Archive category
Published date
Related Collections from the Archive
From: South Africa's Radical Tradition, a documentary history, Volume One 1907 - 1950, by Allison Drew
Document 28 - Letterfrom E. R. Roux to the Central Executive, Communist Party of South Africa, 25 September 1928
53 Lensfield road,
Cambridge
25 September 1928
CECPSA
Dear Comrades,.
Comrade Bunting has suggested that I should write down my views on general Party tactics for the immediate future. When one is 6,000 miles away and not liable at any Moment to be biffed by an enraged Dutchman or arrested under the Native Administration Act for inciting to a"feeling of hostility"one'side as about Party tactics and policy on the colour question may be more doctrinaire than practicable. Comrade Bunting has hinted at some such explanation of my own partial conversion to the new slogan (to the extent of accepting it in the abstract while suggesting tactical modifications in its concrete form), as contrasted with his own unbending opposition.
Whether there is anything in this geographical explanation, and also whether my changing views while in Moscow may in part have been due to the sort of political intimidation to which we were subjected - an intimidation to which com. Bunting is relatively impervious but to which I may have been more susceptible - or whether on the other hand my views are to be taken as due to a more or less independent re-examination of the facts as I now see them, I must leave it for you to decide.
In any case I have long been to the opinion that there are many aspects of Party work in which a more nationalistic attitude should be adopted. For instance before I left home I was already beginning to think that it was rather academic to refer to the natives always as "native workers" instead of just as "natives".
When addressing members of the Labour Party or white trade unionists, of course one wants to draw attention to the fact that the natives are fellow workers and one naturally gets into the habit of referring to the working class and then saying, "You must understand that when we say 'workers' we include the non-Europeans." Now this is very good policy as far as the approach to the white workers is concerned: it has already yielded important results, not the least of which is the recent liaison of the laundry unions. But to say as com. Bunting does that this "pure Marxist" approach all along the line is by itself' quite sufficient, is to ignore the other aspect of the native movement - the nationalist aspect.
Before proceeding further it will be necessary for me to say something on the character of these two sides of ihe native movement. I referred to them in a previous letter but I did not elaborate the point.
The nalional struggle of the natives comes first in order because, as the C I. has pointed out. S. Africa is a country in which exploitation is predominantly of colonial type. This national struggle is a political struggle against the S.A. state as at present organized. It is to-day very largely illegal,as is seen clearly in the Native Administration Act, which enables the Government to put in prison anyone who draws attention in public to the fact that the natives as black men are exploited and oppressed by the Europeans as whites. To point to the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists seems to me to create a feeling of hostility between Capital and Labour; and to point to the oppression of the natives by the colour bar leads equally, as I think any reasonably person will admit, to a feeling of hostility to the whites. It is a mere subterfuge to say that it is only in his capacity of capitalist that we lack the white man and that we do not attack the whites as such. The reply is that when we rally the natives to rebel against racial discrimination we do attack all whites who support or practice racial discrimination harmful to the natives (i.e., the vast majority ofwhite South African); and the fact that there are "100,000 poor whites" is in my opinion quite beside the point. I know someone is likely to protest here and say "Ha! so you do want to ignore the poorwhites"
I reply that I do not wish to ignore the poor whites, or any other section of the whites for that matter, but l do not see how the existence of class differences among the whites alters the fact of the racial oppression of the natives.
The other aspect of the native movement is the industrial one. This movement is more or less legal at the moment and likely to remain so for a longer or shorter time.
In view of the growing extreme shortage of native labour an appreciable rise in native wages will almost certainly take place in the near future, if only to bring money wages to the pre-war level of real wages. The Bloemfontein Award is an indication of the trend of events. In fact we are rapidly approaching the position throughout southern and eastern Africa where capitalists will be prepared to offer substantial increases in wages in order to attract labour. Those who doubt this are advised to study labour conditions in the Congo, Kenya, and Southern Rhodesia as well as in the Union itself. In all these territories the demand for labour exceeds the supply to an increasing extent every day.
There is thus every possibility ofeven a reformist trade union movement, such as the I.C.U. aims at becoming, securing real benefits for some ofits members. On the basis of the prestige and position thus gained, leaders ofthe Kadalie type will then proceed to stifle any further revolutionary advance of the native workers. This is why it is so important that the Red unions now growing up should supersede the reformist organisation. Immediate rises in wages if secured by militant action will encourage the native workers to make further efforts and to combine political demands with industrial ones.
If on the other hand they merely result from Kadalie or Ballinger negotiating with the employers, without any real organisation ofthe workers and without strike action, they will merely make the workers content for the time being and the chance of developing a mass movement will be lost.
Some comrades believe that the industrial movement of the native urban workers will provide the main lever whereby the racial emancipation of the natives will be achieved. They thus give it precedence both in theory and practice over the national agrarian movement. It is true that up to the present some of our most "striking" successes have been on this field. Here we are assisted by the fact that many sections of white workers have an economic interest in the growth of native trade unionism. We may take it that the pro-native element in the white unions will continue to grow. This is largely ourachievemcnt; we did the pioneer work. Now we have the pleasure of hearing Moore and Hicks advocating racial co-operation and no doubt it will become quite fashionable in time.
In view of these urban successes some tend to forget the other side of the picture as exemplified by Potchefstroom and Paardekop. The country movement is very largely the nationalist movement. It will have its trade union side no doubt (the whole question of an agricultural labourers union is extremely important), but it will remain predominately political.
The comrades in Moscow suggested that there was some connexion between our refusal to accept the new slogan and our alleged indifference on the agrarian question. While we denied the in difference we had to admit that we knew very little about agrarian conditions. The C.P.S.A. derives what theory it has almost exclusively from its urban (largely trade union) experience. The theory of "pure Marxism" and the slogan "workers of all races unite" have seemed good enough, and we have worked out an empirical method of approaching normally race-prejudiced white workers, with more or less success so far, in the face of enormous difficulties; and I think the Party can be justly proud ofits work. But it does not follow that slogans useful in trade union work are sufficient by themselves in the broader political struggle which the Party will soon have to face. I say "broader" advisedly, because I do not believe the development of native trade unions will provide the only lever for the racial emancipation of the Bantu.
The direct political struggle (mass demonstrations for the defence of the Cape franchise and its extension the consolidation of the Communist Party, the development of all the race demands of the natives, particularly the struggle for land) will come to the front; and though trade unionism will from an integral part of the whole, it may possibly only be a smaller part. Under these conditions the slogan of inter-racial working class and trade union unity will be an important slogan tending to keep the whites split on class lines and to keep to the front the native trade union movement as an important factor in the struggle. But the slogans that will rally the main mass ot'rural and urban natives behind Ihe Party will be "racial equality", "natives in parliament", "land for natives", etc., that is to say nationalistic slogans, the slogans of the democratic revolution in South Africa, the slogans which culminate eventually in the demand for a native republic.
It may be that the demand for a native republic may at the moment be a little premature, but that the demand will come eventually there is not the slightest doubt.
This being so (and as com. Kuusinen pointed out) it is up to the Party to be the first to put forward the new slogan. We do not want anyone to steal our fire. At the same time, in view of the very precariuus circumstances under which the Party operates to-day, we must put forward the slogan in such a way as to obtain the maximum response from the natives, while at the same time retaining and strengthening our influence in the white unions. I know this is easier said than done. In the first place it will be necessary to explain carefully to our own members the meaning and object of the slogan.
I am afraid I have not quite fnished all I have to say, but to think this is sufficient for a single instalment. With Communist greetings,
Yours fraternally.
E. R. Roux