Ramaphosa, the ANC, and "the left"

John Game on FaceBook made a sensible but indirect and rather dead-end comment on Ramaphosa's open hostility to the Marikana mineworkers (25 October 2012, 9.56am). I commented:


Well,  not just "remains" within the bounds of  capitalism but is forcibly and murderously constrained within the bounds of capitalism. John, you're right about the logic of *bourgeois* national liberation. Not about national liberation as such - the class contradictions can drive national liberation if the leaders of the mobilization are conscious of the class logic of the permanent revolution.
If you want to  lead the working class and poor peasants to emancipation and prosperity you can only do it by leading them to power in society and this means removing the bourgeoisie and landlords and their property rights (your property wrongs  ;-). Mandela never wanted this class emancipation. His Congress (like Gandhi's in India) never wanted this. The Freedom Charter sat even less convincingly on the ANC than Clause 4 did on the Labour Party. Marikana is Mandela's Sharpeville. The Stalinist ANC bourgeoisie is uglier than the apartheid regime because it is based on lying and treachery.
The ANC (and the PAC, and every other fighting organization) deserved the unconditional support of working class revolutionaries during the war against apartheid, but this did not entail support for their anti-socialist programme, their counter-revolutionary perspectives or corrupt bureaucratic organization. It's the same situation as with the Saddam regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And of course it was the same situation with regard to the Korean war and facing up to US imperialism, which is why the Cliffite, state capitalist tradition is so lost when the chickens start coming home to roost.
Supporting forces like the Taliban doesn't mean capitulating to them politically. Even Mao understood this in practice when he allied the CCP with the Kuo Min-Tang during the war against the Japanese imperialists. The CCP, almost against its own desires, retained control of its policy-making and above all its command structure. (See Peng Shuzi's report on the Chinese revolution and the CCP http://www.marxists.org/archive/peng/1951/nov/causes.htm). "The left" - a really crap political category, by the way - has made capitulation and tailing political forces hostile or indifferent to the working class into its major strategic principle since the 1930's turn from ultra-left adventurism to Popular Frontism. Time to dump both "the left" as a worthwhile political agent and opportunist sniffing around for exciting bandwagons to jump on. We're not poodles looking for a good post to pee on.

Slutwalk and sectarianism

On FaceBook, Juan G posted a link to an analysis of Slutwalk:

http://www.yasminnair.net/content/slutwalk-end-feminism "If Slutwalk is to remain relevant, it needs to become more than a gathering where people share stories about their abuse. Without a critical self-awareness and a willingness to address and act upon the structural, economic, and political problems that face women and others, Slutwalk is in danger of becoming the Halloween of feminism: the one day of the year when women feel empowered to dress in scanty clothes and call themselves sluts, but which leaves them without the power with which to actually make and create the kind of change that goes beyond an Obama slogan.

There is nothing insignificant about the demand that people not be harassed or worse for how they dress, but reclaiming “slut” is only the beginning. There is a particularly vapid form of activism that has overtaken the left-progressive world, where mostly people of colour and other oppressed groups engage in “story-telling.” This works like a drum circle, an endless chanting of personal woes that drowns out the structural components of capitalism, and allows for the construction of a fiercer, more powerful neoliberalism that uses the realm of the personal to erase our consciousness of the destruction of our social, political, and economic resources." - a thought-provoking piece ;0

I made the following comment:


We can see it a bit like this... Every powerful movement covers a broad spectrum, from very radical to ultra-cautious, and the more powerful and long-term it is, the more kaleidoscopic and varied the colours and pieces making up the mosaic. Important historical movements affecting huge numbers of people (like universal democratic issues such as national independence, freedom of association and expression, and women's emancipation) include tendencies so clearly delimited from each other that they seem to be totally incompatible, even if they are mainstream in relation to the extremes. 
Slutwalk is one of these apparently separate mainstream trends. It doesn't advocate a castration for every rape, for instance, and it doesn't hide in the gut of male chauvinism like some ultra-respectable tapeworm, so it's not extreme. But it seems incompatible with rational class-based socialist programmes for women's liberation.
So let's not see it as a threat to feminism, but as a partial ally, doing our work for us in places we can't and don't really want to reach. Not the way we would do it, naturally, but nonetheless.
In the 1926 General Strike in Britain the students were out fighting the workers and scabbing alongside the cops and troops. In 1968 they weren't. In some situations the petty bourgeoisie goes rabid and supports the most brutal exploitation of the workers and farmers - Germany and Italy in the 1930s, say. In others it sides with the broad masses and boosts the forces of emancipation - Russia 1917, Cuba 1959, for instance. In yet others it vacillates - as in Venezuela today where the petty bourgeois nationalist military leadership opposes imperialism and its local lackeys.
Our job is to explain, agitate and lead working women and girls in a revolutionary socialist movement for women's emancipation. We haven't really started in this task yet, so naturally people who want to see things change join what's available and visible. Like Slutwalk.
Slutwalk and similar movements show us what gets people angry and on their feet, and reveal all sorts of creativity and humour in mobilization that we're not too good at ourselves. 
Hell, I welcome the appearance of extremes! It shows things are happening, things are moving. If we handle the extremes well it gives us a perfect opportunity to define our own position as clear and rational - that is, as the most attractive and human position to take.
We need to get out of the habit of smacking down every trend in the broad movement that riles us. It's defensive and sectarian. And if we can't handle the variety and human cussedness in our own movement, how the hell will we be able to handle the variety and cussedness of real world society when the capitalists have been kicked out and we get to run the country??

Science, reason and bad philosophy

Aimee Whitcroft blogs about rational discussion, aka science, at  http://sciblogs.co.nz/misc-ience/2012/10/09/no-actually-everyone-is-not-entitled-to-their-opinion/  (includes a link to the original blog location) and argues that some opinions are better than others. She doesn't go too deeply into how better opinions are validated, however, so I added the following comment, which gave me the opportunity to quote an astonishingly refreshing passage from an article on quantum physics in last month's Scientific American on why quantum obscurantism is an ideological artefact of bad (bourgeois) philosophy:

The problem is that all formally incontrovertible proofs are based on axioms that can’t be formally proven. So you can argue till you’re blue in the face and never satisfy the ideological sceptic who demands absolute proof.

What it comes down to is a combination of material empirical demonstrations and serious debate of a principled kind. And more often than not debate will equal struggle or even war.

So all truth is fundamentally institutional, rooted in people organized in society.

Which means it has to be fought for and defended in institutional ways, ie using social pressures such as armed force (the queasy might prefer the euphemistic terms 'laws' or 'government').

The litmus test here is the understanding of 'serious'. A frivolous or deliberately obscurantist opponent can’t be talked out of a mistaken position. Rationality won’t bite. Jews, gypsies and socialists will be incinerated if the fascists aren’t removed from power by force.

So I hope Patrick Stokes adds a few words about institutional clout to his riff on "you’re entitled to what you can argue for".

Hegel was well aware of all this as he watched the French Revolution changing the institutional foundations of truth, and he grasped the nettle and accounted for this in his philosophy. The World Spirit and the Spirit of the Age went on to don new socialist personas soon afterwards, however, so 'serious' bourgeois philosophy stopped dead with Kant, ie turned into its opposite and became frivolous and obscurantist.

Which left serious (no quotes) science in bourgeois society groping around in Plato’s cave so to speak.

An article in Scientific American special issue September 2012 by David Deutsch and Artur Ekert (“Beyond the quantum horizon”) lays the blame for the fumbling confusion entangling the quantum field squarely on "bad philosophy".

I’ll leave you with the relevant chunk of the section "Beyond Bad Philosophy":

"Erwin Schrödinger, who discovered quantum theory’s defining equation, once warned a lecture audience that what he was about to say might be considered insane. He went on to explain that when his famous equation describes different histories of a particle, those are "not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously." Eminent scientists going off the rails is not unknown, but this 1933 Nobelist was merely making what should have been a modest claim: that the equation for which he had been awarded the prize was a true description of the facts. Schrödinger felt the need to be defensive not because he had interpreted his equation irrationally but precisely because he had not.

"How could such an apparently innocuous claim ever have been considered outlandish? It was because the majority of physicists had succumbed to bad philosophy: philosophical doctrines that actively hindered the acquisition of other knowledge. Philosophy and fundamental physics are so closely connected—despite numerous claims to the contrary from both fields—that when the philosophical mainstream took a steep nosedive during the first decades of the 20th century, it dragged parts of physics down with it.

"The culprits were doctrines such as logical positivism ('If it’s not verifiable by experiment, it’s meaningless'), instrumentalism ('If the predictions work, why worry about what brings them about?') and philosophical relativism ('Statements can’t be objectively true or false, only legitimized or delegitimized by a particular culture'). The damage was done by what they had in common: denial of realism, the commonsense philosophical position that the physical world exists and that the methods of science can glean knowledge about it.

"It was in that philosophical atmosphere that physicist Niels Bohr developed an influential interpretation of quantum theory that denied the possibility of speaking of phenomena as existing objectively. One was not permitted to ask what values physical variables had while not being observed (such as halfway through a quantum computation). Physicists who, by the nature of their calling, could not help wanting to ask, tried not to. Most of them went on to train their students not to. The most advanced theory in the most fundamental of the sciences was deemed to be stridently contradicting the very existence of truth, explanation and physical reality."