Programme Director;
The Leadership of the African National Congress;
The Alliance Structures;
Comrades and Friends;
Ladies and Gentlemen;
It is an honour to present this online political lecture under the theme “Revolutionary Theory and Morality: Commemorating the 28 years since the Bisho massacre”.
In a changing, new world with COVID-19, South Africa and the world are experiencing extreme disruptions that test the strength of democracies. The compound effect of these crises on top of enduring economic challenges before the pandemic, places the projects of nation-building and inclusive economic growth up against themselves. The world is facing a pivotal moment in the existence of the human race – an opportunity to not repeat the errors of the past.
It is a chance for the nation to examine the continuing inequities highlighted by the pandemic, fundamental changes that need to be addressed, and what opportunities exist to rebuild our political, economic and our social structures. It is a golden opportunity to consider our shattered history and make sure that this time we leave no one behind.
And, as we examine this shattered history, we discover that our past is punctuated by massacres, extreme violence and gross human rights violations. The wholesale slaughter of African people in South Africa’s long and bloody history is a grotesque reminder of how massacres have become a sad and common occurrence in our collective timeline – a constant terror of memory that refreshes itself with new violent atrocities.
As we commemorate 28 years since the Bisho massacre we not only examine our past and its reflection on our present but we also examine our conscience and the efforts we have made or have not made as a society and leaders to foster peace in the lives of the people.
In 1992, the world’s eyes were on South Africa during our era of negotiations and the Bisho massacre was a key moment in this transition to democracy. This mass killing in the Ciskei is seen as an example of state complicity in the political violence that shook the country during a difficult period of negotiation and reform.
However, not enough understanding, attention and awareness has been given to the details of this atrocity and the many brutal abominations that stained our land during this era of negotiations and transition. Undoubtedly massacre and atrocity, formed part of the Ciskei experience, but the region, now known as the Eastern Cape, held no exclusive rights to these horrors – massacres and atrocity formed part of the lived experience for the majority of Africans during that time and now.
Bantustans were established for the permanent removal of the black population from South Africa and stripped black South Africans of their citizenship, forcibly removing them from “white” South Africa.
In total, ten homelands were created in South Africa. These were the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Venda, Gazankulu, KaNgwane, KwaNdebele, KwaZulu, Lebowa, and QwaQwa.
The apartheid state used these homelands as a dumping ground for black labour and forced millions to be confined to the impoverished Bantustan territories.
In Bisho, then the capital of Ciskei, on 7th September 1992, amid tense negotiations between the Mass Democratic Movement and the South African apartheid government, the killing of 28 marchers and one soldier rocked the nation once more and brought the transition-era negotiations to its knees. Another 200 activists were injured in the Bisho massacre and the cries of communities across the land added to the already bleak political climate.
We must remember that before the Bisho massacre, the country was already a nation in mourning for 45 lives lost in the Boipatong Massacre of 17th June 1992.
As many as 80,000 protesters marched outside of Bisho, and demanded an end to the military government of Brigadier Joshua Gqozo and the re-absorption of Bisho into South Africa. Led by several senior ANC leaders, including, Chris Hani, Cyril Ramaphosa, John Gomomo, Gertrude Shope, Tokyo Sexwale; Smuts Ngonyama; Steve Tshwete and Ronnie Kasrils, the protest was a condemnation by anti-apartheid movements of the preservation of the Bantustans as a cynical attempt to try sell the segregationist project to the black population.
Regarding the massacre, ANC president, Nelson Mandela said:
“Each one of the people who lost their lives at Bisho yesterday, 7th September, was a unique human being. The daughter or the son of some mother; the father or mother to some child; a person linked to a home, to a community of relatives and friends who had loved, cherished and nurtured her or him for many years in the hope of a continuing and shared future.”
Programme Director,
As we adopt a historical approach in our work, we notice how this timeline highlights the persistence of violence throughout the 20th and 21st centuries – not only spotlighting massacres of the apartheid era, but also revealing dimensions of enduring violence and ongoing economic and exploitative conflicts.
Even the advent of democracy was not enough to erase a deeply entrenched culture of violence produced by hundreds of years of oppression, repressive racial policing, and social conflict. Political hostility and the deteriorating negotiations in the final years of apartheid gave birth to violent crime and senseless killings that defined this fractious period of unrest – unrest and violence that continues to afflict South Africa today.
Despite the progress made in the era of democracy, WHAT progress has been made in understanding why violence has persisted and even escalated since the end of apartheid in 1994.
This continuum of violence in South Africa today is a glaring expression of our failures as we remember and commemorate the lives lost in:
Marikana; Life Esidemeni; gender-based violence and femicide; Uyinene Mrwetyana; Lumka Mketwa, Michael Komape and other children who die in school pit latrines; the shooting of young Nathaniel Julies; Collins Khoza; and the list sadly goes on.
How do we understand this continuum of violence today and the exploitative nature of apartheid South Africa, the racial exclusion of the majority of the population and the ongoing economic inequality experienced by the majority of black South Africans?
Let us unpack what we mean by Revolutionary Theory to interpret concretely the events that have led to our lived experience today and the continuum of violence that terrorizes our nation.
Here we draw from the book Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer.
- Of what importance are ideologies for Marxism?
WE ARE accustomed to hearing that Marxism is a materialist philosophy which denies the role of ideas in history. Denying the role of the ideological factor, it only considers economic influences.
This is false. Marxism does not deny the important role of the mind, of art or of ideas in life. Quite to the contrary, it attaches a particular importance to these ideological forms. We are going to examine how the method of dialectical materialism may be applied to ideologies. We shall see what the role of ideologies in history, i.e., the influence of the ideological factor, is and what ideological forms are.
This part of Marxism which we are about to study is the least known part of this philosophy. The reason for this is that, for a long time, attention has been centered on the part of Marxism which deals with political economy. As a result, this subject has been arbitrarily separated, not only from the great “whole” which Marxism forms, but from its very foundation. For what enabled political economy to become a true science was historical materialism, which is, as we know, an application of dialectical materialism.
We might point out, parenthetically, that this manner of proceeding derives from the metaphysical spirit which we have so much trouble ridding ourselves of. It is, let us repeat, to the extent that we isolate things and study them unilaterally, that we commit mistakes.
Incorrect interpretations of Marxism derive, therefore, from the fact that the role of ideologies in history and in life has not been sufficiently underlined. Ideologies have been separated from Marxism. As a result, Marxism has been separated from dialectical materialism, that is to say, from itself!
- What is an ideology? The ideological factor and ideological forms.
We shall open this section, which is dedicated to the role of ideologies, with a few definitions.
What do we call an ideology? Ideology implies, above all, ideas. Ideology is a collection of ideas which form a whole, a theory, a system or even at times simply a state of mind.
Marxism is an ideology which forms a whole and which offers a method of resolving all problems.
But an ideology is not only a collection of pure ideas, supposedly void of any feeling (this is a metaphysical concept); an ideology necessarily includes feelings, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, etc. In the proletarian ideology, we find the ideal elements of class struggle, but we also find feelings of solidarity with those who are exploited by the capitalist system, with the “imprisoned,” as well as feelings of revolt, of enthusiasm, etc. All of these elements make up an ideology.
Now let us see what is meant by the ideological factor: this is ideology considered as a cause or a force which acts, which is capable of exerting influence. This is why one speaks of the influence of the ideological factor. Religions, for example, are an ideological factor which we must take account of; they have a moral force of considerable influence.
What is an ideological form? This term designates a collection of particular ideas which form an ideology in a specialized field. Religion and ethics are forms of ideology, as are science, philosophy, literature, art and poetry.
Hence, if we want to examine the role of the history of ideology in general and of all its forms in particular, we must conduct our study, not by separating ideology from history, i.e., from the life of society, but by determining the role of ideology, its factors and forms, in and beginning with society.
- Economic structure and ideological structure
In the study of historical materialism, we saw that the history of societies may be explained in the following sequence: men make history by their actions, the expression of their will. The latter is determined by their ideas. We have seen that what explains men’s ideas, i.e., their ideology, is the social milieu in which we find classes, themselves determined by the economic factor, i.e., in the last analysis, by the mode of production.
We have also seen that between the ideological factor and the social factor there is the political factor, which appears in the ideological struggle as the expression of the social struggle.
If then, we examine the structure of society in the light of historical materialism, we see that its foundation is the economic structure, then, above it, there is the social structure, which supports the political structure, and finally the ideological structure.
We see that, for materialists, the ideological structure is at the top of the social edifice, while, for idealists, the ideological structure is at its base.
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. (Marx, “Preface,” Critique of Political Economy, pp. 20-21.)
Consequently, we see that it is the economic structure which forms the foundation of society. We might also say that it is the infrastructure (which means inferior, or lower, structure).
Ideology, including all its forms: ethics, religion, science, poetry, art and literature, constitutes the supra—or superstructure (which means structure at the top).
Since we know, as materialist theory shows, that ideas are the reflection of things, that it is our social existence which determines our consciousness, we may say that the superstructure is the reflection of the infrastructure.
Here is an example: let us take the mentality of two non-union, i.e., politically undeveloped, workers. One works in a big factory, where the work is rationalized; the other for a small craftsman. It is certain that both of them will have a different conception of their boss. For one, the boss will be the ferocious exploiter, characteristic of capitalism. The other will see the boss as a worker, certainly well-off, but a worker and not a tyrant.
It is surely the reflection of their conditions of work which will determine their conception of management.
This important example causes us, in order to be precise, to make certain observations.
- True consciousness and false consciousness
We have just said that ideologies are the reflection of the material conditions of society, that social being determines social consciousness. One might conclude from this that the proletariat must automatically have a proletarian ideology.
But such a supposition does not correspond to reality, for there are workers who do not have a worker’s consciousness.
Hence, we must make a distinction: people may live in certain conditions, but their consciousness of it may not correspond to reality. This is what Engels terms “having a false consciousness.”
This leads to the understanding that the masses are by no means identical: there are revolutionary masses, there are passive masses, there are reactionary masses. The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and objectives.
In people’s consciousness, this reflection is often “upside down.” To observe the existence of misery is a reflection of social conditions, but this reflection becomes false when one thinks that a return to handicrafts would be the solution to the problem. Hence, here we see a consciousness which is partly true and partly false.
The worker who is a royalist also has a consciousness which is both true and false. True because he wants to eliminate the misery which he observes; false because he thinks a king can do that. And, simply because he has reasoned badly, because he has poorly chosen his ideology, this worker can become a class enemy for us, even though he belongs to our class. Thus, to have a false consciousness is to be mistaken or deceived about one’s true condition.
We can say, then, that ideology is the reflection of the conditions of existence, but that it is not an inevitable reflection.
Moreover, we must point out that everything possible is done to give us a false consciousness and to develop the influence of the ideology of the ruling classes on the exploited classes. The first elements of a life conception which we receive, our education and instruction, give us a false consciousness. Our connections in life, a peasant background for some of us, propaganda, the press, the radio also falsify our consciousness at times.
Consequently, ideological work is of extreme importance for us as Marxists. False consciousness must be destroyed in order for us to attain a true consciousness. Without ideological work, this transformation cannot be realized.
Those who consider Marxism to be a fatalistic doctrine are, therefore, wrong, since, in reality, we believe that ideologies play a large role in society and that one must teach and learn the philosophy of Marxism so that it may become an efficient tool and weapon.
- Action and reaction of ideological factors
From the examples of true and false consciousness above, we have seen that we mustn’t always try to explain ideas only by the economy, thereby denying that ideas exert any influence. To proceed in this way would be to interpret Marxism incorrectly.
Ideas can be explained, certainly, in the last analysis, by the economy, but they also have an activity of their own.
To make this point clearer, let us quote from Frederick Engels:
“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure… also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles.”
(Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, New York: International Publishers, 1968, p. 692.)
Hence, we see that we must examine everything before looking for the economic factor and that, while the latter is the cause in the last analysis, we must always remember that it is not the only cause.
Ideologies are reflections and the effects of economic conditions, but the relation between the two is not simple, for we also observe a reciprocal action of ideologies on the infrastructure.
Programme director,
From this examination of Revolutionary Theory we start to get a clearer understanding of the structures of power and how the ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral.
As we introduce the notion of morality, we can draw on the work of Leon Trotsky and his interpretation of morality.
Let us note in justice that the most sincere and at the same time the most limited petty bourgeois moralists still live even today in the idealized memories of yesterday and hope for its return. They do not understand that morality is a function of the class struggle; that democratic morality corresponds to the epoch of liberal and progressive capitalism; that the sharpening of the class struggle in passing through its latest phase definitively and irrevocably destroyed this morality; that in its place came the morality of fascism on one side, on the other the morality of proletarian revolution.
Leon Trotsky distils this understanding clearly when he said:
“Every science, including the ‘science of revolution’ is verified by experience.”
The primary contradiction at the time of the Bisho Massacre in 1992 was of the ruling class and the exploited class. And Although the emphasised contradiction of racial exclusion in 1992 has changed as a contradictory relationship with blacks in government, the primary contradiction still stands and for many blacks, they face the same divide in: education; health care; infrastructure; unemployment; poverty; access to the economy and so on.
The exploitative nature of South Africa’s base structure, mode of production and economy today, highlights the immorality of todays situation. In the final instance it is the base structure that tells us what the revolution will be.
The fundamental contradiction facing the underclasses and the people of Bisho in 1992 has not been resolved.
Our greatest challenge is still the economic question.
As I conclude allow me to quote from “The Preface to the Critique of Political Economy” by Karl Marx
“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.”
(EXAMPLE OF THE EGG)
MODE OF PRODUCTION1
The egg shell is a necessary condition for the further growth and development of the embryo. This is true in Stages 1 to 3. However, at Stage 4 of the chick, the egg shell is no longer a necessary condition for the further growth and development of the chick. It is now its fetters. The act of breaking the egg shell is a revolution. In society, the growth and development of the material forces of production, take centuries to reach Stage 4. And therefore, the social consciousness, as well as the truth of Stages 1 to 3, is passed on from generation to generation.
I thank you.
[1] Forces of production combined with property relations, equals mode of production.
References:
- Poulantzas, Nicos, “Political power and social classes”, 1968.
- Afanasyev, Viktor Grigoryevich, “Marxist Philosophy” 1968.
- Trotsky, Leon, “Their Morals and Ours”, 1938.
- Cornforth, Maurice, “Dialectical Materialism, An Introduction: Volume 1”, 1953.
- Politzer, Georges, “Elementary Principles of Philosophy”, 1946.
