Southern Africa, Reaping what you sow: reflections on the Western Cape farm workers strike by Shawn Hattingh - ZACF

Not only the ecological crisis involves all major balances of the planet - Climate change, 
pollution and radioactive chemicals that affect biodiversity, etc. - But its likely 
consequences will be devastating for humanity itself: critical risks food crises, health 
risks for future generations, forced migrations of populations, etc.. ---- Faced with this 
crisis struggles to defend the wider environment are not up to par. While fighting against 
a nuclear plant against an industry that pollutes the environment, against the 
construction of a highway or airport extra is legitimate and necessary, the combination of 
these struggles point provides no real solution to the ecological crisis. To date there is 
simply a movement of relocation of polluting industries and the development of green 
capitalism whose only motivation is to create new opportunities for capitalist profits.

A conception of ecology limited to the protection of the environment will hardly slow down 
the destruction of the planet. Human activities must be completely reoriented. In Congress 
Agen in 2006, Alternative libertarian rightly stated: "ecological challenge facing three 
revolutions are necessary" - revolution in international trade revolution in consumption 
patterns, revolution in production methods.

We know that within capitalist society, no significant changes in these critical human 
societies will be possible. Social inequalities are in fact at the root of these 
destructive human societies on the planet. This is why anti-capitalism is inseparable from 
the struggle ecologist. Of course we're talking about anti-capitalism, which is not just a 
change at the head of the State, such as that of the Stalinist parties who have built in 
the former so-called "communist" state capitalism even more destructive for the 
environment. We speak of a profound questioning of capitalism by generalized 
self-management of the economy and society. This should lead us to completely revise the 
model of social organization. It is resize the development of human societies to allow a 
balance between productive capacity and local needs. Several considerations are to be 
taken to not be satisfied with mere criticism rhetorical question but the pseudo comfort 
in which the capitalist system we install. Far adjust supply and demand for all types of 
control mechanisms such as markets, have to be tackled to restore direct links between 
producers / consumers and matrices / matrices and solve the adequacy of production 
necessary social and societal .

To make a significant contribution to the ecological struggle Alternative libertarian 
must: demonstrate the link between the struggles against unequal society and ecological 
struggles, in-depth analysis constraints and changes in capitalism. The analysis should 
include both economic and ecological considerations and cultural - "cognitive capitalism" 
- the essence of this system is to transform all aspects of life into a commodity; bring 
environmental concerns into the whole movement social: in union struggles for housing, 
health ... For we know that the opposition can occur between certain ecological struggles 
and, for example, some struggles for employment is the result of non-delivery relevant 
interests of the capitalists and not taking into account the real interests of workers and 
employees. It is essential to carry arm design theory of ecology cuts across all social 
struggles. Provide turnkey solutions is not necessarily the responsibility of a political 
organization but focus the debate within the trade unions, even some contradictions point 
should be. We must also work to radicalize the ecological consciousness that develops on a 
background of green capitalism, without any sectarianism. This is a prerequisite for 
building a mass intervention, describe and disseminate alternative acts even imperfect 
(scop, amap, etc.). integrating the environmental dimension into the discussion. A 
self-managed company may limit the health consequences for workers and the environment for 
those without removing them. The transverse dimension of thinking is a priority to be an 
actress of a cultural revolution involving all forms of low consumerism today advocating 
elements of lifestyle and working alternative to those imposed by capitalist society. 
Firstly, AL must acquire a culture collective environmentalist; wear a reflection on the 
place of humanity on the planet, physically and psychologically dependent on its 
relationship with the rest of the living world can not live permanently placing himself 
"in outside "the living world. It has no future in that as part of the living world and 
integrated in an ecological balance found. Debates on the footprint of human activity is 
just beginning. The concept of decay, very popular in the environmental community must not 
lead to a choice between growth and voluntary simplicity. The main problem is the lack of 
articulation between theory and practice. This is because there are now more real 
environmental movement organized within the libertarian movement. AL to give full meaning 
to the questioning of productivism and advance based on what already exists.







Capitalism, having invented the concept of sustainable development states to reconcile the 
economy, growth, and social environment through the use of new technologies, will continue 
its regeneration after its neoliberal phase, through the development of the green economy. 
Indeed, the Rio +20 Conference, the United Nations Programme for Environment (UNEP) 
introduced the global commodification of nature. It claims to give a value to any 
environment tangible or intangible. At this conference, the inability of the concept of 
sustainable development to resolve the contradictions of capitalism was recorded. To start 
a new cycle of growth it is to extend the logic of the market for the right to pollute by 
assigning a value to the living and to the mineral world with a system of compensation for 
destruction of nature. We must understand this new struggle and organize.

To advance to face all these challenges, Libertarian Alternative adopts a work plan for 
the next two years, the achievement will be followed by the new secretariat intervention 
Ecology - transformation of the former commission ecology - created at this conference.

Posted January 30, 2013 by commission congress

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:57:00 +0200
From: a-infos-en@ainfos.ca
To: en <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>
Subject: (en) Anarkismo.net: Southern Africa, Reaping what you sow:
reflections on the Western Cape farm workers strike by Shawn Hattingh
- ZACF
Message-ID: <mailman.216.1360439841.24843.a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"

The series of strikes and protests that recently took place in and around farms in South 
Africa?s Western Cape Province was fuelled by the deep-seated anger and frustration that 
workers feel. On a daily basis, farm workers face not only appalling wages, bad living 
conditions and precarious work, but also widespread racism, intimidation and humiliation. 
The extent of the oppressive conditions run deep and it is not uncommon for workers to 
even be beaten by farm-owners and managers for perceived ?transgressions?. Indeed, life 
for workers in the rural areas has always been harsh, but over the last two decades it has 
in many ways gotten even worse and poverty has in many cases grown. ---- In fact, since 
1994 farm-owning capitalists have been on the attack. Approximately 2 million farm 
dwellers and workers have been evicted from farms since then in South Africa [1].

Many of these people have been forced into townships in the rural areas, where they have 
become either unemployed or casual or seasonal workers on farms. Services in these 
townships are also of an appalling standard with most people living in shacks or 
dilapidated Reconstruction and Development houses. Coupled to this, there has been a 
proliferation of labour brokers exploiting people?s desperate need for work, and piecework 
has been re-introduced on many farms. Farm owners obviously benefit from this situation: 
many no longer have to provide accommodation for workers, and hiring people on a casual 
basis or based on piecework keeps wage bills low. Thus, whether workers are seasonal, 
casual or permanent, life in South Africa?s rural areas is defined by exploitation and 
extreme oppression. It is no exaggeration to say that farm workers, who are mostly black, 
are viewed and treated as sub-humans by farm owners, managers and labour brokers. It is in 
this context that farm workers in the Western Cape rose up for the first time in decades. 
For once this saw farm owners and managers really reaping what they had sown

This article examines, from an anarchist-communist perspective, the issues surrounding the 
farm workers strike including the workers? actions and demands, and the responses of the 
state and bosses to this. It, however, also looks at the role that some union officials 
and local politicians played, and how this impacted upon the strikes, including the 
sometimes contradictory role of officials from the Congress of South African Trade Unions 
(COSATU). Finally, suggestions around how the struggle of farm workers can be taken 
forward in the aftermath of the strikes are made with a focus of building struggles and 
movements under the control of workers.

Background

The strikes and accompanying protest action in the Western Cape?s rural areas initially 
began on the 27th of August 2012 when workers on farms surrounding De Doorns downed tools. 
Poor pay, bad living conditions and unfair labour practices were their main grievances. 
Protests soon erupted in Stofland (Dustland), the township outside of De Doorns where most 
of these workers live in abject poverty. As part of this, running battles erupted between 
strikers and the police and people barricaded the national highway and railway that runs 
past the township. The appalling conditions on other farms and rural townships in the 
Western Cape soon meant that hundreds of thousands of workers across the province soon 
joined the strike. This saw protests spread to almost every rural town in the south 
Western Cape.
By early November a number of strike committees had been established by mainly, but not 
exclusively, casual and seasonal workers in many of these areas. It was clear at this 
point that the farm workers strike had been largely self-organised and had initially taken 
place largely outside of trade unions and political parties. In fact, trade unions in the 
farming sector are relatively small, with as little as 3% of farm workers in the Western 
Cape belonging to a union [2].

Along with the initial formation of strike committees, a demand also emerged from workers 
that the minimum wage for farm workers should be increased from R 69 a day to R 150 a day. 
Added to this, workers also demanded paid maternity leave, an end to labour brokers, an 
end to piece work, rent free housing, a moratorium on evictions, and an end to police 
brutality in the rural areas [3]. In the early stages of the strike, the police were 
overstretched, and both the state and farmers were firmly on the back foot. At this point, 
the real prospect existed that the workers could win substantial gains through the strike 
as it was gaining momentum and spreading.

During the initial phase of the strike wave, local politicians and prominent trade union 
officials also waded into the battle. With the entrance of these players into the strike, 
the situation became far more messy with political agendas playing themselves out and 
personalities often attempting to jostle for the limelight to increase their and their 
organisations? profiles. As part of this, the strike was suspended undemocratically 
several times by certain union officials, the first being in November: the very point when 
the strike was gaining momentum (how and why it was suspended will be looked at below). 
Yet despite repeated suspensions the strike repeatedly flared-up. Indeed, in January 2013 
the strike recommenced, which saw protests once again erupt across rural towns in the 
Western Cape and battles once again rage between the police and protestors. What has 
become clear, therefore, is that despite the strike being suspended several times, and 
recently called off by Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) in late January, 
workers are going to continue to fight. In fact, plans are underway by farm workers to 
march on Parliament in the next few weeks.

The messy entry of BAWUSA and COSATU officials into the strike

While the strike was initially self-organised outside of the unions, officials from the 
BAWSI Agricultural Workers Union of South Africa (BAWUSA) and the Congress of South 
African Trade Unions (COSATU) ? along with its affiliate the Food and Allied Workers Union 
(FAWU) ? soon entered the arena, particularly in De Doorns. Their entry gradually saw a 
shift of power away from the workers? themselves and the strike committees that had been 
formed. In terms of this, the officials from these unions started to become the public 
?face? of the strike, and at times they were able influence the strike in profound and 
often unhealthy ways. In fact, their actions were not always to the benefit of workers in 
practice.
The reason why BAWUSA officials were able to enter the strike is that although the union 
is small, it has had a presence amongst some farm workers in De Doorns for a number of 
years and its general-secretary, Nosey Pieterse, has helped farm workers with eviction 
cases in the past. Through these connections BAWUSA officials soon gained a foothold in 
the strike in De Doorns. In fact, Pieterse along with the COSATU regional secretary, Tony 
Ehrenreich, were also soon singled out by the media as the unofficial spokespersons of the 
strike because of their already existing public profiles. Both of them, therefore, played 
a prominent role in the strikes; and came to largely overshadow the initial strike 
committees that had been formed by workers.

Although BAWUSA is a trade union and supported the strike, it was established by aspiring 
black capitalists within the wine industry through an organisation called the Black 
Association of the Wine and Spirit Industry (BAWSI), which it is still linked to. The aim 
of BAWSI and BAWUSA, therefore, has been to ultimately push for greater black involvement 
in the wine industry across class lines. It is clear that BAWSI and BAWUSA officials saw 
the strike as an opportunity to grow the profile of these organisations and its officials, 
like Nosey Pieterse, soon manoeuvred into prominence. BAWUSA?s agenda during the strikes, 
however, was to negotiate a settlement with the state and farm owners through dialogue. 
While it led demonstrations in De Doorns on a number of occasions, these often seemed to 
be a secondary tactic with the primary objective being to enter into negotiations that 
included unions, the state and farm-owners (with the strike committees having no direct 
representation in the negotiations). The cross-class nature of BAWUSA was also evident in 
terms of Pieterse himself. Pieterse is an emerging capitalist farmer, and through BAWSI he 
has an interest in one of the largest wine companies in the Western Cape, KWV. Due to its 
cross-class make-up, the commitment that BAWSI/BAWUSA officials have in building a 
struggle based on worker control and direct democracy is probably questionable, despite 
their support for the strike [4].

COSATU officials from the start also supported the strike, and through FAWU it had some 
presence in De Doorns. COSATU officials viewed the strike as a way of finally making 
inroads in terms of union membership on the farms. COSATU from the start, however, made it 
explicit that it did not want a similar situation as had occurred on the platinum mines, 
where workers took action outside of the unions and set up their own independent 
structures. COSATU made this explicit when it stated: ?The unions are trying to avoid a 
Marikana situation where workers act without guidance from unions, and resolutions are not 
found in negotiations? [5]. Thus, COSATU wanted to gain leadership over the strikes and 
its agenda was to push for a negotiated settlement along with driving the strikes into the 
confines of the existing labour legislation framework. Indeed, Ehrenriech himself added: 
"When workers take their own action without direction and guidance, that is when the 
danger comes about?they don't understand the parameters of the law and all the other 
stuff? [6]. Hence, COSATU?s interest was not to build a struggle based on direct democracy 
and militancy. So although it supported the strike, it pushed for dialogue between unions, 
the state and the farmers? organisation ? in the form of AgriSA ? to resolve the strike. 
In the process though, the workers and their strike committees were excluded from the 
negotiations.

The fact that Tony Ehrenreich is also a well-known ANC politician (in legislative 
opposition at a provincial level in the Western Cape) with a high media profile, gave him 
a major influence in the strike ? despite most farm workers having no affiliation to 
COSATU or its ally, the ANC. COSATU and Ehrenreich used this profile to, on a number of 
occasions, suspend the strike and ultimately call it off, without consulting or getting 
mandates from workers themselves. In fact, COSATU officials unilaterally called for the 
suspension of the strike when they deemed it useful or necessary. Perhaps the most 
important occasion was in November 2012 when the strike was spreading and gaining 
momentum. At that point, COSATU suspended the strike unilaterally, in order to try and 
negotiate a settlement with farm owners and to allow time for the state to supposedly 
intervene to legally raise the minimum wage.

Thus, both BAWUSA and COSATU wanted to negotiate a settlement through dialogue, and 
suspended the strike unilaterally on a number of occasions to follow this path. Yet, this 
strategy largely ended in failure and excluded the workers themselves ? they were 
supposedly ?represented? by the unions, but not directly. The limitations of dialogue by 
union officials were perhaps best highlighted by the fact that the state point blank 
refused to raise the minimum wage ? a demand of both COSATU and BAWUSA at the negotiating 
table ? until it is up for review in February 2013. Likewise, AgriSA refused to reach any 
national or regional settlement that would see an increase in the minimum wage. Where 
there were gains, for instance where some farmers offered higher wages, these could mainly 
be attributed to the pressure farmers felt from the strikes and protests; and not the 
negotiating skills of union officials. When the state finally announced in February that 
the minimum wage for farm workers would be raised to R 105, this was also mainly due to 
pressure the strike created, and not due to slick dialogue by union officials. The 
problem, too, was that each time the strike was undemocratically suspended by union 
officials it was difficult, but not impossible for workers to regain the momentum.

The fact that COSATU could, however, unilaterally suspend the strike on a number of 
occasions ? to follow a path of what amounted to social dialogue ? also reveals much about 
the strength of the fledgling strike committees. Although they initially played a major 
role in starting the strike in a number of areas, the strike committees simply did not 
have the strength to counter COSATU?s calls to suspend the strike, and workers gradually 
drifted back to work when the calls were made. A strike coalition was also established 
during the strike by unions and progressive non-governmental organisations to build and 
bring strike committees together so that workers could control the strike. Some of the 
unions and organisations in the coalition, like the Commercial Stevedore Agricultural and 
Allied Workers Union (CSAAWU) and the Surplus People?s Project (SPP) have a long history 
of attempting to build workers? committees and forums in the rural areas. However, while 
the coalition did bring some strike committees on board, and helped strengthen some on the 
ground, many areas remained without any such committees, and the coalition did not 
effectively become a platform controlled by workers themselves to coordinate the strike 
(despite the coalition?s intention to facilitate this). This meant there was no strongly 
organised and effective counter-weight to the COSATU and BAWUSA officials and their 
agenda. Indeed, COSATU ? despite participating in the coalition ? largely ignored the 
resolutions and the mandates that did emerge out of it. Rather COSATU unilaterally 
followed the path that its leadership thought was appropriate, and in effect sidelined 
other organisations including in many cases the strike committees and other organisations 
in the coalition.

Perhaps also playing into this situation, was the fact that farm workers do not have a 
long history of organising or undertaking major struggles, unlike mineworkers, in South 
Africa. When a major organisation, in the form of COSATU, suspended the strike, most 
workers went along with it. Certainly many workers were confused by these calls to stop 
and start the strike and many felt disgruntled with it. Yet they did not effectively mount 
a challenge to it. This could be due to a lack of a history of sustained struggle, limited 
experience with workers? direct democracy and the confidence that these bring.

The reaction of the state and bosses to the series of strikes

While the state and bosses were involved in on-and-off negotiations with COSATU and BAWUSA 
officials, they used the numerous suspensions of the strike that accompanied this to go on 
the offensive. Across the Western Cape, and in the aftermath of the first suspension of 
the strike, thousands of farm workers were fired or suspended. Many more had disciplinary 
actions taken against them. When the strikes recommenced, some farm owners even locked 
workers in on the farms, preventing them from striking. Added to this, some farm owners 
hired private security to intimidate workers. In one instance in Robertson, a farmer drove 
around with a shotgun threatening to shoot CSAAWU workers that were out on strike. As part 
of their propaganda offensive, many farm owners threatened to also mechanise in the future 
and lay-off workers. Some of the registered unions, such as CSAAWU, also now face legal 
battles in the aftermath of the strike and some farm-owners are threatening to use these 
unions? legal status to sue them for damages. The state too used the suspensions of the 
strike to repeatedly strengthen its forces. While it was initially overstretched during 
November 2012, when it was unable to cope with all of the protest actions, it used the 
first suspension of the strike to re-enforce police units in the area and deploy a 
Tactical Response Team (TRT) to undermine the strike and end the protests.
Many of the police units seem to have relished the task of attempting to end the protests 
surrounding the farm workers? strike. At least 3 strikers were killed at the hands of the 
police. Tear gas, stun-grenades and rubber bullets were also fired at strikers in almost 
every rural town in the Western Cape. On one occasion during the strikes in Wolsely, the 
police started using live ammunition when they ran out of rubber bullets. Townships where 
farm workers live were also raided at night, and a number of people were threatened and 
beaten up in their houses by the police. During one incident workers that had been 
arrested also reported that police fired tear gas canisters into the police vans in which 
they were being held. The National Prosecuting Authority also instructed state prosecutors 
to oppose bail for workers and activists that were arrested during the latter stages of 
the strikes and protest actions.

Of course, the role of the police and the state in general during the strikes was to 
protect private property and the welfare of the capitalist farmers. So despite the fact 
that a number of local ANC councillors at times supported the strike, due to the dynamics 
of local oppositional politics, the ANC-headed state in practice backed the farmers. Thus, 
although there has sometimes been tensions in South Africa between sections of the ruling 
class in the form of top officials in the state (who are mainly black) and capitalist 
farmers (who are mainly white), the state has played a massive role in protecting farmers 
against the strikers. While there may, therefore, be internal squabbling in the ruling 
class, they have united when faced with workers rising up, and they have used the state, 
amongst other things, to try and crush the strikers. As Bakunin pointed out this is what 
the state is designed to do when he said ?the state is authority, domination, and force, 
organised by the property-owning and so-called enlighten classes against the masses? [7] 
and its role is to protect and maintain by force the privileges of the ruling class. It 
is, therefore, not a neutral entity or negotiating partner that will simply intervene to 
help farm workers, as COSATU and BAWUSA officials hoped, but rather an enemy of the 
strikers. Indeed, its forces will gun down workers if necessary to protect the interests 
of the capitalist farmers; as they did at Marikana to protect the interests of mine 
bosses. As such, the state has to be forced from the outside by the workers through 
struggle to meet their demands and not through a reliance on social dialogue.

Forward to workers? power

Despite the internal and external challenges, the farm workers? strike was both historical 
and in many cases heroic. One of the poorest sections of society finally rose up to fight 
for justice and better wages. While the strike has been called off for now, it is also 
clear farm workers are going to embark on strikes and protests in the near future ? many 
still want R 150 and their other demands met. So while the battle is over for now, the war 
is still being fought.
The strike also was successful in highlighting the appalling conditions facing the poor in 
the rural areas, and it has probably changed the outlook of farm workers forever. As such, 
the strikes that have taken place on the farms and rural towns offer a great opportunity 
to begin to build a militant workers? movement in the rural areas. Certainly, there is a 
massive need for militant worker-controlled structures and radical directly democratic 
unions on the farms and in the rural towns that can fight for not only reforms, but 
eventually revolution.

Perhaps the task for now is for worker activists, activists and organisations that are for 
workers? power and control to put their energy into contributing to building and 
maintaining the worker and strike committees that have emerged and to put energy into 
expanding them into new areas. This too includes building the coalition into a structure 
controlled by workers. It is important too that a culture of direct democracy be 
consolidated amongst activists on the farms and in the rural townships as part of this. 
Certainly, if the strike and workers? committees that have emerged are expanded and 
consolidated, this could enable workers to take the struggle forward in the future and 
direct it themselves. A start has been made during the recent strikes and this should be 
built on. Even if the current strike does not resume, future battles lie ahead and it is 
important that worker-controlled directly democratic structures are there to take this 
forward. Hence, the battle must also be seen as a long-term one.

In the aftermath of the strikes there is also an opportunity for militant unions, like 
CSAAWU, to grow and bring more workers into the union. The problem faced by such unions in 
the past is that it has been hard to recruit on the farms due to intimidation and being 
denied access to the farms. The climate in the aftermath of the strikes may have changed 
this. Unions such as CSAAWU could also use the strategy of recruiting workers and 
community members in the townships first, where the major battles during the strikes were 
centred around, and then use this as a spring board to recruit amongst workers that live 
on the farms. As battles go forward, strong and militant, worker-controlled unions will be 
vital.

It is also important that within the committees a revolutionary counter-culture, based on 
working class pride, be built going forward. This could help sustain people in struggle 
and counter any opportunists that may wish to use the movement for their own ends. Coupled 
to this, radical popular revolutionary education needs to be built.

What is also important is that in trying to build a worker-controlled movement, the likes 
of the BAWUSA and COSATU officials would have to be engaged in a political battle. Their 
ideology of attempting to work with the state, as if it were an ally or neutral entity, 
would have to be effectively countered, along with their practices of undermining direct 
democracy. This is vital for when new strikes and protests erupt. Hopefully, workers have 
also drawn their own conclusions about the necessity of struggles remaining under their 
control and not under that of high profile individuals. An opportunity has been opened by 
the strikes, and it should not be left for the COSATU and BAWUSA officials to fill, but 
rather it must be filled by workers? power.

Notes:

1. 
http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20080304-farm-evictions-briefings-deputy-minister-nkuzi-development-transvaal- 

2. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/23/south-africa-farmworkers-dismal-dangerous-lives
3. Xali, M. Western Cape farm workers courageous struggle. Workers? World News. February 2012
4. http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/strike-leader-is-also-farm-owner-1.1454850
5. 
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-14-one-killed-in-farm-unrest-before-cosatu-calls-end-to-strike 

6. http://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-25-00-farm-unions-pull-together-for-now
7. Bakunin, M. 1992. The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871. AK Press, p.140
Related Link: http://zabalaza.net