold tremendous power over the economic direction of South Africa and have links with international capitalist interests in the country. The amount of power they have can destabilise the South African economy, weaken and actually deprive South Africa of its Currency in the same manner Zimbabwe was deprived of its Currency. These capitalist opposition to the Guptas’ State capture is upon realisation that Guptas can displace them from positions of influence and continued profit maximisation.

As a revolutionary movement, which decidedly fights for the class interests of the working class, we, as the EFF do not and have never taken sides on intra-capitalist rivalries. We oppose all forms of State capture, whether by established white monopoly capital or by a corrupt family, which takes advantage of their business partner’s lack of sophistication and generally love for quick riches.

This explains why the EFF is the most vociferous opponent of white monopoly capitalists and even organised the biggest protest action against white monopoly capital, to the extent that our opposition to white monopoly capitalist interest is sometimes confused with opposition to white settlers. The primary enemy in the struggle for economic freedom in white monopoly capital, and that has never meant that we will turn a blind eye on Guptas and even African exploitative and murderous capitalists who capture the state for their own private benefits.

The EFF fights against all capitalists because in its very nature, capitalism is exploitative, murderous, greedy and in the South African (or even global) context, racist. The immediate tasks and functions in the war against capitalism is to take political power from those who surrender it to capitalists and give real power to the working class, those who do not own the means of production. The solution to State capture is to remove the ANC from political power and we must not be apologetic about that. In the immediate, the means through which we will remove the ANC from political power is through elections. This, does not mean, whatsoever that other means to remove a captured state will not be explored because under capitalist states, electoral outcomes are not the true reflection of the people’s wishes and interests. Electoral outcomes in capitalist societies are often a reflection of the size of the budget for election campaign, and not the will of the people.  

Floyd Shivambu, EFF Deputy President.