If you Invite us to Think, we shall Think: A response to Mokgweetsi Keikabile

Comrade Ziyana Lategan always says that it is important to read Marx, and to read Marx to the latter.

A few weeks back I was invited to write a piece for Amandla titled Why Marx is not enough, which was published on the AIDC website on the 26th of July 2018. In that paper I argue that there is a certain sect of Marxists in South Africa that don’t read Marxism properly. Because I argue that if we read him properly, in many instances he may agree with us that the class analysis is not enough. In the article I make a very simple point that the class analysis is not enough, and it does little help to simply add race to remedy the situation. I argue that the best way to deal with the so called quagmire is to read Capitalism as racists in itself, which is a point that is made by Hosea Jaffe and Ziyana Lategan reminds us of in her recent thesis.

On Sunday the 5th of August, my comrade Mokgweetsi Keikabile penned down a response to  my article. In it, comrade Mokgweetsi accuses me of ‘unconsciously distorting the reality of the Afrikan people’ and proposes that if Marx is not enough, then Walter Rodney does the job. I must say that, I do think that comrade Mokgweetsi missed my point in my article because I do make the point that it is in in fact Walter Rodney that helps us understand Marx better for the colonial situation, and for fear that we have a train debate where we just speak past each other, I wish to take this opportunity to try, as much as possible, respond to the points raised by Mokgweetsie in his piece.

Very early on his paper, comrade Mokgwetsi argues that the Africanist (Which I am very much a member of) disagree with my position that Capitalism is racism when they argue that “the significant portion of our social milieu begins with the expansion of the markets founded by the rising commercial capital of Western Europe at the turn of the fifteenth century” (Pan Africanist Manifesto 1959). What Mokgweetsi does not ask himself is ‘When the markets ‘expanded’, through colonialism, what categories were used as the ordering system in the colonial world? An answer to this question will quickly show that the Africanists are not, as Mokgweetsi would like us to believe, incompatible with my point. For if we read the same document that comrade Mokgweetsi sites a bit further we see that the Africanists go further to say that “Succeeding years witnessed the “discovery” of new lands by the Europeans, the Papal award of the whole of Africa to the Portuguese, increased European Slave raids on Africa, denuded African of Africans and led to the establishment in the Americas of the greatest mass chattel slavery that the world had ever known. Africa had been successfully robed of Africans. It was this chattel slavery that contributed substantially to the initiation of the European industrial revolution which in turn resulted in the unleashing of the chain of reaction which culminated in the rape of Africa and the close of the last century”. Here we see that the Africanist agree that it was slavery “that contributed substantially to the initiation of the European industrial revolution”. Who was taken as slaves? Was it the mass of ‘white worker’ in Europe or was it the peasant black mass of Africa? Colonialism bases its ordering system of society on racism. It is this very colonialism that Marx and Engels, together with the Africanist argue paved the way for the growth of capitalism. Again, to try and separate capitalist- colonialism from racism, is to look for corners in a circle. Fuck man.

Mokgweetsi goes on further to argue that I misread Marx and Engels when they say , “the discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened fresh new ground for the rising bourgeoisie”, arguing that what Marx and Engels say here is not to say that capitalism is racist. Unfortunately, he does not give an alternative view to what could be meant by this sentence by Marx and Engels. However, I still stand by my point that this quote was an acknowledgment by Marx and Engels that capitalism could not have been had it not been for colonialism. To prove this point I shall quote extensively from Marx and Engels themselves to speak for themselves. In the communist Manifesto, they argue that “The discovery of the America, the rounding of the Cape opened up fresh new ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development”. Engels and Marx go further to say that “Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way”. The discovery of America paved the way. Colonialism paved the way. Colonialism is racism. Fuck! Look man! This is simple logic. Let’s take C1 to stand for Capitalism and C2 to stand for Colonialism and R to stand for Racism. And we agree that colonialism paved the way for Capitalism and Colonialism is racist and orders society on racial lines. Simple logic dictates that:

C1 ⸧ C2

C2 ⸧ R

Hypothetical syllogism dictates that you get

C1 ⸧ R

If you have Capitalism, you have racism. Its simple logic

How then comrade Mokgweetsi wants to separate these is beyond my comprehension. I would really love to hear how then he understands to be meant by, both the communist and the African Manifestos when they put colonialism at the centre of the development of capitalism.

To show this point one just needs to look at the development of colonialism in Azania alone. Mohamed Adhikari’s books “The anatomy of the South African genocide: The extermination of the Cape San people” and “Genocide on Settler frontiers” shows us that for a good 50 to 100 years after the settlement of the VOC in the Cape, Jan Van Riebeek had explicit clear instructions from the bosses in Holland not to antagonise the natives, because they needed to trade with them for supplies for the company in the Cape. It was not the company that led the colonialism in the Cape, it was in fact the ‘working class whites’ that decided that they no longer wanted to work for the company and ran away and settled on the frontiers. They were called the Trek Boer or the Burghers and even Hottentots at the time. In fact the defence of the settler frontier was not even funded by the company, it was the Trek Boers themselves that formed commandos to raid San societies so they can take their lands. The company came into the party very late after realising that these trek Boers are not being taxed for the lands they own.

What do we find from this brief history lesson? It was not the commercial interest of Europe that led to the very early stages of our colonialization, it was the European ‘proletariat’ that wanted to escape work in the VOC that did this, the very same ‘proletariat’ that these comrades want us to unite with in the name of working class unity. What we also take from this history lesson is that there was no class distinction when it came to taking of our land, poor and rich whites alike participated in the taking of our land. And even on the side of the blacks, it was not taken from ‘poor’ blacks and the rich blacks were let go. It was taken from all of us. Whites took the land of the blacks. In fact it was these reactionary rich blacks that started to form the ANC in 1912 because they were being treated like the ‘other’ blacks and their land was being taken away.

But let us go back to Mokgweetsi’s paper. In the paper, Mokgweetsi goes on further to quote Raboroko out of context and takes a sentence from his famous paper among the Africanist titled The Africanist Case. The quote quoted by Mokgweetsi to further push forward his point that race is not a factor is when Peter Ramoroko says “that politics is a matter not of race or colour, but vital material…interests” . But because we have read Raboroko ourselves. I shall show that Mokgweetsi is deliberately quoting him out of context. Let Peter speak for himself:

“The Charterists allege that the principal target of the Africanist attack upon them is their “broad humanism, which claims equality but not domination for the African people”. This statement itself bears out of the main Africanist contention that the differences between the Charterists and themselves are mainly ideological. The Charterists have yet to understand that politics is a matter not of race or colour, but of vital material and spiritual interests.

The crucial issue today is whether the interests of the five million Europeans throughout Africa must continue to dominate over those of the two hundred and eighty million African, or whether the reverse process should obtain.”

The point being made by Raboroko here is not to say that we do not see race, but to say that we are not fighting these people simply because they are white, but precisely because they took our land and we want it back qha.  The same Peter Raboroko in the same paper that was mischievously selectively quoted by Mokgweetsi, Raboroko goes on further to say: that “Nationalism demands that the interests of the indigenous peoples should dominate over those of aliens”. Who are aliens in South Africa and who are indigenous? I shall let the reader answer that question. But let us continue to read Raboroko further:

“The Kliptown Charter, erroneously called the Freedom Charter, offers a classic illustration of the essentials of Charterism.

“And, therefore, we the people of South Africa”, proclaims the ultimate clause, “black and white-equals, countrymen and brothers- adopt this Freedom Charter…”

To them master and slave- the exploiter and the exploited, the oppressor and the oppressed, the degrader and the degraded- are equals. To them the indigenous African nationals and the immigrant European foreign nationals- the disposed and their dispossessors, the victims of their robbers- are all countrymen. For them the progressive and the reactionary- the African subject and his foreign overlord, the African nationalist and the colonialist or white supremacist, the liberationist and the collaborationist- are all brothers.

The problem of the synthesis of opposites cannot be resolved by the wave of the magic wand. It is only after all these sets of antithetical categories have been duly reconciled that we can reach those final categories- equals, countrymen and brothers- which betray no instability”.

It, therefore, cannot be that comrade Mokgweetsi can deliberately lie to us and say that father Roboroko did not see race. It is only the moment of the synthesis that race categories cannot matter, but at the moment we are at the antithetical moment and the failure from comrade Mokgweetsi is to read Raboroko and Sobukwe from the synthesis moment, as humanist, but not from the antithetical moment in which they wrote.

As the paper finishes, comrade Mokgweetsi degenerates even further. He uses Walter Rodney to say that the Marxist methodology “would exist at different levels, at different times, in different places and retain its potential as a tool, as a set of conceptions which people should grasp”. But this is the same point I make myself in my original article. What I say, however, that is different from Mokgweetsi, and is something that I think I have sufficiently substantiated both in my original paper and this one, is that the use of the Marxist methodology of historical materialism in the colonial situation does not lead us to a clear cut two way class distinction. I also disagree with Rodney in his paper on the focus of the material when looking at our relations to social mode of production, and I go through this point of why I disagree in my article and for sake of time I shall not to it again here.

Mokgweetsi again randomly quotes Amilcar Cabral ““always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head.” Amilcar Cabral continues: “they are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children” (Tell no lies, Claim not easy victories).” No one disagrees with Cabral, but if we are to base our thinking of the problems we face on the day to day experiences of our lives, we are never going to do a thorough reading of our problems. Of course people want to leave better lives, they want to put bread on their table and many a times theory is of little importance to them. But that is where the job of the thinking class comes in, to elevate the conscious of our people. Even the so called working class never goes on a march to demand to own the factory, even the deadly Marikana protests where simply about a better wage, not a protest to own the mine itself. Are we then going to lower our thinking to that level simply because this is what the mases want? We must be serious about thinking. The lived experience is only important to a certain extent, it can never take us all the way, we need to be able to us question of why do not have bread in the first place rather than where can we get bread now.

Mokgweetsi goes further to claim that “The enemy of land dispossessed Afrikan people therefore, is the petite bourgeoisie, comprador-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie ruling class regardless of which group within the human race that person/individual belongs to. For as Africanists we believe there is only one race which all humans belongs.” Firstly, it is a complete and utter lie to say that the Africanists just see one race, the human race. This is the most vulgarised quote from Sobukwe and I would urge the reader to consult a paper I wrote on this a year or so ago titled Sobukwe on the African and Race Question: A case against the liberalisation of Sobukwe. But what I would like to deal with here is the first sentence in Mokgweetsi’s point. He argues that the enemy of the landless people is the “petite bourgeoisie, comprador-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie ruling class regardless of which group within the human race that person/individual belongs to”. Hebana, the landless masses are landless precisely because of a very specific racial group that took their land. Our enemy cannot be dissolved into thin air just like that. So now the subsistence Farmer who chooses not to be commercial yet own thousands of hectors of land that was stolen is not our enemy as the landless African Masses, because that white farmer is not a member of the “petite bourgeoisie, comprador-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie ruling class”? It cannot be, it really cannot be. Both poor ‘working class’ and rich bourgeois whites are the reason that we are landless. Our enemy is not colourless, it definitely does have a colour, and that colour is white. My land was not stolen the Ramaphosa family, it was stolen by the Ruperts, the Oppenheimers and the unknown small Van de Bergh family somewhere in the Karoo.

To my critiques that the black elite in South Africa do not control the ruling ideas Mokgweetsi brings out the recent Nelson Mandela lecture delivered by Obama and he argues that this lecture was the black elites controlling our ideas. Clearly Mokgweetsi is yet to understand how ideology works. A reading of Althusser “On Ideology” would probably help. The rainbow nation idea is a white idea, how comrade Mokgweetsi wants to distance whites from it is beyond me. Furthermore, ruling ideas are not just in the giving of one huge lecture, Althusser reminds us, they are in the everyday and they are in the subtle things we take for granted, the fact that we have to be reminded every day of the Mandela rainbow nation idea is precisely because it is clear it has not been able to elevate to the level of ideology, where we are not reminded of it, but we simply do it and follow. Feminists will tell us better how ideology works. No one tells or forces us the idea of how a ‘man’ should wear, but we actively participate in the idea unconsciously. It is something that happens by itself, but we all know that it is patriarchy that is behind that thinking. In fact it is Ideology at its best when white people steal our land as a group of whites regardless of their class distinction and when we are landless, somehow comrade Mokgweetsi thinks he can make the point that our enemy is not white, but it is the bourgeois class and has no colour. It is the white rulling class ideas permeating Mogkweetsi’s thinking without him even realising it.

Comrade Mokgweetsi finishes off his piece by saying that “A white homeless person calling a billionaire tycoon Motsepe nigger or kaffir is insignificant because racism is determined by power dynamics in society”. This is the last point of degeneration of Mokgweetsi’s paper. Power to him is clearly just having money. He fails to realise a point I make in my original paper which he would have, had he read it properly where I argue that:

“Motsepe with all the millions that he has, is still black in society and because of the logical systems that are in operation in South Africa, and the world over, he cannot escape his blackness. As Fanon, argues, he is overdetermined from without. He lacks the historical, cultural and epistemic reference of power that white people enjoy in society, poor or rich.”

The white homeless person has access to epistemic, historical and metaphysical power that the black does not have.

Advertisements

Let Us Not be afraid to Think

In a recent paper published on his personal blog last week Thursday, titled Alienation is dehumanization: Marxism is a lightbulb moment for the unhinged Existentialist, comrade Sihle Lonzi, went on an attack of what he called ‘bewildered existentialists’. Which, judging by the people he tagged in his post were represented by myself, Sinawo Thambo, Sisipho Fongoqa and Awonke Goso. In the article Sihle makes four main claims:

  1. Existentialism is abstract
  2. It is only meant to be understood by a select few and not accessible to the ‘masses’
  3. For existentialist, the subject is self-constitutive while for Marxists it is the Object that determined the Subject.
  4. Existentialist provide no solution on a way forward, hence Marxism becomes a lightbulb moment.

In this essay I attempt to deal the four main claims that Sihle puts forward in the article in an attack on the ‘bewildered existentialists’. It is important that we first grasp what is it that we mean by existentialism? The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy argues that the term became to be associated with a cultural movement which flourished around the 1940s to the 50s. The claim by the existentialist at the time which were most notably represented by Sartre was that “to understand what a human being is, it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us” (Crowell, 2004) In simple terms, to focus on the empirical is not enough to tell us about our existence in the world.

““Existentialism”, therefore, may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence” (Crowell, 2004). It seems to be this move away from the fetish with the empirical that confuses those against existentialists. It is also this reason that they make claims that Existentialism is abstract and esoteric and therefore, cannot be relied upon as a revolutionary theory. However, even this understanding of existentialism would lack any intellectual rigor, as Prof Percy More argues that “Thought is abstraction and therefore infinite, universal and atemporal. Existence is finite, temporal and particular” (More, 2017: 63).  For one to ask questions about human existence outside of the truths of the natural science does not mean that one is not answering questions of real empirical effects. It seems to be that these so called Marxists suffer from what Wilderson rightly captures, as conceptual anxiety. To account for this lack of conceptualization of the philosophical positions of the ‘bewildered existentialist’ they claim that it is abstract and that it is esoteric. The question to such claims is that do you think when Marx wrote the communist manifesto, the working class understood what surplus value exploitation is? Even today you never find any unionist explaining to the workers in a Marxist mathematical way the ways in which they are exploited. All they need to do is to simply say that the worker is exploited and because the worker has a lived experience of that exploitation will never ask deep questions as to what is the Marxist conception of exploitation. The claim by the so called Marxists, which Sihle claims to represent, that existentialist are abstract and esoteric is simply an admission on their part that they are failing to grasp the conceptual arguments put forward by the so called existentialist and they are using the so called lay man argument to hide their own intellectual inadequacies in grasping concepts.

The third claim made by Sihle in his article is that existentialist have a self-constitutive understanding of the subject while for the Marxist it is the Object that determines the Subject. This claim is completely false. It may have been that in his reading of some works on existentialism he came across existentialists who believe so, but to claim that all existentialist believe this, would be a false claim to make. In fact the cultural movement that is said to have made existentialism popular was rejecting precisely the claim by initial philosophers in the field like Descartes that the subject is self-constitutive.  It was Kierkegaard who claimed that Descartes was wrong to say that “I think, therefore, I am”. Kierkegaard argued that one indeed, had to exist first before one could think. As Sartre made famous also through the slogan “existence precedes essence”. Sartre in the part about ‘the look’ in his book also rejects the notion that a subject is self-constitutive.  As Cromwell argues that “The basis for Sartre’s reading of history, and his politics, was laid in that section of Being and Nothingness that describes the birth of the social in the “Look”(le regard) of the other. In making me an object for his projects, the other alienates me from myself, displaces me from the subject position (the position from which the world is defined in its meaning and value) and constitutes me as something. Concretely, what I am constituted “as” is a function of the other’s project and not something that I can make myself be. I am constituted as a “Frenchman” in and through the hostility emanating from that German; I am constituted as a “man” in the resentment of that woman; I am constituted as a “Jew” on the basis of the other’s anti-semitism; and so on. This sets up a dimension of my being that I can neither control nor disavow, and my only recourse is to wrench myself away from the other in an attempt to restore myself to the subject-position. For this reason, on Sartre’s model, social reality is in perpetual conflict—an Hegelian dialectic in which, for ontological reasons, no state of mutual recognition can ever be achieved. The “we”—the political subject—is always contested, conflicted, unstable” (Cromwell, 2004).

Fanon takes this outlook further to argue that in fact, in the situation of the colonized the colonized is denied the power to look back: “In the Weltanschauung of a colonized people there is an impurity, a flaw that outlaws any ontological explanation” and he goes on to argue that “Ontology—once it is finally admitted as leaving existence by the wayside—does not permit us to understand the being of the black man. For not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man. Some critics will take it on themselves to remind us that this proposition has a converse. I say that this is false. The black man has no ontological resistance in the eyes of the white man” (Fanon, 1952:82-83).

Therefore, the claim that for Existentialists, the subject is a self-constitutive one is false.

The last claim made by Sihle in the article is that Existentialism offers no solution for the oppressed because we argue that our problems are not contingent to historical development but are necessary, while they (The Marxist) argue that the problems we face are simply contingent to history. Sihle is again wrong here. And this is something that is popular among anti- existentialist, and that is because they cannot not grasp the concepts, they claim that we are providing no solutions and they unknowingly fall into the trap of the system by excitedly trying to implement solutions that have been found by History to not work. In fact Scholars of Marxism will tell you that the biggest contribution of Marx was on the critique of Capitalism more than on charting a way forward, hence Lenin becomes important to Marxists with his ideas of a vanguard party. All of the predictions of Marx were shown to be false in fact. Instead of capital falling into a crises it has become more and more advanced giving concessions to certain groups of the traditional working class to a point were some of them are employed but not exploited.

The liberal obsession with quickly finding a synthesis while we have not yet been able to find the anti-thesis is dangerous. This is what Zizek warns us against. DON’T ACT. JUST THINK. Yes this may let us “wallow in a myriad of contradictions” but rather that than to simply continue to act while all our revolts against the system are simply used by the system to consolidate itself and become even more sophisticated.

Even the now reactionary Achille Mbembe got it: “the questions we face are of a profoundly intellectual nature. They are also colossal. And if we do not foreground them intellectually in the first instance; if we do not develop a complex understanding of the nature of what we are actually facing, we will end up with the same old techno-bureaucratic fixes that have led us, in the first place, to the current cul-de-sac”.

Why have the Fallists Fallen off? A response to Ncedisa Mpemnyama

On Friday 13 April, there was some media traffic amongst some “Fallists” in congratulating comrade Ncedisa Mpemnyama on his recent article The Fallists have Fallen off. It is hard to grasp properly what is it that comrade Ncedisa argues as the main argument in his article. The last two paragraphs of the article indicate that it is the wearing of the gown at graduation ceremonies and one could probably even stretch the argument to say the celebration of graduations itself. However, for a main point, this receives very little attention in the article by comrade Ncedisa, only coming up in the last two paragraphs.

Below I try to respond to some of the claims made in the article. Even though I will entertain some of the other points raised in the article, like the lack of the movement wrestling the struggle out of Universities and into communities. My focus will be on the wearing of the ‘colonial gown’ in graduation ceremonies.

The article by Ncedisa starts off with a quote from Dambudzo Marachera extracted from a letter he wrote to his girlfriend back in London. The extracted quote is as follows:

“It is such academic mad houses that keep on churning out arrogant, snobbish, hypocritical and pea-minded bastards who enter the world with the superior airs of holier-than-thou, we and them attitude calling themselves Doctors, Professors or any stupid titles to distance themselves other ordinary folks whom they look down on as dunces.

 

These idiots have done little in changing the world for a better place. If anything, they have contributed in making it worse by joining their counterparts in the right-wing maggoty camp influencing policies that worsen this Babylon called earth. They wear gowns and mortar boards receiving degrees from pink-faced old blokes who shake their hands and congratulate them for entering the world of knowledge”

Disappointingly, Ncedisa doesn’t go on to explain the use of this quote from Dambudzo in relation to his piece. One is left wondering if Ncedisa is accusing Fallists of the same tendencies that Dambudzo is decrying in that letter? If this is the case, I argue that comrade Ncedisa is guilty of a hyperbole here. Whatever the failure of the so called Fallist movement, one can’t make controversial statements like “These idiots have done little in changing the world for a better place. If anything, they have contributed in making it worse by joining their counterparts in the right-wing maggoty camp influencing policies that worsen this Babylon called earth”, without giving a proper analysis as to why that is the case. This is in no way saying that the so called Fallists are not guilty of this, but my modest intervention is to say that one can’t just put this out there and not give us the reasons. Such a conclusion is not an uncontroversial one, and as such one must give the premises that led to the conclusion.

The first part of the quote seems to me to be a critique of the universities themselves more than the individuals who come out of it. Dambudzo here argues that “it is such academic mad houses that keep churning out… distance themselves (from) other ordinary folk…”. But surely even on this one, Fallists cannot uncontroversially be accused of using their academic titles to look down on the ordinary folk, it was precisely the urge to give an anti-thesis to this dominant narrative of university graduates that gave birth to the #RhodesMustFall movement.

But I which not to dwell much on this quote, but my point was to show that it would have been more helpful had it been explained within the context of the article itself.

As a hip-hop enthusiast himself, Ncedisa uses the hip hop metaphor for “falling off” which he explains as a reference to someone who “has lost their essence or soul with respect to their craftsmanship”. But again, Ncedisa only comes to explain why he thinks that the Fallists have fallen off in the last two paragraphs of his piece. The main argument that I got from the article is that the Fallists have fallen off because they are now celebrating that which they were fighting against in the first place.

Firstly, in the article, comrade Ncedisa decries the fact that after graduation, graduates find themselves in the predicament of trying to find a job. It is unclear if Ncedisa argues that it is reactionary to seek a job as a Fallist or he is simply stating the dire predicament that graduates today face. Therefore, I shall not deal with this point in detail, for fear of putting words in comrade Ncedisa’s mouth.

The main point that Ncedisa seems to want to tackle in the article is the celebration of graduation ceremonies and the wearing of the graduation gown by the so called Fallists. I shall state from the onset that I agree with Ncedisa on graduations and the gown. But I agree with him for completely different reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with an ideological conviction. I do not like graduation ceremonies because I think they such an inconvenience. One seats there for three hours only to see their loved ones 30 sec of fame on stage. I just think that it is way too much inconvenience to having to celebrate one’s achievements. On the gown question, I also do not like it, but for different reasons. I think that the gown just messes up with one’s outfit, after going all out and getting the best designer clothes or the best Mbhaco that you have you are going to put a huge black cloth over all of that.

But clearly comrade Ncedisa disagrees on deeply ideological bases. Ncedisa argues that it is an irony that those that were fighting against the coloniality of the university to be celebrating university degrees today. On the simple celebration part, Ncedisa seems to be torn in between being fine with it and not agreeing with it at the same time. This is probably caused by the fact that in the article he wants to congratulate Chumani for the intervention that he made in the graduation ceremony, yet at the same time whether an intervention was made or not, Chumani did attend that ceremony. And Chumani’s decision to attend is deeply political. In the praises that he made at the beginning of the ceremony he says “Mamelani ndinixelele indaba zenu, Sifikile ke thina benikade nibagxotha!”. It became then very important for him to attend that ceremony and show the establishment that tried to kick him out of the university that they have failed. The attendance of the ceremony itself is then elevated beyond simple celebration of one’s obtaining a colonial degree to an act of protest. It is to show the establishment that they have failed in their attempts to kick him out of the academy.

Similarly, other people that attend the graduation ceremony do it for different reasons. I for one, as stated earlier in this piece, hate graduation ceremonies, but I will attend my one simply to please my family because they would really love to see all their effort come to some symbolic fruitrition. The point I’m trying to drive home here is that people attend these ceremonies not to necessarily celebrate their new elevation in society to being a graduate, but to fulfil certain contingency matters.

On the wearing of the gown. Ncedisa may be unclear about many things in the article, but what is definitely a clear position is his wearing of the gown. And the critique is on those that call themselves as Fallists, who not so long ago were saying down with colonial symbols in our spaces. Ncedisa argues that it is a contradiction in terms to be a Fallist and still wear the gown. My own intervention here is not to disagree with Ncedisa on whether this is ideologically untenable. But my point is to say that Ncedisa must do more to prove his point. His explanation of the idea of “Falling off” in hip hop culture took me to a Xhosa saying for someone who has done the unthinkable. Kwa Xhosa siye sithi “Utsibe uphongela”. Which simply means that you have gone beyond the pale.

We all agree that the gown is a colonial gown. I think that is an uncontroversial statement to make. But to state this is to state the obvious. And the gown is a colonial symbol together with many other colonial symbols that we are guilty of letting go on a daily basis. My question to Ncedisa would be what is it about the wearing of the gown and the celebration of the graduation that makes it ‘beyond the pale’? How is someone that did not attend the ceremony different to the one who did? Because at the end of the day they will both use the colonial degree that they got from the same University to validate the fact that they are graduates.  It is not the capping by the VC at the ceremony that confers upon one the problematic validation that they are now part of the so-called thinking class. It is, in the final analysis, the certificate that does that, which itself is a very colonial idea that you need a paper to validate the fact that you can think. But the point I’m trying to drive home here is the fact that if you have already committed yourself to the colonial University system, this is an inevitable end and one will use that certificate to open certain doors for themselves whether they agree with the idea or not. Whether people do it in protest, but the attendance of the University is to be able to obtain that certificate to open certain doors that we know cannot be opened without it. Some do it so that they can be able to be considered part of the knowledge production strata of society.

But the point here is to say that this too (The obtaining of the certificate) is colonial. And what Ncedisa fails to prove to us is that why is the wearing of the gown at the ceremony fundamentally different and ideologically untenable compared to the other colonial symbols that we are complacent in every day. For example, many people recently are either finishing their PhD thesis or about to start their PhD’s. Why does one have to get a PhD to prove that they mastered whatever it is that they are studying? Will Ncedisa be more accommodating to this colonial practice of feel goodism that he is of the wearing of the gown?

Let me restate my point, for fear of being misunderstood. I do not necessarily disagree with Ncedisa’s thesis that the wearing of the gown is an ideological contradiction. However, I am saying that in his article, Ncedisa does not provide sufficient analysis to prove this point. It is when the fundamentality of the wearing of the gown is made apparent to us shall we be at the position to make a judgement on whether we agree or not. A failure to make this analysis runs the risk of falling into a slippery slope because the argument that one should not get a degree because our degrees are colonial is perfectly consistent with the argument that Ncedisa puts forth. But I know he is registered for a degree himself, so clearly, he not that radical in approach. But then if that’s the case, that he can accommodate certain practices. Then the onus is on him to make apparent the fundamental difference that is the wearing of the gown. Without that fundamental difference being drawn out it makes the non-wearing of the gown simple feel goodism, you are more than willing to do all these other colonial practices, getting the degree itself, attending the ceremony and just refusing to wear the gown as some revolutionary gesture, when you are already deep in colonial practices. But clearly this kind of revolt against the system is nothing but a grand standing.

Sobukwe on the African and Race Question: A case against the liberalisation of Sobukwe

“The is only one race, the human race”- R.M Sobukwe

This is probably the most misconstrued quote by Sobukwe. Over the years the quote has been used for narrow gains by the reactionary forces in the fight to liberalise Sobukwe and the PAC. What these reactionary forces conveniently miss, is the context in which Sobukwe was making this claim. Before I am accused of making the same mistake, let us revisit the speech where Sobukwe makes these claims

“And now for the thorny question of race. I do not wish to give a lengthy and learned dissertation on Race. Suffice it to say that even those scientists who do not recognize the existence of separate races have to admit that there are borderline cases which will not fit into any of the three Races of mankind. All scientists agree that all men can trace their ancestry back to the first Homo sapiens, that man is distinguished from other mammals and also from earlier types of man by the nature of his intelligence. The structure of the body of man provides evidence to prove the biological unity of the human species. All scientists agree that there is no “race” that is superior to another, and there is no “race” that is inferior to others. The Africanists take the view that there is only one race to’ which all belong, and that~ human race: In our vocabulary, therefore, the word “race” as applied to man, has no plural form”

What is very clear from the above is that Sobukwe is clearly speaking from a biological perspective. The argument is against the so called “scientific racist” who argued that black people are biologically different and inferior from white people. It is not an argument for multiracialism or nonsense of that sort. In that very same speech Sobukwe went on to give a case that there are 3 nation groups in South Africa, and that is the European, the Indian and the African. If indeed, Sobukwe, on the level of politics believed that “there is only one race, the human race”, then the question becomes, why then did he feel the need to go further and give clarity on the nation groups in South Africa. In that clarification in his speech, he clearly puts the European as a foreigner. This is what Sobukwe has to say about this group.

“In South Africa we recognize the existence of national groups which are the result of geographical origin within a certain area as well as a shared historical experience of these groups. The Europeans are a foreign minority group which has exclusive control of political, economic, social and military power. It is the dominant group. It is the exploiting group, responsible for the pernicious doctrine of white supremacy which has resulted in the humiliation and degradation of the indigenous African people. It is this group which has dispossessed the African people of their land and with arrogant conceit has set itself up as the “guardians”, the “trustees” of the Africans. It is this group which conceives of the African people as a child nation, composed of Boys and Girls, ranging in age from 120 years to one day. It is this group which, after 300 Years, can still state, with brazen effrontery, that the Native, the Bantu, the Kaffir is still backward and savage, etc. But they still want to remain “guardians”, “trustees”, and what have you, of the African people. In short, it is this group which has mismanaged affairs in South Africa just as their kith and kin are mismanaging affairs in Europe. It is from this group that the most rabid race baiters and agitators come. It is members of this group who, whenever they meet in their Parliament, say things which agitate the hearts of mi1lions of peace-loving Africans. This is the group which turns out thousands of experts on that new South African science — the Native mind.”

It is clear then that Sobukwe differentiated the European from the African, the disposed. He argued that the African “are the most ruthlessly exploited and are subjected to humiliation, degradation and insult.” There is clear contradiction that Sobukwe is calling us to see here. It is what Fanon calls the zone of being and non-being. We can see from Sobukwe’s analysis that those who occupy the zone of being are the European foreigners and that those who occupy the zone of non-being are the Africans.

In a statement released by my beloved organisation earlier this week, it seems as if my leaders have forgotten the fundamental contradictions in this country. In a media statement released by the office of the national spokesperson of the party, Kenneth Mokgatlhe, the party calls upon all its members to physically protect settler journalist who have yet to bring back the land to the rightful owners. The statement goes on to praise the South African sell out constitution that comes out as a result of a sell-out negotiation settlement of CODESA.

When called out by members of the Party on the statement the party replied to the people in the following manner

“The basic document of the Party outlines clearly without fear of contradiction that colour in reference to human beings has no significance as such those who purport colour in relation to matter at hand are ignorant if not ideologically bankrupt. there is only one race the human race for we are not blacks neither do we recognise the notion of so called whites.”

Clearly, it seems as if our leaders in the national office suffer from selective reading. On the part of only one race, I think my above analysis on that quote by father Sobukwe is sufficient. What I would like to know is, if colour has “has no significance as such”, why did Sobukwe go on to outline the three different nation groups in this country and outline clearly the position they have. Was it black and white people that came and disposed Africans? Is it both black and white who, according to Sobukwe, “are the most ruthlessly exploited and are subjected to humiliation, degradation and insult.”?

The PAC further goes on to say that “for we are not blacks neither do we recognise the notion of so called whites.”

Since when does the PAC not recognise the notion of “so-called whites”? If we never recognised “so-called whites”, then why did the PAC break away from the ANC? People must not liberalise Sobukwe while we still alive. In an interview with Gail M. Gerhart, it was Sobukwe, when answering to the question of why did they not agree to the freedom charter, who said

“We objected to the whole thing. Raboroko wrote an excellent rebuttal to it, emphasizing the impossibility of whites and Africans being considered “brothers” in South Africa. We knew that every white person— no matter how sympathetic he was to us—benefited from the South African set-up. And enjoyed privileges based only on color. Whites would say to us, “What can I do? Give up my salary? My house?” And what could we say to them? We had no answer for them, but we knew they could never be seen apart from the material situation. The Freedom Charter said something ridiculous about how the land has been taken from us, we blacks and whites together. But how could they try to avoid the issue of whose land had been taken by whom? They were trying to gloss it over.”

In this one answer, Sobukwe mentions the word ‘white’ 4 times. He also says that “every white person- no matter how sympathetic he was to us- benefited from the South African set-up and enjoyed privileges based ONLY ON COLOR”. The question then becomes when the PAC says “War against the enemy, peace amongst African” in an article that tells us, members of the Party to physically protect white settler journalists, from a movement of black only people, has the enemy changed since Sobukwe’s time? Are white people no longer the enemy anymore? Can whites and Africans become brothers in hands and fight other Africans now?

It is clear from Sobukwe that we are not all the same. He even disagreed with having white people in the programmes of the organisation. He even says that “I recognized there were some non-Africans who fully identified with us and were prepared to sacrifice, but as a matter of principle we couldn’t let these people take any part because of the bad psychological effect this had on our people.”

Can someone who thinks race is insignificant or that there is only one race say that the involvement of one group in a program has “bad psychological effects” on the other?

This raises the question to us then, why do we still allow white membership in the party? Have the bad psychological effects of their involvement suddenly disappeared? Do they no longer benefit from the South African set-up purely based on their colour only? These are the tough questions we need to ask ourselves. I argue that the allowing of white people into the movement was an ideological blunder that could also be responsible for the current bad reading of race politics we find in our party today.  White people have always been and still remain the oppressors and the dispossessors of our land, they still are privileged in the country purely based on the colour of their skin. And as such we cannot be brothers in arms fighting together in the same movement for the emancipation of our people. However, I think that this is a debate that will need more time and space than this essay can provide.

What is clear, however, is that the ideological degeneration in the party is deep. It is the job of the young other ideologically clear members of the party to reconcile the national headquarters of the party with the basic principles of the party and remind them of the fundamental contradictions in this country which are that of the dispossessor(White) and the dispossessed(African).

 

Critiquing the ANC better: In defence of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma Candidacy

Sometime last year, at a discussion that was had in Kilombo on the relationship that we, as self-proclaimed fallists, should have with ANC people, Chumani Maxhwele asked a very interesting question. He asked, do we treat all ANC members and supporters in the same way? Do you treat that SANCO active community street committee person the same way that you treat Cyril Ramaphosa? I have been grappling with this question for the longest of times. What I understood to be the fundamental essence of Chumani’s question was ‘are all members and supporters of the ANC in the ANC to loot and knowingly sell-out the revolution or are there those who honestly think that the ANC and its policies are the right way to liberate our people?’

For a long time, I could not answer Chumani’s question, but I think that I now can, and my answer is NO. There is no way that we can treat ANC people the same way. Both strategically and politically. The well-known ANC factions show that the ANC is not a homogenous body and in many instances, those factions can be strategically used to move us closer to the betterment of our people’s lives. It is also an uncritical and a-Historical to argue that all ANC members are just there to loot. I argue that the fact of the matter is that there are people who honestly believe that the ANC liberated this country and it is now up to the current generation to further defend the gains of the Mass democratic Revolution as fought for by the Mass Democratic Movement. Whether we like it or not, there are people who believe in the Mass Democratic Movement’s three stage revolution as articulated by the SACP. To then say that these people should not be engaged with is to first undermine your own intellectual capacity to convince and it is incommensurate to beliefs of a revolution in Azania because the overwhelming majority of the critical mass for a revolution in this country are either ANC card carrying members or Supporters of the party that would choose to rather stay away from voting than to vote against the ANC.

It is, therefore, based on this argument that I write this paper. It is not a paper to convince people to join the ANC, I write the paper as part of the process of starting to critique the ANC better through engagement with its’ members. Ever since the ANC Women’s league have pronounced on their support of a women president for this country and COSATU and SACP’s shocking endorsement of Cyril Ramaphosa, there has been an ongoing smear campaign against Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma by the popular liberal news agencies in the country, especially the Mail & Guardian. What has been shocking in the critique of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma’s Candidacy has been that most of the criticism has not been on the women herself but on those who support her. There have been three main arguments against Dlamini-Zuma’s candidacy: She is another Zuma, The ANCWL is a joke and She did not do much in the AU.

I would like to deal with each of the arguments put forward separately. Firstly, the fact that Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was married to the current unpopular President is no basis to disregard her as a presidential candidate. This argument is first of all very patriarchal and second of all it lacks any intellectual reasoning. I was so shocked when a whole UKZN professor who is a political analyst on Radio 2000 put this argument forward. How does someone who is a Professor at one of the so-called best universities in Africa have this kind of analysis? It just shows how mediocre white academia is, but that is a story for another day. The fact that Dlamini-Zuma was married to Zuma does not mean that she has no autonomy, that she just follows her ex-husband ways. This argument just shows how patriarchal our society still is. This argument does not see Dlamini-Zuma outside Jacob Zuma, according to the argument Dlamini-Zuma is Jacob Zuma and that there is no difference between the two. In her article to the Huffington Post, Ferial Haffajee points out to the devastating effects of always referring to her as only the ex-wife of the current president, when she, in fact, has a long history in the fight against apartheid and in government post 94.

The second tactic that has been used by the liberal white media to discredit Dlamini-Zuma has been to simply attack those who support her candidacy. In an article by Stephen Grootes on The Daily Maverick today he argues that “… the league’s proposal seems to be flawed… because of the people it wants in the top six positions”. The shocking part, however, is that Grootes went on to discredit all of the women that the leagues propose but fails to mention anything about Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. When one reads the article it seems as though Grootes is telling us not to support Dlamini-Zuma’s presidential candidacy because the people that she has been mentioned with are not leadership quality. There is nothing on the qualities of Dlamini-Zuma herself, but she is automatically discredited because other women candidates that have been put forward to run with her are not leadership quality. It is even debatable that the argument against the leadership qualities of those other women is a valid one, but that is not the point of this paper. What I am interested in is to show the flaw in the tactic used to discredit Dlamini-Zuma. We all know how flawed the ANCWL is, however, to discredit everything put forward by the ANCWL because we don’t take them serious is disingenuous. It is like saying because we do not take ANC serious we should therefore never support anything they say even if they were to say let us take back the land without compensation.

The last argument that is used by the liberal news agencies is that she has not done that much in the AU. This is a blatant lie used as the last ditch to discredit the outgoing AU Commission chair. This is a person who Has served two terms and was later asked by the AU member states to stay for a further 8 months because they could not find someone to match her calibre. In fact, many states still wanted her to run again. The argument that she has done nothing as the AUC chair is used despite the fact that under her leadership Africa has agreed to have the biggest free trade region in the world from Cape to Cairo, with only one economic region not forming part of the agreement. It is also under her leadership that the AU has come up with the pan-African passport, with only national governments left to adopt the passport at their respective national legislatures. The AU has also come up with a strategy to complete the Cape to Cairo rail system that has already been implemented in the West African region. Also under her leadership, the AU has taken a sharper stance in unconstitutional changes to governments, with the example of the expulsion of CAR from the community. Even though there is still much that needs to be done in conflict resolution, but it is only the intellectually dishonest that can say that the AU has not taken a firmer stance in recent years to conflicts in Africa. After years of the issue of illicit financial flows being ignored by the AUC, it was in under her leadership that the commission decided to investigate how much the continent is losing in illicit financial flows through the High-level panel on Illicit Financial flows chaired by the former South African President, Thabo Mbeki. It was also under her leadership that the AU adopted the Agenda 2063 that seeks to accelerate, in its own liberal way, the Pan-Africanist agenda. It is, therefore, clear that she has focused a lot on intra-continental connection amongst African citizens. We also know how she turned around the Home affairs department before handing it over to Malusi Gigaba. That department was in turmoil before she took over. Also in her Huffington Post article Ferial points out to just some of the accomplishments that Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has.  It is, therefore, clear that her accomplishments in politics are unquestionable, yet the liberal media still insist on trying to portray her as someone who has no leadership accomplishments whatsoever. This is all done so that the focus for all those that are going to be making the decision in December this year is only fixated at Cyril Ramaphosa.

Ramaphosa’s endorsement by the media is being done through the flawed discrediting of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. I, therefore, urge the true leftist in the ANC to be careful of this tactic by the liberal media. If there is any way that the ANC can further say fuck you, South Africa, is by electing the person that is very much involved in the killing of 34 workers in cold blood and has never given any apology for the incident. The only reason why Cyril Ramaphosa is being endorsed by the media is because he is as white as it gets and the white monopoly capital know that he has proven his allegiance to them with the Marikana massacre of August 2012. The radical left and Africanists within the ANC must reject the counterrevolutionary stance by the SACP and the anti-worker position taken by COSATU to support Cyril Ramaphosa. An Endorsement of Cyril Ramaphosa will further move the ANC away from the people and move it closer to a quasi-Democratic Alliance. If there are any progressive cadres within SASCO and Youth League they will reject the stance taken by the liberal media imposed ‘leader of FMF’ Mcebo Dlamini. What does it mean for a whole fallist to publicly endorse Cyril Ramaphosa as the saviour of our country? Of the people that have been posed to contest the position of president in the ANC, there is none that has proven to be more anti-poor and anti-worker than Cyril Ramaphosa, and to have the two organisations in the Tripartite Alliance that are supposed to represent the left to endorse this person as a president as beyond shocking just to say the least.

If the ANC wants to further distance itself from the ordinary masses of our people it must elect Cyril Ramaphosa as its’ next president.

When Myths Become Truths and confusion is the order of the day

In a journal article earlier this year Achille Mbembe wrote the following

“the questions we face are of a profoundly intellectual nature. They are also colossal. And if we do not foreground them intellectually in the first instance; if we do not develop a complex understanding of the nature of what we are actually facing, we will end up with the same old techno-bureaucratic fixes that have led us, in the first place, to the current cul-desac.”

Lately I have heard comrades who I deeply admire blame the problems that we face on feminism. It is said that feminism is the death of our revolution. I therefore took the time to debunk such theories before they become the undisputed truths in our circles. It is important that in our analysis of the revolution we are not lazy to go to the deep intellectual dungeons.

From my analysis of the black radical feminist school of thought I have found that this ideology carries with it some panacea to the ills of the black masses. It was for this reason that our three Pillars made sure that this ideology is included. It must be noted that I speak here of Black Radical feminism. Yes the ideology has it’s own shortcomings just like any other. It is not perfect nor is it immune to critique. Just like no ideology is. However, our critique of it must never be a lazy one. it is very easy to find scapegoats in a midst of intellectual confusion. People should not be lazy to seat down and look at the situation that we find ourselves in, in a holistic manner
Those who truly believe that feminism will be the death of our revolution should come forth with the intellectual analysis of such conclusions and that analysis will be put under scrutiny. I find it very difficult for anyone to disagree with the fundamental aims of feminism as an ideology. From my understanding of the philosophy is that above all, it seeks to liberate the black women from the shackles of patriarchy that they find themselves in our current epoch. Now as a black activist I cannot standby when a black child is crying out and saying they can’t breathe.  We must at all times remind ourselves of the philosophy of Fallism as conceptualised by the masses who have carried out it’s mandate throughout 2016. They did so even when the goal seemed untouchable, when the revolution was unpopular, as some would put it “when the country was not woke”. The philosophy of Fallism says that all that is a symbol of oppression must fall. Whatever form that oppression comes in. The job of the Fallist is to discover it and dismantle it without fear or favour. It is the true interpretation of the preamble to the constitution of the great Pan Africanist congress of Azania when it says “we are against all forms of domination”.  I would therefore find it very hard to fathom that when one is using the fallist tools of analysis would still come up with the conclusion that the liberation of the black women is the death of the revolution.

What is going to be very important in our analysis of our problems is the clear distinction between a person and the philosophy they advocate. As a Pan-Africanist I do not necessarily have to be loved by all Pan-Africanist. However, just because someone disagree with me on something it can never mean that now Pan-Africanism is the death of the revolution.

Therefore MaAfrika we cannot let confusion run unchecked. Therefore the point is feminism has never been the death of the revolution, our lack of intellectual honesty though and the deep seated denial of the issues that feminism is bringing to the national discourse will be the death of our revolution. A true decolonial project is one that gives and is open to critique itself. It must critique everything… even critique the decolonial project itself.

Student Activism and student governance in 2015

The year 2015 has been an interesting year for student politics. From the actions of Chumani Maxwele to Mcebo Dlamini and Zizipho Pae. What I want to interrogate in this paper however is not these events and their merits but rather I want ponder on student activism and governance in the 1970’s with today. Back in the days of SASO and later on PASO, one could’ve never been able to separate student activism and student Governance. There is a number of reasons why  this is the case. Mainly, however, is because these two organisations were for black students and one could not be black student leader without addressing the issues facing black people at the time. There was a sense of agency from black students then to drastically change the lives of the black masses.

When one engages in a cogitation of student movements back then we can see students active engagement with community issues in various ways. In ‘Frank Talk’ Steve Biko speaks a lot about why the black ‘middle class’ needs to get involved in community projects instead of trying to legitimize the system by going into it’s structures and ‘trying to change the lives of the black masses from the inside the system’ referring to the Bantustans. One can also heed this culture of community involvement from the Pan Africanist Student Organisation (PASO) popular slogan in the 70’s “PASO by day, APLA by night”. This shows that student organisations were not only interested with student governance but rather the total liberation of the black masses.

What has been happening in recent years is that this culture has slowly died in student politics. Student organisations are merely there for student governance so that they can pimp their C.V’s in preparation for an ever competitive working environment outside Higher education and Training. It is for this reason that today, unlike the 70’s, one cannot honestly say that they cannot distinguish between student governess and student activism. Student bureaucrats are interested in power, control and C.V enhancements where as, when we talk of student activist we talk of people who are actively involved in programs on the ground that are aimed at improving the lives of the proletariat, which is mostly the black masses.When we talk of student activist, we talk of people like Chumani Maxwele, Masixole Mlandu, Siyabonga Njica, Athabile Nonxuba, ye man… We are speaking here of the students who dared the university authorities and occupied their offices in Bremner, We are speaking here about the entire #RhodesMustFall movement.These students, just like those student of the 70’s, see their struggle as inseparable to the struggle of the black masses on the ground.

In the actions of Chumani Maxwele on the 9th of March this year, we saw a beam of student activism. We saw it again on the 21st of March with the launch of UCT PASMA, which came out with a branch leadership that is undeniably filled with student activist who run various programs in communities, and an apt theme for the events of this year. The launch was themed “A birth of a new revolution”. As members of the movement we need to continually ask ourselves “what does a new revolution look like?”

On the same night of the launch, the #RhodesMustFall movement started their occupation of Bremner in calling for the decolonization of the university. During this years Vac members of this branch and other UCT students went to Centane in the Eastern Cape to make the ground fertile for the building of a library there, as part of the organisation they started called ‘let’s build institutions’. This is what I consider student activism. This year we are seeing a revival of this student activism culture with the formation of many student movements across the country calling for the decolonization of the Higher education sector. For me this is what we mean by “a birth of a new revolution.”

UCT PASMA’s decision not to run for SRC elections is indicative of this growing culture of student activism. PASMA needs to constantly ask itself “What is our mandate and goal, can these be achieved outside the SRC, and to what purpose does occupying SRC seats serve in the liberation of our black masses?” If the objections of the movement can be achieved outside student governance, then we should not feel obligated to run for SRC’s. In the movement we must foster a culture of student activism rather than a culture of obsession with student governance. However, we must remember that there are some struggles that SRC seats can help us in, such as NSFAS and exclusions. Not to say we cannot fight these from outside SRC because we can.If we fail to foster this culture, then I dare say that we will never see a free Azania, whose people are free from the shackles of poverty.