Part 5: Victimised for Their Principles?

In this part of my open letter to ANCYL members, I look at the YL NEC’s defence that the real reason for the disciplinary action against YL leaders was not to root out ill-discipline, but to undermine the League’s nationalisation and expropriation drive. (To comment on the letter, please go to its first part.)

Tourists visiting the Freedom Charter memorial at the Kliptown Open Air Museum.

Remember Floyd Shivambu’s statement that the YL doesn’t use or need economic advisers?

Right there the YL NEC gave their whole nationalisation and expropriation game away, as far as I’m concerned.

Think about it: If your real agenda is to benefit our economy and improve the conditions of the majority of our citizens, wouldn’t your very first step be to find out what the effects of a radical policy shift would be, long before you open your mouth about the issue, even within the ANC?

And wouldn’t you need the input of trained economists (among other specialists) to reach informed conclusions about the effects?  Isn’t it, in fact, inconceivable that people whose real agenda is nationalisation and expropriation for the benefit of the majority of South Africans could start promoting that position without using the input of trained professionals?

In any event, nowadays people who are really serious about creating a more equal world don’t waste their time trying to grab the quicksilver assets of globalised companies nationally.  Zimbabwe is an example of how that approach is dealt with by global elites – it’s crushed underfoot, that’s how.  Trillion dollar banknotes, LOL!  (And Zim’s nationalisation and expropriation drive was not even genuine – it was just another elite power grab.)

The Freedom Charter smokescreen

In my view the YL NEC abuses the hallowed status which the Freedom Charter had acquired during the liberation struggle to publicly promote, in breach of the ANC’s code of conduct, a policy which is currently not ANC policy.

Think about it: statistically many of you YL members would belong to the Christian faith and would see the Bible as a holy book.  Would it therefore be OK if you (or a Christian friend if you’re not a Christian) decided to stone a neighbour to death, as the Bible requires, for having an affair outside her marriage?

Christians in their right mind wouldn’t do such a thing because they understand that although the Bible is, for them, a holy book filled with immutable truths, conditions have changed since it was written.

That’s even more applicable to a political manifesto.  The Communist Manifesto, which sets out the ideas on which the Freedom Charter is based, was considered at least as “holy” as the Freedom Charter in many countries of the world, but today it’s little more than a historical document for them.

I’m exaggerating – should you try and suggest a return to governance under the principles of the Communist Manifesto in a down-town bar in one of the former Soviet republics, you may discover that the document still elicits some emotion. 🙂

Historical change is at the heart of Marxism, which in turn underlies the nationalisation idea in the Freedom Charter.  Yet the calendar of the YL NEC runs like this: 1954, 1955, 2011.

Fall of the Berlin Wall?  Has Socialism Failed?  That stuff is just not on the calendar.

Something else at work

I hope you agree with me that logic can’t explain the position of the YL NEC on nationalisation and expropriation.  There must be something else at work.

What it is, is not clear to most of us yet, but one cannot exclude the possibility of a criminal scam of breathtaking proportions.  You’ll remember Jeremy Cronin’s “Nationalisation or capitalist friendly bale-out?” question in his seminal Should we nationalise the mines? article.

That theory certainly makes a lot more sense than the idea that the YL NEC bling brigade suddenly woke up one morning with genuine socialist convictions.

It also fits in with the blatant influence-peddling which characterised Fikile Mbalula’s presidency.  Remember Brett Kebble?  The movers and shakers in the YL made a lot of money at that time, and it wasn’t through promoting your interests, of that you can be certain.

And Mr. Malema, Mr. Mbalula’s hand-picked successor, continued to make a lot of money, that much we know.  The “how” is not clear yet, but we know it’s not from the salary for his day-job.

Next Part

Now it’s up to you to decide whether the NDC ruling was, on the whole, fair or unfair.  In the next part of my open letter I’m going to look at the options open to YL members who feel the ruling was, on the whole, unfair.