Document 26 - S. P. Bunting, Statement on the Kuusinen Thesis1 , presented at the Sixth Comintern Congress, 20 August 1928

From: South Africa's Radical Tradition, a documentary history, Volume One 1907 - 1950, by Allison Drew

Document 26 - S. P. Bunting, Statement on the Kuusinen Thesis1 , presented at the Sixth Comintern Congress, 20 August 1928

Comrades, I should like to have spoken on colonial or at least on South African matters in general but in the limited time must confine myself to a controversial matter seriously affecting our South African Party.

There is a proposal in the Negro Sub-Commission, presided over by Comrade Bennet 13, that the Party should put forward as its immediate political slogan "an independent native South African Republic based on the workers' and peasants' organisation, with full safeguards and equal rights for all national minorities"; also that the country and land be returned to the black population; a native national revolutionary movement to be developed by the Party in support.

This formulation is opposed by the majority in our Party, mainly for practical reasons, which are very strong. But we may first consider the more theoretical basis of the formula. This is stated in a draft resolution submitted to the Sub-Commission as follows:

"The national question in South Africa, which is based upon the agrarian question, lies at the foundation of the revolution in South Africa."

Unfortunately we Party members in South Africa are so much occupied with practical work, which we have to do in our spare time only, that we have no time for study, so that we are only amateurs when it comes to theorising. But according to our experience, it seems possible to harp too exclusively on the national chord in colonial matters. In an earlier debate on the ECCI resolution, I ventured the opinion, in effect, that it might not be so universally true that the chief function of a colonial people was to engage in a national struggle (predominantly agrarian in character) against foreign imperialism and for independence; and that in South Africa, at any rate, the class struggle of the proletariat (chiefly native) appeared more capable of accomplishing the task - in effect, that the class struggle there is more revolutionary and effective than the national or racial struggle for the same ends.

It is often said that the colonial thesis of the II Congress is authority to the contrary, but I do not find anything to that effect in the thesis. It says, of course, that we should "support the revolutionary movement among the subject nations and in the colonies''- "the FORM OF SUPPORT TO BE DETERMINED BY A STUDY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS". And it does also say: There are to be found in the dependent countries two distinct movements, one is the bourgeois democratic nationalist movement, with a programme of political independence under the bourgeois order, and the other is the mass action of the poor and ignorant peasants and workers for their liberation from all forms of exploitation. The former endeavours to control the latter ... hut the Cl and the Parties affected must struggle against such control and help to develop CLASS consciousness in the working masses of the colonies. For the overthrow of foreign capitalism, which is the first step towards revolution in the colonies, the cooperation of the bourgeois nationalist revolutionary elements is useful. But the first and most necessary task is the formation of Communist Parties which will organise the peasants and workers and lead them to the revolution and to the establishment of Soviet Republics ...

That is so even when there is a bourgeois democratic nationalist movement in existence, and bourgeois nationalist revolutionary elements to cooperate with. Until recently nearly all subsequent Communist theory on colonial revolution that I have seen has been based on the assumption that such a movement and such elements are in existence in every colony; the present draft colonial thesis is one of the first to deal on a separate basis with colonies, like most African Colonies, where they are not.

In general, in the case of all national and colonial movements, the II Congress thesis says:

The Cl must establish relations with those revolutionary forces that are working for the overthrow of imperialism in the countries subjected politically and economically. THESE TWO FORCES MUST BE COORDINATED if the final success of the world revolution is to be guaranteed. And again: The policy of the Cl on national and colonial questions must be chiefly to bring about a UNION OF THE PROLETARIAN AND WORKING MASSES of all nations and countries for a JOINT REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE leading to the overthrow of capitalism without which national inequality and oppression cannot he abolished.

Real national freedom and unity can be achieved by the proletariat only... by the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. The real essence of the demand for equality is based on the demand for the abolition of classes. The colonial and subject countries have been taught by bitter experience that there can be no salvation for them outside of a union with the revolutionary proletariat (which includes presumably the revolutionary proletariat of the imperialist race in the colony itself). And in African colonies (including South Africa) there is as a rule no native bourgeoisie, and consequently no question of the "Two distinct movements" referred to in the II Congress Thesis; there is only the question of "organising the peasants and workers and leading them to the revolution and to the establishment of Soviets." Put in another way, the class struggle is practically coincident and simultaneous with the national struggle. The object is the same in each case - the removal of all oppression (including all special oppression applying to members of the subject race as such) and the gaining of liberation and power for workers and peasants; the parties are substantially the same, and the weapons and methods of the struggle also. Hence there is no very great point or virtue, even where there is no exploited European class present (as there is in South Africa) in emphasising the national aspect of the struggle as MORE FUNDAMENTAL than the class aspect; rather the reverse is the case. The two struggles would be the same even if the oppressing class were of the same nationality except that there is an additional element of revolt when the oppressor is a "foreign devil". As the draft colonial thesis of this Congress says of such colonies: "The tasks of the class struggle of the workers and other toiling masses COINCIDE in the main with the tasks of the national anti-imperialist liberation struggle."

Now a further complication arises in South Africa from the presence of a WHITE exploited working and peasant class as well as a black one - a minority of one in six perhaps, but still one that cannot be ignored and on which (as in the trade unions) the CP has a good deal of foothold. This minority too rises against the bourgeoisie and imperialists, sometimes in a very spirited and revolutionary way, more so indeed than any modern native national movement hitherto, although it has no RACIAL oppression to fight against. As in the case of the natives, its militant character appears chiefly on its proletarian rather than on its agrarian side.

The South African native masses, in their turn, arc being rapidly proletarianised and organised as a working class. The native agrarian masses as such have not yet shown serious signs of revolt: indeed, as the Draft Colonial Thesis of the Congress says: "In these countries the question of the agrarian revolution does not by far constitute the axis of the colonial revolution." At any rate a live agrarian movement has still to be organised in South Africa

What is the result of these peculiar factors? It is that both black and white exploited are fighting against the same masters. They both fight chiefly (at present) as proletarians, and the natives have the extra stimulus of fighting against masters who to them are a foreign oppressor race, whereas the whites have this in a lesser degree only (i.e., as "South Africans" or "Dutch" against "British", oversea or "cosmopolitan" financiers). The white workers, enjoying privileges and higher wages, are, however, disinclined at present to regard the black workers as comrades in the fight.

What is the duty of the CP in these circumstances'? Must it not be the same as ever, or more than ever according to the II Congress thesis? "These two forces", - the workers of imperialist race and those of subject race, or the "home" movement and the colonial movement - "must be coordinated" for a "joint revolutionary struggle", "uniting the various units of the future proletarian parties", and also overcoming the distrust of the subject races for the workers of the imperialist races.

The draft colonial thesis of this Congress in reference to South Africa and other colonies puts it thus: (Paragraph 12)

The most important task here consists in the joining of the forces of the revolutionary movement of the white workers with the class movement of the colonial workers, and the creation of a revolutionary united front with that part of the native national movement which really conducts a revolutionary liberation struggle against imperialism.

But this task is no longer so easy. It is no longer a mere case of the national and the class movements coinciding as it were automatically. Here the white exploited are of the very race which the native exploited are, as nationalists, fighting against. It is almost inevitable therefore that the nationalist movement of the natives will clash with their class movement. Similarly the white exploited, finding their race being attacked AS SUCH by a native nationalist movement, are predisposed by their superior economic and political position to side with the masters nationally and forget their class struggle.

Special tactics and manoeuvres have to be adopted to prevent this and to harmonise the national and the class movements in this special case, devoted principally to neutralising and correcting white labour chauvinism (or, occasionally, native "chauvinism"). And if there is danger of a clash the question how far it is advisable to play on the national chord, whether the advantages exceed the disadvantages, whether the same result or better can be attained with less risk, becomes important.

Not only have we no native bourgeoisie or bourgeois national movement, but we have in South Africa no really nationalist movement at all of the kind contemplated in the draft resolution of the Negro Sub-Commission; certainly no movement for a native republic as such has been observable. The African National Congress, which the resolution wants us to boost up, is a moribund body, it has had its day. In any case its demands were not nationalist demands proper, but such as the following, reflecting the poverty stricken conditions of the native masses: removal of all special race oppression and discrimination, land and more land, equality with whites, equal votes, equal education, equal justice, equal treatment, rights and opportunities everywhere. It is inclined to ignore the weapon of the native proletarian movement as such, and has usually sought redress for grievances by sending deputations to the King of England, which of course have resulted in nothing. Thus, the existing "nationalist" movement for equality, etc. only demands the same things as the Communist movement (proletarian and agrarian) does, with the extra stimulus supplied by national or race patriotism but from observation of facts we believe the class stimulus is a greater stimulus even to the native masses, it has actually stimulated greater sacrifices and devotion already, and it has the advantage of gaining, instead of perhaps forfeiting, the alliance of the white workers. The CP is itself the actual or potential leader of the native national movement; it makes all the national demands that the national body makes, and of course much more, and it can "control" nationalism with a view to developing its maximum fighting strength. It can and will respond to the entire struggle of all the oppressed of South Africa, natives in particular.

Some reference to the actual work of our Party seems necessary to explain the foregoing. Incidentally, not much interest seems to be taken in this by the drafters of the resolution, any success seems only grudgingly acknowledged, we had to get an appreciative paragraph specially inserted in the draft: concentration of interest on nationalist movement seems to involve a lack of interest in the day to day struggles against race oppression itself. (It is the same in the draft CI programme, and we have asked for a clause to be inserted in that, laying down that CPs must struggle in the colonies against race or colour discrimination and for absolute equality).

What have we done so far? Our work among the native masses, our chief activity, conducted so far mainly as a working class movement (although an agrarian movement will be developed as fast as we can get contact especially with the distant and not easily accessible native reserves) is limited only by our ability to cope with it. We have 1,750 members of whom 1,600 are natives, as against 200 a year ago, and we are adding to that and also rapidly organising militant native trade unions which have learnt to conduct strikes. We are also combating and slowly overcoming white labour chauvinism which we find yields when confronted with organised masses of native fellow workers face to face. We have put through joint strikes ot' white and black which were victorious. also an amalgamalion of while and black unions into one, an unprecedented thing in South Atnca. As for the native nalionalist movement, though it is somewhat dead and alive we pay it a good deal of attention and whenever we see any life in it we apply United Front tactics as per the draft colonial thesis. Thus, after years of preparatory effort, we have recently begun to reap subslantial success which will continue provided we can find the man power to garner the harvesl. Nalive workers and some peasants are pouring into the Party in preference to joining the purely native bodies, whether national or industrial, which have let them down and fallen into the handsof the bourgeoisie. They fully appreciate the "vulgar Marxist" slogan of "Workers of the World Unite", of joint action by black and white labour against the common enemy: and at the same time they see that the CP sincerely and unreservedly espouses their national cause as an oppressed race. (Recently, in the wilds of Basutoland, we found a well-thumbed copy of Bukharin' s ABC of Communism, brought there by an old pupil of ours and now widely read among the members of the "Plebeian Party" of Basutoland, which seeks affiliation with the CP).14

Such are the surrounding circumstances in which a native republic slogan would be launched, and we consider it would, not in theory perhaps, but certainly in practice, arouse while workers' opposition as unfair to the minority, and would thereby not only emphasise the conlradiction between national and class movements, but put the whole native movemenl at a great disadvantage unnecessarily and without compensating advantage. Il would not avail, when such suspicions are aroused, to put them off the smooth, "empty liberal phrases", to the effect that "national minorities will be safe-guarded", especially when no definition is given of these safeguards - for that matter no definition is given of the precise meaning of "native republic" itself. But expressions like "South Africa is a black country". "the return of the country and land back to the black population" South Africa belongs to the native population" etc., though correct as general statements, do invile criticism by the white working and peasant minority who will have to fight with the black workers and peasants if the bourgeoisie is to be overthrown. They certainly seem to indicate a black race dictatorship; they either are an exaggeration or they are calculated to be generally understood as one - and for the purpose of overcoming white labour misgiving that comes to the same thing. If the white working class feels, from the apparent exclusiveness of the phrase "native republic", that the intention is to ride roughshod over it, it will not avail to say: "it is all right, it does not mean that". They will retort rightly or wrongly: "Under a native government built on a nationalist or racial foundation and thus biassed against whites even though prolelarians, any 'safeguards' of the white workers and peasants would to the winds at the first clash. Who will have the power to stop it?" The example of Ukraine etc. is quoted. But the racial gulf between black and white in South Africa no parallel there, and besides, the influence and power of the Soviet Union to stand by and see fair play makes all the difference; there was a case of a former empire turned into a prolelarian state. voluntarily liberating its subject nations and having power to see such liberation through on such lines as a proletarian slate would naturally approve. And as regards disposal of the land, the draft resolution does not even speak of safeguards. As the slogan will certainly be interpreted by the exploited whiles, as it has indeed been interpreted by ourselves (so much so that its defenders have defended just that interpretation of it) it means that the exploited whites are to become in their turn a subject race that then ative republic inspirit if not in letter will exclude all whites, and that the land without exception will belong to the natives - not as a matter of the verbal drafting of are solution butasamatteroffact.Theslogan will have to be redrafted on less nationalist lines if it is to avoid giving that impression.

Of course, no one denies that the immense majority must and will exercise its power as such, from which it follows that a minority of the exploited is also entitled to its proportionate voice and share in power and land. The "native republic" is defended, indeed, as a mere expression of majority rule, but it obviously goes beyond that, and the little difference makes all the difference when it comes to combating white chauvinism: it handicaps propaganda to that effect.

It may be asked, why are we so concerned about the fate ofa comparative handful of whites. It is certainly strange that we ofthe CPSA, who are accustomed at home to work almost exclusively among and for the native masses, and who are always attacking white chauvinism, should find ourselves obliged here in Moscow to take up unwanted cudgels for the white minority. But the reason is not any special love for the aristocrats of labour, or any chauvinist preference for the whites, as is superficially and malignantly suggested in the draft resolution, but first the need for labour solidarity and second a true valuation ofthe forces at our disposal. Our infant native movement, any revolutionary native movement, lives and moves in a perpetual state bordering on illegality; on the slightest pretext it can be suppressed either by prosecution or legislation or by massacre or pogrom. We are therefore always looking for allies, or rather for shields and protections behind which to carry on; and even the bare neutrality, much more the occasional support of the white tradc unions, etc. i,s of incalculable value to us. It undoubtedly helps us to avoid being driven underground, which in acountry like South Africa, where we are all well known, where there are no crowded masse.s to hide hehind or among, would make our work almost impossible, and besides, in a political agitation for liberation ofthe mass ofthe people, publicity is a very valuable weapon. We have always instinctively felt this need ofwhite labour support, but it is only then threatened by this slogan with the loss of it, that we realise how very useful it is to us, and how impossible it is to agree with the defenders of the slogan who say "To hell with white labour support, damn the white workers." It is easy to sit here and, on limited experienceof our local atmosphere, to lay down a policy and say "It will be all right, you don't understand, thi.s slogan will not alienate, it will attract the white workers". We who would have to go back and preach it, we who have had all these years to drive a composite team, to work in both camps, black and white, who have learned the art of doing it on uncompromising Marxian lines by long and hard experience ofthe enormous difficulties arising out ofthis very race question, the crucial question of South African labour- on a matter like this we must be heard with respect. We say that the white workers are unquestionably going to be alienated by the present slogan and that instead of support from white labour we are thus quite likely going to get its hostility and Fascist alliance with the bourgeoisie. This in turn will also encourage the government to prosecute and the courts to convict everyone who preaches the slogan - we have had many successful legal contests on native propaganda, but the law has now been so tightened that we probably cannot get away with this slogan as a slogan; and thus ourmovement may be not just "driven underground" but closed down. Indeed a further sequel may be violent race hostilities, a bloody struggle for mutual extermination or subjection between whites and blacks as races, and what is worse, between the white exploited and the black exploited, a struggle in which the class struggle is completely obscured and forgotten, and in which the unarmed side courts defeat - and all for the sake of a formula which will, as far as we can judge, not increase our work or our success in the present weak stage of our Party - it may be different when we are much stronger.

Our present policy is endorsed by good authority. The amendment of the CPSU to the ECCI thesis of Comrade Bukharin for instance says:

53. The Congress observes a growth of Communist influence in South Africa. The Congress imposes the obligation upon all Communists to take up as their central tasks the organisation of the toiling Negro masses, the strengthening of Negro trade unions and the fight against white chauvinism. The fight against foreign imperialism in all forms, the advocacy of complete and absolute equality, strenuous struggle against all exceptional laws against Negroes, determined support for the fight against driving the peasants from the land, to organise them for the struggle for the agrarian revolution, while at the same time strengthening the Communist groups and parties - such must be the fundamental tasks of the Communists in these countries."

There is nothing here about a "Native Republic". The draft programme, English edition p. 563(1) ad fin lays down that in colonies and semi-colonies where the working class plays a more or less important part and where the bourgeoisie has already crossed over to the camp of the avowed counter-revolution, or is crossing over because of the development of the mass proletarian and peasant movements (and, as we proposed to add, in colonies, e.g.. in Africa, where no native bourgeoisie exists, but where the main mass of natives is being proletarianised) the C.P. must steer a course for the hegemony of the proletariat and for the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry which will ultimately grow into the dictatorship of the working class. In such countries, the C.P. must concentrate its efforts mainly upon creating broad mass proletarian organisations (trade unions) and revolutionary peasant unions, and upon drawing up demands and slogans directly affecting the working class. It must propagate the idea of the independence of the proletariat as a class which on principle is hostile to the bourgeoisie, a hostility which is not removed by the possibility of temporary agreements with it. It must imbue the masses with and develop among them the idea of the hegemony of the working class; advance and at the proper moment apply the slogan of Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies.

Here, too, there is nothing about a native republic.

It is worthwhile also to quote the views of Comrade Lozovsky in the "Negro Worker" of 15lh July, page 5, which recall the language of the 2nd Congress - The Negro workers must understand that the racial question will be solved together with the social question. Real equality and fraternity of workers of all colonies will be forged in the joint struggle against capitalism.

The Negro workers of the U.S.A., Africa, etc., will achieve equality with the white workers only through the organised struggle against the whole system of capitalist oppression.

After long consideration and having heard all that is said for the draft resolution, and in view of the special complications conditioning Communist progress in South Africa, we are at present, while standing for proletarian equality and for majority rights and all that that implies, against the CREATION of any special nationalitic slogan at all for South Africa, except of course the liberation of the native people from all race oppression and discrimination, and separation from the British Empire