Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Towards the creation of State Banks: From rhetoric to practice!

Towards the creation of State Banks: From rhetoric to practice

Floyd Shivambu

On 25 April 2018, the South African State gazetted a notice which officially commences a process that seeks to amend the Banks Act. The Government Gazette Number 211 of 2018 aptly illustrates that, “The Banks Act, 1990 (Act No. 94 of 1990) (‘Banks Act’), among other things, imposes certain requirements which an institution must comply with before it may carry on the business of a bank or in the lawful carrying on of the business of a bank. In terms of the Banks Act, no person may conduct the business of a bank unless such person is a public company and is registered as a bank in terms of the Banks Act. A public company is defined in the Companies Act, 2008 (Act No 71 of 2008) (‘Companies Act’), as a profit company that is not a state-owned company, a private company or a personal liability company.”

What the Banks Act effectively does is exclude all state-owned companies and the state from owning banks registered as per Banks Act and regulated as such under all legislation that regulate Banks. The EFF’s Amendment Bill, which is permissibly tabled as a private members’ bill, will culminate in creating an environment where the State can own banks as per the Banks Act. In practice, this will mean that the institutions existing through a temporary permission of the Minister of Finance as Banks will be granted full banking licences. These include the Postbank owned by the South African Post Office and iThala Bank owned by the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government.

Furthermore, the amended legislation will create an enabling environment for the establishment of all other State banks at national, provincial and local levels. The State has to own banks, which will exist in the current regulatory framework, yet with clear developmental, financial inclusion and redress mandate. Banks in South Africa have largely been used as instruments and mechanism of financial exclusion and reproduction of apartheid economic activities. If the banking space is not fundamentally transformed through, among others, the establishment of state-owned banks with clear developmental mandates, the economic apartheid that defines South Africa will persist for a longer period.

The architecture of South Africa’s ownership and control of banks, which largely defines who gains access to finance, is responsible for the reproduction of economic apartheid. The black majority are on the margins of mainstream financial participation mainly due to the fact that existing financial institutions are driven by narrow commercial mandates, not a redress and developmental mandate. Enabling South Africa’s laws to permit the State to own banks is therefore an important milestone in South Africa’s pursuit of economic justice, redress and equality.

The EFF’s position

The Economic Freedom Fighters is one of the few political parties to call for the establishment of a State bank in South Africa. The EFF’s Founding Manifesto specifically elaborates on this cardinal pillar in this way:

“The creation of a State Bank and the nationalisation of the Reserve Bank constitute an immediate task and essential to the development of the South African economy, as it can be progressively positioned to improve the existence of state-owned development finance institutions, in order to finance new industries. The State Bank will also provide enterprise finance, housing finance and vehicle finance for all South Africans in a manner that promotes development, not the narrow pursuit of profits.

“The EFF-led government will establish a State Bank, which should be accompanied by the transformation of the financial sector as a whole, particularly banking and insurance industry practices and norms. Finance capital dominates the world economy and carries with it the potential to undermine all efforts to build a better life for all people. Vigilance and greater state participation in the financial sector is therefore a vital component of efforts to build a sustainable and better life for all the people of South Africa. India and China were firmly insulated from the global financial crisis because their state-owned and controlled financial sectors did not venture into the practices of private banks in the West that led to the collapse of the world economy.”

This enunciation is derived from the EFF’s non-negotiable cardinal pillar which calls for nationalisation of mines, banks, and other strategic sectors of the economy, without compensation. As will be lucidly explained in this perspective, the creation of an environment to create State banks is an important step towards discontinuation of total private ownership and control of the banks in South Africa.

In November 2017, the President and Commander in Chief of the EFF tabled a motion in the National Assembly to call for nationalisation of banks without compensation. The EFF made the call for nationalisation of banks without compensation fully aware that the financial services sector is currently the largest sector in the South African economy. The South Africa’s financial sector controls an estimated over R12-trillion worth of assets, which is four times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at market price, contributes just about 22.2% of the country’s GDP. Financial sector i.e. financing, insurance, real estate and business services contributed over R72.8-billion in the 2016/17 financial year, effectively 36% to corporate income tax. The financial services sector had grown from contributing seven per cent of the GDP in 1994 to the present 22.2%, just under the contribution of manufacturing, mining and agriculture combined at 24.5% of the GDP in 2017.

Role of banks in economic transformation and industrialisation

Political economic historians have documented and demonstrated that at the core of the first industrial revolution in the 1700s, emanating from the Atlantic Triangle economy – Britain imperialism, slave trade in Africa and the Western periphery – bankers and the banking system were at the forefront of industrialisation. It is almost impossible to imagine the largest empire building project by Western countries, which ultimately gave birth to the commercial capitalism in the 17th century, without the development of financial, banking and fiscal institutions. Monopolies that were created through the blend of banking capital with industrial capital created financial oligarchies that changed the nature of global capitalism and the emergence of a transnational capitalist class. Banks and banking systems have been and remain extremely important instruments and vehicles in driving industrial and socio-economic transformation throughout the world.

Any honest assessment and theoretical work of industrial development trends in the last 500 years will come to the conclusion that deliberate attitudes on the part of banks shaped our world and continue to do so. And South Africa is a microcosm of this global trend. South Africa’s economy is dominated by and depends largely on a mineral-energy complex with strong links to banks and this can be traced back to the origins of the backbone of the economy. It is therefore non-negotiable that any development in the world including in South Africa must be centred on banks and banking systems, which in itself will transform the financial sector and the overall economy, hence expropriation and State control of banks is a non-negotiable.

State ownership of banks internationally

State-owned banks continue to play a pivotal role in early stages of economic development in the case of infant industry development and serve the majority of poor people whom commercial banks consider unbankable. The orthodox financial measures used by champions of neoliberal policies are quick to point to poor performance of state-owned banks compared to privately-owned banks. However, what they fail to account for is that unlike private-owned banks, state-owned banks contribute positively to the overall economy and do not appropriate the GDP. Even the International Monetary Finance (IMF) has now started to recognise that privately owned banks as champions of financialising the economy is in fact a negative contribution to the economy in their current form.

The world came out of the 1970s’ financial and oil price crisis through dispossession of workers’ wage increases which led to wage stagflation. What became apparent soon after was that with low and declining wages, especially in new manufacturing zones, a problem of effective demand emerged. Workers could not afford to buy the very same goods that they were producing. This led to a problem of overproduction and is the core of the internal contradictions of capitalism. It is in this period that banks became more powerful and sought new markets. The outcome was financialising of economies all over the world without being grounded in production of tangible goods.

As a result, privately owned banks started making more profits from fictitious products, credit, stocks and through hedge funds. In doing so, there is no incentive for the financial sector and banks to invest in development of the productive sector because it is long-term, requires patience and takes long to realise a return on investment. It was a matter of why wait when you can make quick returns through financial products, fictitious products. In essence, private banks have starved the world of investment into productive economies, and while this servesdeveloped western countries, it has resulted in catastrophic consequences for countries at infancy of development. It is state-owned bank, through a government mandate, in a sustainable and responsible manner, that can focus on the long-term development and allocate resources accordingly.

China and Asia

China has the biggest publicly-traded bank in the world by market capitalisation, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), and arguably the reason why China is the second biggest economy in the world, and may soon become the biggest economy if the world development continues it its current trajectory. The government of China, through the Minister of Finance, is the most important shareholder in the bank with significant influence, in direct ownership of approximately 34.6% of the issued share capital. The Central HuijinInvestment, another state-owned investment company, owns 34.7% of the issued share capital of the bank, which brings the state control of the bank to well over 65%. At the core of the bank operations, is operations in an economic environment predominated by state-owned entities, creating a conducive developmental environment for China and the region.

In 2017, ICBC recorded R50-trillion group total assets of R50.1-trillion, increased from R36.7-trillion recorded in 2013. According to ICBC 2017 annual report, the bank also achieved R287-billion in net profit for the year, the best in the global banking industry. The bank saw its market capitalisation going up by over 40% in 2017, distributing the largest amount of cash dividends including to the national revenue fund for 10 conservative years and boasting the highest brand value in the global financial industry. ICBC strategy has been closely centred on development of the real economy, improving the investment and financing integration services, and propelled China into a global economic giant. This state-owned bank has been ranked the 1st place among the top 1,000 banks by the banker and 1st place in the Global 2000 listed by Forbes, among many other accolades.

In addition to the ICBI, China owns and controls three other big state-owned banks i.e. Agricultural Bank, China Construction bank and Bank of China who continue to play a pivotal role in Asia. Japan has more than 200 banks. Banks such as Japan Post Bank, owned by the state through Japan Post Holdings, considered among the top 10 best banks in the country. Japan Post Bank recorded a total asset of $714-billion and total average income over $25-billion in the last three years. Top two banks in Singapore i.e. Development Bank of Singapore and Post Office Savings Bank, are state-owned. The Development Bank of Singapore is the largest bank in South-east Asia, with branches across the world. In India, the State Bank of India, owned by the government, is one of the oldest and largest banks in the country, with total assets of R5.6-trillion, more than South African banks’ total assets.

Germany and Europe

KFW Bank, a German state-owned bank formed 70 years ago as part of the Marsh Plan to rebuild western economies after World War II, is today considered the safest bank in the world with commercial transition across various markets. The German government takes direct and full control over running of the bank, and its bonds are backed by government. In terms of article 2 of the law that established KFW, it clearly stipulates that the bank has a function, pursuant to a state mandate, to finance small and medium-sized enterprises’ start-up, risk capital, housing, infrastructure and development co-operation. The bank is under the chairman and deputy chairmanship of the Minister of Finance and Minister of Economic and Technologies respectively.

When the bank came under fire as a developmental bank which prioritises small businesses and lending at low interests, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel who was at the forefront of pushing neoliberal policies during the Great Depression of 2008 and was the first to come to the bank’s defence, calling it a federal government economic, development and climate change policy instrument. The bank has a total value of R472.3-billion, and its growth in Europe has been seen as a rejection of the notion that banking services are something that only the private sector does.

In addition, Germany has a large network of public banks run and managed by federal government, states and districts as central banks but also offering wholesale banking. The Norwegian banking system comprises mostly of large commercial privately owned banks and savings banks. However, the country has a considerable number of state-owned banks in the real estate, education and post banking segment. The Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry is one of the two largest owners of the largest financial services group in the country, DNB Bank. Due to privatisation of state-owned entities post the 1970 crisis, a handful of banks were state-owned and sold when they were in a relatively good financial position. When banks face crisis, it is government through taxpayers’ money that come to their rescue and this is common in Europe and the US given that systematic risk and vitality is now a permanent feature of these economies. The United Kingdom government has recently sold the last of its shares at Lloyd’s nearly a decade after government rescued the bank with a cash injection of R348.5-billion.

Brazil and Latin America

Banco do Brazil, a state-owned Brazilian and assets management company through the National Treasury with 51.8% shares, is the oldest and second largest bank in Brazil and all of Latin America. The bank recorded a total asset of R5-trillion in 2017. When Banco Do Brazil was introduced, it ushered in a period of stability and increasing responsiveness of the banking system to the economic growth of the country. The government of Brazil effectively used the monetary policy to distribute financial services significantly, through a government-funded large expansion of money and credit through the Banco do Brazil. The government has and continues to successfully use the bank to meet its short- and long-term monetary and fiscal policy goals, despite counter-revolutionary political developments.

Banks’ ownership and transformation in South Africa

Banking services and bank institutions are at the core of the financial services sector, and account for most of its growth. There is a total number of 19 registered banks, three mutual banks, three co-operative banks, 15 local branches of foreign banks and 31 foreign banks with approved local representative offices. Banks total assets increased from R4.9-trillion in 2017 to R5.1-trillion, a strong 5.1% year on year growth in a sluggish economy that grew only at 1.3% in 2017. Banking in South Africa is dominated by the big six largest banks i.e. Absa, FirstRand (FNB and Wesbank), Nedbank, Standard Bank, Investec and Capitec which constitute more than 90% of the total banking market share.

Banks in South Africa own and control the houses, cars and properties of so many people. Banks influence people’s access to food, clothing, education and other essential services. And they do so in a predatory manner where they exploit workers and poor people with loan sharks’ practices. People’s houses are sold for a penny after owners have paid hundreds of thousands of rand in repayments. This is made possible because South Africa’s financial sector, in particular banks, have placed almost all black people in severe debt and have designed a cartel-like system that makes it impossible for black people to escape indebtedness. Banks own vast sections of land and huge commercial properties, such as malls and industrial parks. Despite the fact that banks control and run the lives of so many people in South Africa, with little or no proper supervision by government, the sector has done all it could possibly do to refuse transformation. Banks do not even comply with the less courageous targets set by government together with the sector.

In the past we have demonstrated that the level and extent of black ownership in the banking industry continues to collapse, now estimated at around 1% from 10% in the last four years. This is due to sell-off of black economic empowerment stakes in major banks by black investors if we put aside institutional investors such as the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). In the absence of any credible and detailed research in the patterns of sell-off of black economic empowerment stakes, fronting and poor reporting in major banks, as it is the case across the financial sector and the whole of the economy, it is possible that the 1% black ownership is at best artificial and non-existent.

Even the position of mutual banks, whose assets value and significance in the overall banking sector is inconsequential, has now come under fire. Even though mutual banks such as Venda Building Society (VBS) and some of the mutual banks owned by the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) are not systematically important financial institutions, and their discontinuation will not affect South Africa’s economy. Mutual banks in their current form and position based on assets and client base are possibly the best launchpad for transformation at a small experimental scale. However, after the VBS liquidity challenges over the last 18 months, unwarranted attacks by the Reserve Bank and lack of support by government for the bank to manage its growth, the position of mutual banks is even more threatened.

Towards the creation of South Africa’s first State bank

The South African government owns and controls financial development institutions such as the National Empowerment Fund (NEF), Land Bank, Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC), KhulaEnterprise Finance (KEF) and others. Unlike in other countries, these are not fully licensed banking institutions and are sector specific with a narrow mandate, client base and assets base. However, the South African Post Office Bank (Postbank) is the closest that the South African government has come to owning a fully-fledged bank.

The Postbank is not yet a registered bank in terms of the Banks Act No. 94 of 1990 (“Banks Act” as amended) but it is already operating as a bank. It is a full member of the Payment Association of South Africa and participates in the National Payments Systems (NPS) directly in the clearing of transactions. However, the Postbank cannot perform settlement directly in the NPS because it is not registered as a bank. The Postbank could not be appointed as a social grant paying bank without the support of Standard Bank. And the Postbank does not offer lending products, yet it has always been profitable.

The main reason why the Postbank is now a fully-fledged commercial bank with a licence is because the Banks Act, among other things, imposes a certain requirement which an institution must comply with before it may operate as a bank and offer people banking products such as credit, deposits, investments, etc. In terms of the Banks Act, no person may conduct the business of a bank unless such person is a public company and is registered as a bank in terms of the Banks Act. A public company is defined in the Companies Act, 2008 (Act No. 71 of 2008) (“Companies Act”), as a profit company that is not a state-owned company, a private company or a personal liability company. Further, in the Companies Act a state-owned company is defined as an enterprise that is registered in terms of that Act as a company, and either is listed as a public entity in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999) (“PFMA”), or is owned by a municipality, as contemplated in the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32 of 2000), and is otherwise similar to an enterprise listed in the PFMA.

As a result, the legislative requirements imposed by the Banks Act before a person may conduct the business of a bank, and register as such, makes it impossible for a state-owned company registered in terms of the Companies Act to conduct the business of a bank and for government to own a bank. The EFF intend to introduce a private members’ bill in the name of the Deputy President Nyiko Floyd Shivambu to amend the Banks Act. The Bill seeks to amend the Banks Act to make it possible for state-owned companies to register in terms of that Act and to conduct the business of a bank. The bill will provide for a state-owned company to be able to register and conduct the business of a bank in terms of the Banks Act, register with the commissioner, appointed in terms of section 189 of the Companies Act, a memorandum of incorporation of a state-owned company formed for the purpose of conducting the business of a bank and all other requirements.

A notice of intention to introduce a private member’s bill and invitation for comment on the draft Banks Amendment Bill of 2018 in accordance with section 73(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa was submitted to the Speaker of Parliament. An explanatory summary of the Bill in accordance with Rule 276(1)(c) of the Rules of the National Assembly will be published in due course as it has already been submitted to the Government Gazette. The bill once adopted by the Parliament and enacted by the President will create the necessary legislative environment for the Postbank to become a full bank with a commercial licence like Absa, Standard Bank and etc.

However, the implications of such legislative changes, while they serve the immediate need to allow for the Postbank to be granted a banking licence now, provide a much neededlegislative environment for diversification of South Africa’s banking system. The Postbank must provide efficient and affordable banking for the State i.e. all three spheres of government, legislatures and judiciary, including banking services for other state-owned entities. The Postbank must also facilitate all state transactions, a cost-efficient move that will ultimately reduce the cost of banking and ensure banking services to the poor and workers at a minimum bank charges. Postbank must also make available loans to allow people who do not qualify for loans to build homes and start businesses within reasonable terms and cost of borrowing.

In addition to the Postbank, the State must own other banks to support infant industries with developmental finance and support to play an active role in various economic spheres of our society. The Land Bank must become a commercial bank that focuses on agriculture, fisheries and forestry businesses since all land will be under the custody of the state and no one will need to pay for land. Furthermore, the Banks Amendment Act we are tabling will lead to creation of many other State-owned banks in the same way China’s national and sub-national state owns and controls some of the world’s largest banks. IThala Development Finance Corporation Limited must also become a full bank mandated to lead regional economic development in the Kwazulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Eastern Cape regions.

All state-owned banks must be democratically administered and governed, fight illicit financial flows and corruption, and its employees must be paid decent salaries. To ensure proper governance, state banks must not account to one minister as is the case with state-owned entities such as Eskom, Denel, Prasa, and South African Airways (SAA). Instead, the state must own and control majority shares, and minority shareholders must be invited to diversify governance. We make this contribution to legislative amendments towards nationalisation of all private banks through taking a minimum of 60% ownership and control of all existing private banks.

The legislative intervention is an illustration that the EFF does not just scream meaningless rhetoric but engages in thorough legislative processes which will culminate in progressive Laws. It is our intention within the fifth democratic Parliament to introduce other legislation which will nationalise the South African Reserve Bank, ensure that all clinics open 24 hours, guarantee economic inclusion of historically disadvantaged individuals, and insource all State employees.

Monday, July 17, 2017

On Jeremy Cronin's intelligent remarks!

Jeremy Cronin’s shallow and decidedly incorrect view is not a surprise

Article by Floyd Shivambu
17 JUL 2017 01:26 (SOUTH AFRICA)

The so-called communists in the SACP, who were deployed in government, are nothing but careerist cowards and opportunists with no capacity to introduce anything leftward. Instead those like Jeremy Cronin and Secretary-General Blade Nzimande are stumbling blocks to progressive proposals in government.

When presenting the South African Communist Party’s leadership view on its relationship to electoral politics and state power, the recently outgone First Deputy Secretary General remarked that perhaps it is difficult to find intelligent people in the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). Jeremy Cronin’s shallow and decidedly incorrect view is not a surprise because for a very long time now, this liberal airhead masquerading as a communist has thought of himself as the paragon of political virtue, a messiah and intellectual par excellence, only rivalled by Joe Slovo. Intelligent people to him are only those who are sub-controlled by white people, and no African child or collective can ever be considered intelligent.

In his unsubstantiated remark about the lack of intelligence (revolutionary intellectual capacity) of EFF, he fails to ideologically, intellectually and politically pinpoint unwise and unintelligent ideological, political and intellectual mishaps of the EFF both as an organisation or otherwise. He cannot do so because in all forms and shapes of measure, the EFF’s ideological, political and ideological perspectives represent superior logic and that is evidenced by its upward qualitative and quantitative development. As a matter of fact, the EFF is the biggest (qualitatively and quantitatively) socialist political movement on the African continent that is not under the ideological control of white people, now and in the future.
Cronin will not admit to this fact because, despite claiming to be a scientific socialist, Cronin is an undercover white supremacist whose participation in the Communist Party leadership was aimed at sanitising the radical manifestation of Marxism-Leninism in a country that is defined by white political, economic and social domination. Cronin’s role (and perhaps that of his ideological father Joe Slovo) in the National Liberation Movement has always been a sophisticated form of white entryism because uncompromising implementation of the NLM’s original vision would lead to the complete destruction of his kin and kith’s absolute dominance over society and the economy. Entryism refers to the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives , and that is exactly what Jeremy Cronin has been in the liberation movement.

The task of revolutionary leaders in South Africa and all over the world is to constantly provide thorough diagnosis of societal challenges and provide durable solutions. Since Cronin was elected as part of the SACP leadership he has never provided any substantial and clear ideological and political guidance that unsettled white minority control of SA’s wealth and got to benefit the black majority and Africans in particular.

His role has been to correct the grammar, prose and form of emerging revolutionaries who in the process of development will objectively make some theoretical and superficial mistakes in their application of Marxism to the South African problem as it can be expected. Of course, Jeremy would understand English (the language) better than other African leaders in the and society because that’s the only language he knows and it’s his birth language. This is a leader of the so-called vanguard of the working class, who has not bothered to understand the language of the people he is vanguard of, and always ready to belittle them when they make genuine semantic errors in their attempts to explain society through the Marxist-Leninist telescope.

On several occasions, Cronin’s role has been to suppress its understanding of society better. Here are some of the examples: When the decidedly neoliberal Growth, Employment and Redistribution(GEAR) economic policy was adopted, the SACP issued a statement to welcome it, and only somersaulted when Cosatu opposed the macroeconomic strategy. The SACP verbatim said, “T he South African Communist Party welcomes the government’s Growth, Employment and Redistribution Macro-Economic Policy. We fully back the objectives of this macro-economic strategy and note, in particular, the following key features: Contrary to certain attempts to use the macro-economic debate to shift government away from its electoral mandate, the strategy announced today firmly and explicitly situates itself as a framework for the RDP.”

Despite the many justifications and exonerations of GEAR, it represented ideological and global economic dynamics naiveté on the part of the liberation movement, which had been in political power for two years. As a so-called vanguard of the working class, the SACP should have foreseen that neoliberal trade liberalisation, lowering of tariffs, taxation and fiscal reform would destroy industrialisation and the state's capacity to deliver services. The so-called vanguard of the working class should have foreseen that loosening of exchange controls would lead to massive capital flight, outflow of capital necessary for industrialisation to destinations that did not play any meaningful role in its generation.

In the 2000s, Cronin and the SACP forgot that when GEAR was adopted, the SACP fully back(ed) the objectives of this macro-economic strategy. They then conceptualised what they termed the 1996 class project, which was loosely defined as an ideological trend that forced GEAR’s adoption, in pursuit of a neoliberal crisis and therefore responsible for all South Africa’s developmental and economic problems. The defeat of the 1996 class project was then mixed with the removal of Thabo Mbeki as the Godfather of the class project. The ANC’s 52 National Conference was the theatre upon which the class project would be defeated and succeeded by a progressive reconfigured alliance. This, the intelligent Cronin argued, would lead to a permanent solution to our problems.

Hindsight reveals the simple fact that the SACP and its lead ideologue, Jeremy Cronin, the intellectual, misdiagnosed the South African problem, and history proves that the so-called 1996 class project does not have any scientific basis. The 1996 class project, conceptualised by Cronin, was nothing but a factional hogwash of the Communist Party’s (an organised faction in the ANC) bid for its leaders, not its ideas, to be accommodated and mainstreamed in the ANC as ministers and deputy ministers. This is evidenced by so many statements made by SACP leaders that they are tired of hunting for nogwaja (rabbits) alongside the ANC, and the ANC leaders eat alone.

The deepening crisis of the ANC-led liberation movement which will lead to its total destruction and ruin of all its component parts reveal that the SACP’s unscientific characterisation of the South African post-1994 problem as a problem of the 1996 class project was not only scientifically lousy, but was totally wrong. The socio-economic crises facing South Africa today reveals the fact that the so-called communists in the SACP, who were deployed in government, are nothing but careerist cowards and opportunists with no capacity to introduce anything leftward. Instead those like Cronin and Secretary-General Blade Nzimande are stumbling blocks to progressive proposals in government. Government under Jacob Zuma is directionless, the most corrupt, confused and self-contradictory, but the communists are there. Where is the intelligence of the Cronin and the SACP collective to rescue the situation?
When there were problems in Cosatu, Jeremy Cronin was part of a factionalist perspective that justified why Numsa and subsequently Zwelinzima Vavi should be expelled from Cosatu. It is not a secret that the SACP played a central role in fomenting the divisions that led to the split of the trade union movement. What is intelligent with a Communist Party that splits a workers’ movement and constantly banishes progressive forces into many components that do not speak in one voice? Isn’t the role of the vanguard party to unite all working-class forces?
Perhaps one of the most misleading things about the Communist Party was Jeremy’s concoction of pure lies about the leadership of the ANCYL, the Economic Freedom Fighters’ generation of the Congress Movement, which advocated for land expropriation without compensation and nationalisation of mines. There is no doubt that one of the greatest opportunities to radicalise the ANC-led liberation movement into a decisive, principled and ideologically steadfast Left movement was during Commander-in-Chief Julius Malema’s leadership of the ANC Youth League. Instead of rallying all progressive forces behind the radical calls for socialist economic freedom in our lifetime, the SACP through Jeremy Cronin’s lies and conspiracy was at the centre of driving a wedge between progressive workers and youth movements.

Sophisticated and intelligent revolutionaries always know when to maximise on revolutionary unity for a common socialist cause. The nature of Leninist movements in the world is their ability to gather immediate interests of different groups in society and consolidate them into a strategic vision and path towards socialism. Instead of playing this role, the SACP has always been at the centre of fomenting divisions in the liberation movement and casting aspersions on the true nature and character of socialist demands. The SACP and subsequently Cosatu was misled (lied to) by Jeremy Cronin that the then leadership of the ANCYL wanted to rescue some BEE deals in the correct and genuine call for nationalisation of mines. This has been proven to be conspiratorial hogwash promoted to protect Cronin’s kin and kith because black people’s ownership of mines in SA is less than 5%.
Parliament recently underwent a process of drafting an Expropriation Bill, and Jeremy suspended all his ministerial responsibilities and went to camp in the portfolio committee on public works every day to prevent an insertion of a clause that would have secured expropriation without compensation. Ministers and deputy ministers’ (executive) draft legislations and submit them to Parliament (legislative body) to deliberate and conduct public hearings. After this process, Parliament adopts the bill and sends to a president of accession, and the bill becomes law, an Act of Parliament.

During the process of deliberating and conducting public hearings on the Expropriation Bill, Jeremy Cronin, the intelligent Deputy Minister of Public Works, was camping in the committee to specifically prevent expropriation of land without compensation, something which he successfully managed to achieve. It is not surprising because in the course of pretending to be revolutionaries, the majority of white political activists in the Congress movement and other formations are inclined towards defending the true interests of kin and kith at the expense of principle.

In all the parliamentary debates led by the EFF and recently the NFP, Jeremy self-appointed himself as the defender of the status quo. He always comes to debate that the constitutional and therefore land status quo should remain because anything else will disrupt and disturb his kin and kith. This is the intelligent communist who struggles to find intelligent people in the EFF, and the reason they are not intelligent is because EFF leaders and members are demanding the land without compensation. To white supremacists, the legitimate demand for land to be returned to its rightful owners is of course unintelligent.
Jeremy Cronin’s other role in the SA Communist Party has also been to suppress internal organisational democracy. In the SACP 12th congress in Port Elizabeth, Jeremy is the one who changed the majority of congress’ view on state power and drafted something called a reconfigured alliance. We are aware of this because we were part of the resolutions committee and know that the majority of SACP members wanted SACP to contest political power independently from the ANC. SACP members might be wrong or right in their demand that their party should contest elections, but their intellectual contributions always get undermined by Jeremy Cronin, who has no regard for organisational democracy, in particular the view that the views of the majority must dominate over the minority views.
He seems to have done the same thing in the 14th Congress, because the reports point to the reality that if the question of the SACP’s relationship to state power was voted on, the majority would have voted that the party should contest independently. Like they did in the SACP’s 12 National Congress, the leadership duped their membership by cutting and pasting resolutions on the party’s relationship to state power.
In 2007, the SACP’s resolution on its relationship to state power and electoral politics read as follows:

“That the SACP contests state power in elections in the context of a reconfigured Alliance.To mandate the incoming CC to actively pursue the different potential modalities of future SACP electoral campaigning. These modalities could involve either:

“An electoral pact with our Alliance partners, which could include agreement on deployments, possible quotas, the accountability of elected representatives including accountability of SACP cadres to the Party, the election manifesto, and the importance of an independent face and role for the SACP and its cadres within legislatures. OR,
“Independent electoral lists on the voter´s roll with the possible objective of constituting a coalition Alliance agreement post elections.”
In 2017, in their 14 National Congress, the SACP resolution on state power and its relationship to electoral politics reads as follows:

“The SACP must actively contest elections. That the modality through which we contest elections may, or may not be within, the umbrella of a reconfigured alliance.”
The declaration of the 14 Congress says,
“The SACP  remains committed to strengthening and consolidating our ANC alliance. This will require a significant reconfiguration. Whether the ANC has the capacity to lead its own process of renewal, and whether it will be able to once more play the critical role of uniting itself and its alliance remains uncertain.”

Many newspaper and television headlines ran front-page and leading stories announcing that the SACP will contest elections in 2019 independently, and such represents a dismal failure to understand the SACP and particularly Jeremy Cronin’s ideological misguidance.

As a matter of fact, the SACP is not planning to contest any elections because of principle issues, but instead is waiting for the outcomes of the ANC elective conference in December 2017. When the leadership outcomes favour the careerist and factional interests of the Communist Party leaders, they will re-assert their loyalty to the ANC, and when the outcomes are not favourable, they will try to cobble up some broad front to contest elections. If the latter is the case, the SACP will encounter its rude awakening that boardroom politics are not the same as groundwork. They will evidently not achieve even a fraction of what the EFF achieved in less than 12 months.
The SACP resolutions are drafted, justified and presented by Jeremy Cronin because, like a large number of the so-called communists, he lacks principled Marxist-Leninist discipline of not sacrificing principle on the altar of political convenience. The fact of the matter is that Jeremy Cronin is a liberal airhead masquerading as an African communist. He does not have the lived experience of blackness and does not understand the pain of landlessness and hopelessness that black people have suffered and continue to suffer 23 years after democracy. He has misled on many occasions. Under his leadership, the SACP has been used as an instrument of causing disunity among progressive working-class forces in and outside the Congress movement.

As a deputy minister of public works, Jeremy Cronin never came up with any innovative solution to the reality that the state is largely a tenant of white property owners in the capital cities for administrative headquarters, functional and service offices and even police stations. When Jeremy was appointed deputy minister of public works, he found the state renting offices and he will leave it like that. There has never been an intelligent solution he provided as a deputy minister of public works. Government is occupying rented property all over South Africa, and the Department of Public Works he leads and led with a fellow communist does not have a plan out of such. The Department of Public Works is instead renowned for justifying the patently illegal construction of the Nkandla private residence of Jacob Zuma. The Department of Public Works is also known for the creation of lousy underpaying jobs called expanded public works, which converts youth into cheap and easily disposable labourers for rapacious and callous contractors who loot state resources.

Blade Nzimande, who is overstaying his welcome as the General Secretary of the Communist Party, is Minister of Higher Education and Training, and yet the Communist Party has never provided any substantial and intelligent solution to the need for fee-free quality education. This is despite the fact that the ANC’s 52 National conference resolved to introduce free education for the poor until undergraduate level. Amid the #FeesMustFall struggles, the SACP of Blade Nzimande and Jeremy Cronin chose to concoct conspiracies around the activists, and never proposed any intelligent solutions. The Communist Party deployees have illustrated beyond any doubt that they will never do anything different from the neoliberal ANC even when they are given political power.

The EFF’s leadership collective has on the contrary produced creative and innovative and groundbreaking exact diagnosis of the SA problem, and constantly provides durable solutions. All the 15 diagnoses and analyses contained in the EFF Founding Manifesto are an exact reading of South Africa’s political and economic landscape. The EFF’s policy proposals are trendsetting, and always influence a discourse previously ignored or suppressed by the capitalist establishment. The EFF’s submissions on how multinational capital steals wealth through tax avoidance and illicit flows has led to SARS establishing and strengthening the internal units that deal with transfer pricing and aggressive tax avoidance.
The EFF's submissions on land has placed the land question on the agenda, even of the confused ANC. The EFF’s qualitative analyses and interventions have translated into quantity, leading mass protest actions and securing votes. The Communist Party has never organised or led a mass protest action that is even 10% of the protest action organised and led by the EFF. The Communist Party lacks relevance in society, and yet there is no sane political analysis and understanding of South Africa that can exclude the EFF.

The EFF is also able to build a dynamic relationship between the mass struggles and effective parliamentary work. We have made substantial and impactful transformative submissions on the transformation of the financial sector, and despite having taken up a campaign in 2002, the SACP has not made any substantive and impactful submission anywhere, let alone in Parliament.

The EFF has achieved in four years what the Communist Party could not achieve as an organised faction in the ANC. The SACP under the intelligent leadership of Jeremy Cronin does not have comprehensive policies on many key areas of society. The EFF has. Policy in SACP is the feelings of its leaders, and not scientific diagnosis of societal problems and solutions, hence the entire recent conference discussed only state capture that was introduced by the EFF. But well, Jeremy Cronin will never acknowledge the success of the EFF nor its potential because its policies will overturn his kin and kith’s economic dominance.

The EFF will never be diverted by liberals masquerading as communists because in 2013 we adopted a Founding Manifesto that inter alia diagnosed that, “ the Congress-aligned left-wing formations have been swallowed into reform politics of patronage and will never regain integrity to pursue real working-class struggles any time soon. The organised Left has been swallowed by the state, and is currently at the forefront of justifying the rapacious and callous theft of public funds by the incumbent president of the republic”. That is what the SACP has become under the intelligent leadership of Jeremy Cronin. Let us see what will be of a Cronin-less Communist Party, will they unite working class forces, and stop the blind loyalty to the corruption-ridden and captured ANC?

All of South African society knows and now understands that the true voice of the working class and the poor, the vanguard movement for socialist economic emancipation, is the EFF, and not Cronin’s SACP. The SACP’s relationship to state power and electoral politics is dependent on whether its preferred faction in the ANC wins elections. The SACP fails to internalise the most basic Leninist observation that, “ Whatever guise a republic may assume, however democratic it may be, if it is a bourgeois republic, if it retains private ownership of the land and factories, and if private capital keeps the whole of society in wage-slavery, that is, if the republic does not carry out what is proclaimed in the Programme of our Party and in the Soviet Constitution, then this state is a machine for the suppression of some people by others.”

The only movement that understands this in South Africa is the EFF through lived experience and once again, there are no white messiahs who will define the contours of our revolutionary struggles.

Floyd Shivambu is EFF Deputy President

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

FACT: Both Factions of the ANC are not opposed to wwhite Monopoly capitalism.


Floyd Shivambu,

The ongoing discussion of white monopoly capital was a proxy war for factions in the lead-up to the 54thNational Conference of the ANC in December 2017. Those associated with the Gupta-led faction of the ANC opportunistically proclaim white monopoly capital as the enemy of their clumsily conceptualised Radical Economic Transformation. Those associated with Cyril Ramaphosa deny the existence of white monopoly capital as the enemy in the official lexicon of the ANC-led National Liberation Movement. The latter group attribute the term of white monopoly capital to the failed Bell Pottinger propaganda campaign to salvage the correctly damaged public image of the Gupta-controlled and -centred criminal syndicate. Instead, the group argue strongly that “inclusive growth” is central to Radical Economic Transformation instead of misguided focus on white monopoly capital. 
When summarising the core of what the majority of commissions resolved, Joel Netshitenzhe said that the majority of commissions resolved that white monopoly capital is not the enemy, rather monopoly capital in all its expressions should be contested and complemented on the balance of probabilities. Whether this is the true reflection of the National Policy Conference, the reality is that both factions are not opposed to white monopoly capitalism.
The reflections in this perspective will cogently illustrate that both factions are not opposed to white monopoly capitalism. They are using the debate as a jostle for factional ideological dominance, which is not ahistorical, yet certainly defined by mediocrity of both memory and thought. We present here a cogent illustration that, like the previous discussions on the developmental state, second phase of transition, white monopoly capital, the current discussion is tantamount to the Shakespearean characterisation of life. The debate on white monopoly capital, like the majority of the policy discussions therein are...
... a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5)
Capitalism and fractions of capital
The unending nature of the debate on who constitutes their strategic enemy or friend is due to the ANC’s lack of understanding of the simple fact that capitalism manifests itself through different and sometimes rival fractions. This debate of fractions of capitalism or manifestation of capitalism has been going on in South Africa for a long time, and the only time the ANC mentioned it in its official documents post 1994 was at the 2007 Policy Conference. The official recommendations of the ANC Policy Conference, among other things, said, “the balance between unity and struggle would be dictated by the needs of the moment; and it would be influenced by the practical conduct of the various fractions of monopoly capital” (ANC, 2007).
What this means is that in one country or one capitalist system or any given moment, you can have the co-existence of a comprador capitalist fraction, parasitic capitalist fraction, foreign capitalist fraction, monopoly capitalist fraction, neo-colonial capitalist fraction. As Morris argued about fractions of capital in the South African apartheid state in 1975, “the fraction that is economically dominant may very well not be politically dominant. In the case of South Africa this is very clear from Kaplan’s work on the earlier period of capitalist development, where he essentially argued that while gold mining was economically dominant it was the national bourgeoisie that was politically dominant” (Morris, 1975). This is an acknowledgement that in various political developments, there exist fractions of capital, which are dominant and influence the content and character of the political sphere.
In the book, Class struggles and the Periodisation of the South African state, Davies et al argued that; 
Within capitalist social formations, classes are not reproduced as a unity, but are fractured and divided. Several dominant classes co-exist (dependent on the articulation with other modes) and, more critically, the dominant capitalist class is itself divided into several fractions (resting on their differing roles in the expanded reproduction of capital). The dominant classes and fractions share a common interest in the maintenance of the relations of exploitation in general, but simultaneously have contradictory interests corresponding to their particular place in the relations of exploitation.” (Davies et al, 1978: 5).
When we gave the closing address to the EFF Students’ Command, we highlighted this phenomenon, and said that, “as the 21st century generation of anti-capitalists, we should not be trapped into a trend of neoliberal anti-racists, whose antithesis to racialised capitalism is black capitalism, or even worse family patronage capitalism that thrives through bribery and attempts to manipulate socio-political discourse. The enemy of the revolution is capitalism in its racialised form and all the other fractions of capitalism such as the parasitic and comprador bourgeoisie. We should not fight for a whiteless society because such is out rightly reactionary, but we should fervently fight for a classless society”. (Closing Address to the EFFSC 2ndNational Students’ Assembly, 2017).
Political Factions and Fractions of Capital
Factional wars are always defined by half-truths because they are about individuals who seek to lead the organisation often for individual, and not collective, benefit. They then concoct narratives that suit their candidates and leadership preferences. Factions hide truths and ignore facts and only repeat what suits their agenda, even when such does not make ideological and political sense. 
The Gupta-led faction of the ANC, the supporters of Dlamini-Zuma, use the concept of white monopoly capital as a justification for their looting activities, which is thus far defined by callous siphoning off billions of rand from State-Owned Companies. When caught stealing, this faction cries foul by driving a narrative that they are not stealing alone, they are stealing alongside a fraction of capital called white monopoly capital or their ill-gotten and corruption proceeds are not as significant as that of white monopoly capital. 
Closer attention to the Gupta-led faction reveals the fact that the looting group is opposed to white monopoly capitalists, and not opposed to monopoly capitalism. Their opposition to white monopoly capitalists is premised on the view that instead of the white capitalist looters, they or their close friends should be the looters. If they were opposed to white monopoly capitalism, they would provide cogent alternatives, which could be full implementation of anti-capitalist policies, or the Freedom Charter, which is the only policy perspective mentioned in the ANC constitution, and one which members are enjoined to defend and protect.
To understand this properly, perhaps an example of gangsters should be employed. The Gupta gangsters’ opposition to white monopoly capitalism is like drug dealers who are opposed to other rival drug dealers, while not opposed to drug dealing. Nowhere in their narratives do the Gupta groups propose substantial anti-white monopoly capitalism. Whenever their thieving is exposed, the parasitic capitalists choose to point to the fact that other capitalists are stealing too. Even their propaganda news channel’s attempts to depict other capitalists and call for radical economic transformation is poorly articulated and lack any sophistication. 
Like gangsters, the parasitic capitalists drive a narrative that anyone who is opposed to their form of capitalist theft is on the side of white monopoly capitalists. That is how all gangsters all over the world operate. They are quick to group those who are opposed to their illegal activities with the gangster rivals. The jostling in and around this phenomenon therefore added to the confusion of the ANC’s Policy Conference. 
Not all forces are opposed to capitalism; they are opposed to different and rival fractions of capital. Those who associate with and are in the control of the parasitic capitalists view the defeat of the notion of white monopoly capitalist fraction as a factional victory. Those who are associated with the white monopoly capitalist fraction believe isolating and banishing only the parasitic capitalists will be a panacea for their internal organisational and political crises.
Not an enemy of the revolution! The ANC’s historical posture on white monopoly capital
There is certainly substantial historical account on how sections and individuals in the liberation movement thought of white monopoly capital as the enemy of the National Democratic Revolution. Different perspectives and opinion pieces of leaders of the ANC highlighted the existence of the white monopoly capitalist fraction, which holds monopolistic power over the economy. However, the official documents of the ANC, including the Morogoro Strategy & Tactics (1st Policy Conference in 1969), Kabwe Conference resolutions (2ndPolicy Conference in 1985), and the Gallagher Convention Centre resolutions (3rd Policy Conference in 2007) did not characterise white monopoly capital as enemy of the National Democratic Revolution. 
Emphatically, the ANC’s 3rd Policy Conference resolution on the position of white monopoly capital is that “to characterise monopoly capital as an enemy of the NDR would be too simplistic”. To avoid the historicism that has been bandied by the Gupta quasi-Left ideologues, who embrace neo-liberalism, speak Left and walk Right, it is important to quote the omitted ANC’s latest resolution on white monopoly capital. The ANC’s 2007 3rd Policy Conference resolved elaborately on white monopoly capital as follows; 
There was agreement in all Commissions that there were fundamental areas of divergence between the objectives and value systems of the ANC and those of monopoly capital. In particular, there are many things in the behaviour of private monopolies that have the effect of constraining higher rates of growth and skewing social development. These include monopoly pricing and other forms of rent-seeking, placing barriers to entry in some industries and a value system based on greed and crass materialism.
However to characterise monopoly capital as an enemy of the NDR would be too simplistic. Rather our approach, as elaborated in the draft S&T document, should be to build a strong developmental state, with the strategic capacity and the instruments to deal with these negative tendencies, while at the same time mobilising private capital in general to partner the state in increasing rates of investment and job-creation. Further, the centrality of finance capital in the structure of the South African economy, and its capacity to hinder economic development should be underlined.
Virtually all the Commissions agreed with the approach of ‘unity and struggle’ – carrot and stick – in relation to all private capital, proceeding from the understanding, as one commission put it, that ‘unity and struggle’ existed among opposites that may have to co-exist. The balance between unity and struggle would be dictated by the needs of the moment; and it would be influenced by the practical conduct of the various fractions of monopoly capital. The draft will need to be sharpened taking into account many other detailed comments from the Commissions on this issue”.
Those who partook in this Conference will remember that all commissions that were convened to discuss various organisational, political and economic issues were mandated to first respond to the question of whether white monopoly capital is enemy of the NDR. This 3rdANC Policy Conference was an important platform in the life of the liberation movement because it was the first policy conference post 1994, and was preceded by the Morogoro Conference in 1969 and Kabwe in 1985. So a policy conference with a status of Kabwe and Morogoro unanimously states, “all the Commissions agreed with the approach of ‘unity and struggle’ – carrot and stick – in relation to all private capital, proceeding from the understanding, as one Commission put it, that ‘unity and struggle’ existed among opposites that may have to co-exist”. 
What this means is that, in the ANC, white monopoly capital is not the enemy of the revolution, it is instead a convenient opponent who should not be made an enemy in pursuit of a social democratic developmental state. Worse still, white monopoly capitalism and capitalism in its entirety are not the enemy of the ANC-led national liberation struggle. The overall principle and concrete standing resolution of the ANC is that “to characterise monopoly capital as an enemy of the NDR would be too simplistic” (ANC, 2007).
White monopoly capitalism has historically been understood as constituting three mutually reinforcing phenomena: 
  1. White people’s dominance in terms of ownership of the means of production (capital). The ANC is not opposed to white people’s ownership of the economy and this is evidenced by its refusal to discontinue private ownership of the land and other strategic sectors of the economy. 
  2. White monopoly capitalism can be understood as real monopolistic ownership, wherein they own and control corporations that are sole role players in an economic sector, and therefore preventing others from participating. The remedy to this can be competition laws enforcement.
  3. Third, it can be understood as white people ownership and control of the capitalist system. The ANC is not against capitalism in all its expressions and manifestations. 
Opposition to white monopoly capitalism means that any political movement that defines itself as the enemy of such should set goals to destroy capitalism. Destroying capitalism means discontinuation of private ownership of capital, the means of production and that is not in the agenda of the ANC. While there are attempts to deconstruct corporate monopolies, there is no clear ideological compass on how such should be achieved. What the ANC fails to comprehend is that creation of a social democratic developmental state will not happen without destruction of the capitalist property relations that were shaped by colonial-cum-apartheid and harnessed by the post-1994 ideological confusion and economic leadership incapacity.
An ideological amoeba: Why the ANC cannot be radical
The unending problem of the ANC and possibly all liberation movements is that they somehow believe that they can adapt capitalism to achieve their economic liberation goals. That is not the case and has never been the case anywhere in the world. When analysing the National Question, Lenin detected this reality far much earlier, and said, a certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, although they also support national movements, nevertheless act against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a certain degree of understanding and agreement with the imperialist bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it” (Lenin, 1921).
The draft strategy and tactics admits to the sell-out position adopted by the ANC in the transition period from apartheid to an inclusive political system. It says, “During the negotiations process, compromises were struck around modalities of the transition. The liberation movement agreed to ‘sunset clauses’ operational in the first few years of the democratic dispensation. This pertained to a government of national unity and the easing of apartheid apparatchiks out of the state system. There would be no arbitrary appropriation of the wealth illegitimately and illegally accumulated by the white community over the centuries. At the same time, the white community was expected to contribute to the reparations that the process of reconciliation demanded. (ANC, 2017). 
Of course, this strategic retreat during negotiation was informed by the objective military incapacity to defeat the apartheid establishment and most importantly, the ANC’s ideological indeterminateness. Historical and current evidence illustrates the point that there is completely nothing the ANC cannot subject to compromise. This includes its principles, values, constitution and policies. This therefore turns the ANC into an ideological amoeba, with no capacity whatsoever to provide sound and decisive economic leadership to South Africa and the African continent. 
For a sustained period now, the ANC’s consistent approach to capital has been underpinned by its non-antagonistic approach, and at best as an ally in the construction of the loosely conceptualised National Democratic Society. The contestation now is which fraction of capital does the ANC associate with, and the political factional battles reflect that. Both are opposed to either the white monopoly capitalist fraction or the parasitic capitalist fraction, not because they oppose capitalism, but because they want to be substitutes of the same phenomenon in order to continue with the exploitation of labour and natural resources. 
While attempts are made on both sides to achieve a degree of ideological coherence in the justification of factional narratives, both factions are not anti-capitalism, meaning that neither is against white monopoly capitalism and neither is against parasitic capitalism. They both seek to be appendages of the capitalist system that defines South Africa. They somehow believe that they will create a social democratic developmental state without a clear ideological posture towards capitalism in South Africa.
Now, the ANC Policy Conference will for factional purposes characterise white monopoly capital as enemy or complement of the NDR, but might take a resolution of expropriation of land without compensation. Like all previous policy conference resolutions, these will mean nothing, as they will not be turned into coherent policy positions of the ANC in government. The ANC is accustomed to taking radical sounding resolutions, and yet lacks the courage to implement them. 
I present here a quick survey of what the ANC previously resolved and failed to implement;
a) The 2006 signed agreement to switchover to digital terrestrial television (DTT) broadcasting on 17 June 2015.
b) The 2007 Policy Conference resolved to establish a State-owned pharmaceutical company.
c) The 2011 NGC resolved that “there was greater consensus on nationalisation of mines and other strategic sectors of the economy”
d) The 2012 conference resolved to introduce fee free quality higher education.
e) The 2012 conference resolved and reaffirmed on the implementation of the national health insurance (NHI) system by further strengthening the public healthcare system and ensuring adequate provision of funding.
f) The 2013 conference resolved to expropriate without compensation on land acquired through unlawful means.
There are so many resolutions which the ANC has taken in previous conferences and these do not find expression in practical governance of the state and the economy. The reason why the ANC is incapable of implementing its own resolutions was long provided by Frantz Fanon. In his seminal characterisation of the post-colonial state, Fanon makes the following observations,
The national bourgeoisie, which takes over power at the end of the colonial regime, is an underdeveloped bourgeoisie. Its economic clout is practically zero, and in any case, no way commensurate with that of its metropolitan counterpart which it intends replacing. 
This national bourgeoisie possesses neither industrialists nor financiers. 
The national bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped countries is not geared to production, invention, creation, or work. All its energy is channelled into intermediary activities. Networking and scheming seem to be its underlying vocation. The national bourgeoisie has the psychology of a businessman, not that of a captain of industry. And it should go without saying that the rapacity of the colonists and the embargo system installed by colonialism hardly left it any choice. (Fanon, Frantz 1961)
The ANC’s failure to attain a clear ideological compass is a major contributor to its ideological lack of direction. Factions recurrently shift destinations and articulate inconsistent and at times contradictory missions. As a liberation movement, it was easier to determine the direction which was the ending of racist rule and replacing it with an inclusive political system. However, in post-colonial-cum-apartheid rule, it is almost impossible to clearly define the direction because their various irreconcilable inter-class and intra-class interests.
For a political movement, lack of an ideological compass means that the frustrations would literally confront a group of people who have crossed a river and have to determine the destination after crossing the river. The most difficult part is as a group, who do you define as enemies in the next journey, because during the river-crossing, there was relative consensus that crocodiles (white racist minority political control) are the common enemy, and now there is no clarity as to whether all animals across the river are the enemy.
The only organisation that has a clear perspective on and against capitalism in South Africa is the Economic Freedom Fighters, because it carries a clear intention and mission to discontinue private ownership of the means of production and institute a democratic socialist ownership and control of the commanding heights of the economy. The EFF is the only economic emancipation movement in South Africa that stands against all fractions and manifestations of capitalism, whether it be white monopoly capitalist fraction, foreign capitalist fraction or parasitic capitalist fraction. DM