(en) Get Rich or Lie Trying: Why ANC Millionaire Julius Malema posed as a Radical by Tina Sizovuka and Lucien van der Walt

Why he lost, and what this tells us about the Post-Apartheid ANC ---- This article aims to 
explain, from an anarchist / syndicalist perspective, the rapid rise and fall of Julius 
Malema, the controversial and corrupt multi-millionaire leader of South Africa?s ruling 
party, the African National Congress?s (ANC?s) ?youth league? (ANCYL). It is demonstrated 
that Malema?s posturing as radical champion of the black poor was simply a means to an 
end: rising higher in the ranks of the ANC, in order to access bigger state tenders and 
higher paying political office. ---- The larger political implications of the Malema 
affair are also considered, especially the role of the ANC ? as a vehicle for the 
accumulation of wealth and power by the rising black elite, which is centred on the state.

It is not a party that serves, or can serve, the working class; on the contrary, it is the 
site of bitter struggles for state contracts and office between rival elite factions. It 
is a bureaucratic-bourgeois-black nationalist party, lodged in the state.

Malema represented a frustrated faction of the black elite in these internal battles, who 
sought to build a black working class base by posing as a radical, in order to win a 
better seat on the ANC?s ?gravy train?. In doing so, however, Malema made enemies in high 
places. His defeat by the dominant Jacob Zuma-Gwede Mantashe faction must be understood in 
this context. In turn, the largely black state managerial elite is allied to the largely 
white private business elite.

Neo-liberal measures ? including privatisation through state tenders ? are key to the 
enrichment and empowerment of these two wings of the ruling class. This elite pact rests 
upon the exploitation and domination of the whole working class, and reproduces the 
national/ racial oppression of the black, Coloured and Indian working class majority.

In the absence of a left pole of attraction, able to break the ideological grip of the ANC 
over large swathes of the masses, it becomes possible for racist demagogues like Malema to 
pose as radicals, to get rich or lie trying. Such posturing hides the complicity of the 
ANC elite in South Africa?s terrible inequalities ? indeed, it feeds upon it. In the 
context of mass suffering, such demagogy will certainly resurface again, promoting racial 
tensions and providing fertile grounds for serious clashes, while providing no solutions 
to the problems of the working class.

Obviously many sincere working class and poor youth join the ANCYL for the best of 
reasons. However, the ANCYL, like the larger ANC, is controlled by the rich and powerful; 
it is has no genuine interest in empowering the masses.

It is therefore necessary to build an effective anarchist/ syndicalist movement, rooted in 
the black working class, that is able to promote an independent, participatory-democratic, 
revolutionary front of the oppressed classes. This will will build counterpower and 
counterculture in order to end national oppression and class domination and exploitation, 
through a fundamental change in society. Such a movement must, naturally, be independent 
of the ANC tradition.

Background: Malema Rising

The ANCYL grabbed headlines for several years, particularly under Malema. Politics can 
change rapidly: Malema has since been expelled from the ANC, stripping him of his party 
position. This removes his access to the lucrative state contracts that made his fortune, 
as well as the access to the money and patronage networks that funded his political 
activities. Also affected are five other key ANCYL figures, including Malema?s lieutenant, 
Floyd Shivambu. The purge followed prior disciplinary actions against the Malema group, 
going back to 2010.
None were more shocked at this outcome than the six affected. Malema had held the media 
spotlight for years, and was presented in the media as a rising ANC leader, even, perhaps, 
a future head of state.

Malema?s claims to fame were many, including outrageous public statements (successfully) 
calculated to maximise coverage; ongoing investigations for corruption, money-laundering 
and fraud, notably his R16 million mansion on a monthly ANC salary of R25 000; insulting 
journalists at press events; open support for the dictators Muammar Gaddafi and Robert 
Mugabe; and public threats against both the Congress of South African Trade Unions 
(Cosatu) and the SA Communist Party (SACP).

But most striking of all was Malema?s call for ?economic freedom,? meaning specifically 
the ?nationalisation of the mines? and ?other monopoly industries.? This was presented as 
a means to redistribute wealth, fund welfare and create more, and better, jobs. [1] Malema 
even called himself an enemy of ?ruthless capitalism.? [2] Yet, behind the imagery of 
Malema-as-champion-of-the-poor, is a man who spent R400,000 on his 2010 birthday party 
without batting an eyelid. [3]

This call resonated widely precisely because it touched a nerve: it was directed to the 
oppressed black working class, and framed as the key to complete national liberation ? 
something that remains to be achieved.

Questions: Malema Mysteries

There are several mysteries here.
First, why was Malema expelled, especially since he was having real success in presenting 
the ANC as a champion of the black working class? Cynicism towards the ANC is widespread 
in the masses, although loyalty is strong. Malema seemed to show that the ANC could become 
radical.
Second, why did Malema, an out-and-out capitalist and an open anti-communist, start to 
champion nationalisation? His wealth, after all, has been made largely through state 
tenders for supplying hospitals, schools and public housing projects ? that is, through 
privatisation. [4]

Malema is a typical ?tenderprenuer? (a capitalist reliant on state tenders) ? hardly a 
rare species in the ANC. But he is especially famous for the high prices, poor services 
and outright fraud that characterise his contracts. (Malema and his family have made their 
fortune through state privatisation contracts. No enemy of mining capitalism, he has 
instead been closely linked to mine bosses like the late Brett Kebble [5] and ANC 
minister, mining billionaire Tokyo Sexwale.)

Third, why did Malema increasingly use racist populism ? demagogy mixing pseudo-left and 
racist rhetoric ? in the form of an increasingly vicious anti-white (and sometimes 
anti-Indian) rhetoric, exemplified by use of the old (now banned) ANC song Dubul?ibhunu 
(?kill the Boer?)?

This racist populism is at odds with the elite pact between the black state managers and 
white capitalists at the very heart of the post-apartheid system. Malema?s racist populism 
actually targeted groups closely allied to the ANC in a range of ways.

ANC: Storm Centre of Elite Rivalry

The ANC is not a progressive party which the working class can capture, and win to a left 
position, as Cosatu and the left-wing of the SACP insist. Instead, it is an integral part 
of the capitalist state, and a key means for the rising black elite to access state power 
and the wealth that brings (e.g enormous salaries and benefits, access to lucrative 
privatisation tenders and deals etc.). Not only has the ANC never been anti-capitalist, 
but it today embraces the free market so long as this benefits (mainly black) ANC leaders 
and state officials ? and their (mainly white and Indian) allies in big private business.
Because the black elite is largely locked out of the core of the private sector 
corporations (for various reasons), it is heavily dependent upon access to the state for 
access to wealth as well as power. (At most a quarter of Johannesburg Securities 
Exchange-/JSE-listed company directorships are held by people of colour, [6] with the 
proportion of senior and top managers in the private sector at 32.5 percent in 2008).[7]

Since the ANC, as a bureaucratic-bourgeois-black nationalist party, provides the main 
vehicle for accessing state resources, it is inevitable that the ANC becomes the storm 
centre of the struggle between different factions of this emerging elite for access to 
state resources. ANC factions are not organised on ideological lines, that is, around 
serious divisions in ideology and strategy, but into rival groups of the wealthy and 
powerful, fighting for top ANC and state positions.

Issue 1: Why Malema fell

Malema was expelled, not for being a radical (as he claims), but for openly challenging 
the dominant Zuma-Mantashe faction, openly lining up with ANC factions that aimed to oust 
Zuma, and by defying ANC directives. Malema has also blamed everything from ?imperialism? 
to white conspiracies ?in the ANC?. [8] In reality, Malema was expelled by the ANC?s black 
leadership, and this can only be seen as a result of the failure of the Malema faction to 
successfully challenge the Zuma-Mantashe bloc in the ANC?s endless factional struggles.
Malema?s insistence that he was expelled for his fight to win ?economic liberation? for 
the black working class [9] is false. Calling for nationalisation formed no part of the 
charge sheet that the Zuma-Mantashe faction wielded against Malema; rather, the charges 
centred on ill-discipline i.e. insubordination to Zuma (ANC President, as well as South 
African head of state) and Mantashe (ANC secretary-general).

Malema has no real commitment to nationalisation, let alone ?economic liberation? for the 
masses. He was part of the ANC, an openly neo-liberal party, and part and parcel of the 
same corrupt establishment and ruling class that helps oppresses the black working class.

As evidence for Malema?s real views: one of Malema?s businesses (in engineering) made R130 
million from tenders to supply water, sanitation, drains and paving in poor areas, yet 
spectacularly failed to deliver on the contracts. [10] This outright theft from the black 
poor has helped fund Malema?s lavish lifestyle of German sedans, Gucci suits and 
R700-a-bottle whiskeys. Cosatu is perfectly correct to describe Malema as a ?political 
hyena? who wants a ?predator state?. [11]

This is certainly not to suggest that the black elite, represented by men like Zuma and 
Malema, is any more venal or corrupt than its white counterparts: large, mainly white-led, 
corporations were directly responsible for apartheid; they are today routinely involved in 
corrupt deals involving white as well as black politicians, [12] plus have been proved, 
beyond a shadow of doubt, to actively collude to ?fix? the prices for building materials, 
food, gas, and medicine.[13]

A Paper Tiger

The notion that Malema was ousted since he was a major power in the ANC, a supposed 
kingmaker, is also incorrect. The ANCYL holds only a small minority of seats at ANC 
congresses (a mere 68 out of around 4,075 voting seats at the 2007 ANC congress in 
Polokwane), and, outside Limpopo province, it has no real purchase on the larger ANC 
apparatus.
Hysterical private sector media attention has exaggerated Malema?s power, within as well 
as beyond the ANC. He was, and remains, a paper tiger. The ANCYL?s ?Economic Freedom? 
march in October 2011, organised as a show of strength ahead of an ANC disciplinary 
hearing, attracted at most 7,000 people. This was despite millions spent on bussing and 
publicity ? and despite a claimed ANCYL membership figure of 366,435 (2010). [14]Township 
protests around corruption and poor conditions attract similar figures on a weekly basis. 
But most members of the ANCYL (as of the ANC) are passive; most local branch structures do 
not function.

This farce was repeated in September 2012, when Malema addressed soldiers fired for their 
role in a strike (strikes are illegal in the army; unions are not). Press hysteria about 
Malema ?destabilising? the military fell flat when a mere 40 ex-soldiers arrived.

Nor did Malema ever have sole control of the ANCYL. For instance, when Malema?s initial 
suspension was reaffirmed in February 2012, ANCYL rivals organised street celebrations, 
including in his home town and supposed stronghold Seshego. [15] Equally notable is the 
absence of any real ANCYL campaign for its reinstatement.

Losing the Factional Battle

Last, Malema was not expelled for corruption, as some commentators have speculated. This 
was also not on his ANC charge sheet. And besides, corruption only rarely leads to 
expulsion from the ANC.
Corruption infuses the party ? although let us stress, the ANC is by no means uniquely 
corrupt; it is part of a corrupt parliamentary system, a corrupt capitalism, a corrupt 
state. And the ANC is simply a prominent example of the corruption infusing states and 
capitalism everywhere.

To his credit, Zuma has stepped up prosecutions of corrupt officials since taking the 
Presidency in 2009, but no well-connected figure has ever been subject to serious 
sanctions ? let alone expulsion from the ANC.

Zuma himself is a perfect example: dismissed from the Cabinet by then-President Thabo 
Mbeki in 2005, for his apparent role in a corrupt R40 billion arms deal, Zuma remained an 
ANC member. He was able to mobilise a coalition of anti-Mbeki factions, including Cosatu, 
the SACP, and Malema?s ANCYL, ultimately ousting Mbeki at the ANC?s 2007 Polokwane congress.

As Zuma?s power rose, court cases for rape, racketeering, money laundering and fraud fell 
away, with dozens of charges dropped around the time he was sworn in as State President in 
May 2009. Money talks, and might makes right; Malema was himself untouchable despite 
endless revelations of his crooked deals, until he challenged Zuma and Mantashe.

Top-Down Party Power

Malema?s expulsion underlines the fact that the ANC is very much a top-down party machine: 
whoever wields the ANC machinery can make short shrift of enemies. Mbeki tackled Zuma; 
Zuma tackled Mbeki; Malema tackled Zuma; Zuma tackled Malema. The most powerful person at 
any time, is a member of the most powerful faction. Mbeki?s faction had a weak grip, and 
was ousted by a coalition of other factions; the Zuma-Mantashe faction currently enjoys an 
iron grip on the party, and acted decisively when challenged by the loud, but weak, Malema 
faction.
But the anti-Mbeki Polokwane bloc collapsed rapidly. SACP leaders, in particular, 
benefited handsomely from appointments under the Zuma administration, not least SACP 
general-secretary Blade Nzimande (now a minister). Mantashe, now at the top of the ANC, is 
also SACP chair. Cosatu was largely ignored, and the Malema faction quickly sidelined. Its 
limited power, and its flirtations with Zuma rivals, like Sexwale, [16] led straight to 
Malema?s crushing in 2012 by the Zuma-Mantashe bloc. Sexwale was also quick to back away 
from Malema. [17]

Then-product of this party infighting, Malema now finds himself its victim. During Zuma?s 
fight against Mbeki, Malema?s demagogy was useful to Zuma; now it proved a problem.

Few have shed few tears for Malema, least of all Cosatu and the SACP. But the 
authoritarianism of the ANC should be feared, not praised.

The disciplinary decision shows that Zuma and Mantashe can suppress any ANC member who 
?divides? the party, or brings it ?into disrepute?. And this is part of a larger ANC 
intolerance of criticism and opponents, seen recently in the attempt to impose a draconian 
Secrecy Bill and the increased repression of struggles. (NOTE: this was written before, 
but is confirmed by, the Marikana Massacre).

Cosatu and the SACP defend their ongoing alliance with the ANC on the basis that the party 
can somehow be made pro-working class. But what space is there to make any real changes in 
the ANC? The high-handed treatment of Malema shows that no serious internal challenges 
will be tolerated. And the changes Cosatu wants in the ANC ? not least, an end to 
privatisation and ?tenderprenuering?? will get short shrift.

Issue 2: Why Malema Posed as Radical

Malema?s faction sought to increase its power in the ANC. It lacked access to the central 
ANC structures; its leaders were confined to enriching themselves from tenders in the 
economically marginal Limpopo province.
The only way to escape this marginal base, which frustrated their elite ambitions, was to 
become a national force in the ANC.

But how? Their genius was to recognise, in the then-moribund ANCYL, an excellent 
opportunity. South Africa has a young population, and around 72% of the unemployed are 
?youth? under 36, predominantly blacks. [18] Unemployment has risen sharply under the ANC, 
from 38% of blacks in 1995, to 50% today, in large part due to ongoing capitalist crisis 
and the effects of ANC-led neo-liberal restructuring. [19]

The black working class youth is a potentially powerful, but generally marginalised group 
? and Malema and his cronies saw in it an untapped resource ? as a constituency that could 
be used as a power base for ANC factional battles, through which they could ride to the 
top of the ANC.

Of course, it is not only the ANCYL which has sought to use this constituency for its own 
agenda. The ANC?s main rival, the equally neo-liberal Democratic Alliance (DA) has tapped 
it too: in the 1990s through sponsoring the murderous Unemployed Masses of SA (UMSA) 
group, and more recently, in its May 2012 march on Cosatu House.

But the matter had to be handled very carefully. Mobilising these youth could backfire 
easily; especially since they have been at the forefront of post-apartheid township 
protests. Raising their class temperature could easily boil over into mass protests 
against the ANC.

And rightly so. ANC policies have played a direct role in the oppression of black working 
class youth. It is the ANC that governs most of the black ghettoes, the ANC that operates 
the rundown state schools, the ANC that has gutted jobs. Many are unemployed, and amongst 
them, the face of the ruling class most seen is not a private capitalist, but a state manager.

Therefore, the ANCYL under Malema took two approaches: radical talk combined with no 
action, to get rich or lie trying. Of course, the ANCYL cannot wage a serious campaign 
against matters like cut-offs and evictions, without fighting the ANC, and it is part of 
the ANC? the very party responsible for such cut-offs.

Get Rich ? or Lie trying

Fearful of the consequences of mass mobilisation, the Malema faction ? by now heading the 
ANCYL structures ? began to rely on radical rhetoric.
Some of this was racist populism. Popular frustration with the daily oppression of black 
working class life was carefully channelled away from the ANC and the black elite, towards 
whites in general. This required presenting all blacks as poor and oppressed, and all 
whites as rich capitalists. In this way, the differences between the black elite, of which 
Malema was merely one example, and the black poor, could be hidden away. Malema?s address 
to the SA Students? Congress (Sasco, an ANC-aligned university formation), is one example 
of this manipulation of the truth: [20]

The rich keep getting richer and it is white males who continue to own the means of 
production in the country. Not even Tokyo (Sexwale), who is the Minister of Human 
Settlements, is an owner. Tokyo is owing the white baas because he wants to borrow from 
the banks. Who owns the banks? Tokyo is a rich man, but he doesn?t own?
This is simply baseless. The ANC state accounts for around 23% of the value of total GDP, 
44% of fixed capital stock and at least 25% of land (not including land through state 
companies). [21] Sexwale is one of a number of black billionaires that populate the 
country?s list of the 20 richest. [22] Even if only a quarter of JSE-listed company 
directorships are held by people of colour, [23] that still means wealth is not entirely 
white.

As Murray Bookchin once noted, ?There is no collective ?white man? who is the universal 
enemy of a collective ?black man??, because both blacks and whites are deeply divided by 
class and other hierarchies. [24] True, rich whites abound in wealthy Sandton in 
Johannesburg, and huge numbers of poor blacks suffer in the immediately adjacent Alexandra 
slum. But rich blacks ? among them Nelson Mandela, Patrice Motsepe, Sam Shilowa and Malema 
? also live in Sandton, and hundreds of thousands of poor whites live in squatter camps 
and trailer parks. [25]

Issue 3: Racist Demagogy

However, such claims make good propaganda, and when tied to Dubul?ibhunu, make the elite 
ANC sound almost like a party of the poor. Malema portrayed the ANC as a liberation 
movement waging an anti-colonial struggle, and played on traditional South African racial 
hatreds ? insulting whites plays to grassroots frustration at the failure of the ANC to 
deliver national liberation to the black, Coloured and Indian working class, while letting 
the ANC off the hook.
There is no doubt that large (mainly white) private corporations are central to the 
ongoing exploitation and national oppression of the majority of the working class. 
However, the ANC itself also plays a direct role, being allied to those corporations, and 
committed to neo-liberalism.

The Malema-led ANCYL is not just playing to the gallery, however. It has long been a 
stronghold of the ANC?s racist Africanist wing that is overtly hostile to the national 
minorities: Coloureds, Indians and whites.

Something more was added, and this was the slogan of nationalisation: the ANC had once 
advocated (like many others, including the old apartheid government), a degree of 
nationalisation. This was dropped in the neo-liberal period, but revived in Malema?s 
hands, the old ANC nationalisation call seemed to promise the prospect of escape from 
poverty for the masses.

If implemented ? an exceedingly unlikely prospect, given the ANC?s neo-liberal outlook 
(see below) ? nationalisation would also have opened access to additional wealth, for 
well-connected ANC leaders. (It would not, however, have benefitted the black working 
class: see ?Alternative Needed to Nationalisation and Privatisation? article in Zabalza 13 
and on Anarkismo.net).

Talk, not Action

So, the Malema faction sought to feed upon the very misery that the ANC (and Malema) 
helped create ? through privatisation ? in order to rise in the ranks of the rich and 
powerful ? not to end this misery.
Great care was meanwhile taken to reduce the youth to passive spectators, cheering the 
antics of the demagogue and his bold talk.

For a man who posed as a militant and revolutionary, one thing stands out: the almost 
total absence of the ANCYL under Malema from any actual mobilisation; theirs was the 
politics of the press conference, not the protest. On the contrary, the ANCYL condemned a 
number of township protests, as it ?does not approve of violence and destruction of 
infrastructure?. And, in line with the ANC position that protests should be calmed, not 
addressed, the League ?appreciates President Zuma?s and other government leaders visits to 
protesting communities.? [26]

There are only two exceptions to this pattern of lethargy. In 2010 and 2011, the ANCYL 
protested degrading municipal policies (notably, open toilets and evictions) in the 
Western Cape slums. [27] Its role was actually quite minor, largely based around 
parachuting in with press statements and media events. In fact, the ANCYL plays almost no 
role in any Cape Town social movements, [28] although there are some individual activists.

However, these protests raised the ANC profile in the 2011 local government elections ? in 
the one province that the ANC consistently loses to the DA. This was cheap politicking, 
which the Malema faction hoped would raise their value in the party. Meanwhile, identical 
anti-working class, anti-poor policies in the rest of the country (including open 
toilets), by the ANC were carefully ignored.

The other ANCYL protest was the 2011 ?Economic Freedom? march from Johannesburg. The march 
attracted some militant working class youth, desperate for a better future, but the march 
was not to serve their needs: it was part of Malema?s struggle against Zuma-Mantashe.

Malema?s elite agenda was laid bare when, straight after the march, he flew out to 
Mauritius for the all-expenses-paid island wedding of his ally, David Mabilu ?an event 
costing over R10 million. [29] (NOTE: Malema, now expelled from the ANC, has turned his 
attention to the victims of the ANC bloodbath at Marikana: this is a desperate gamble, 
feeding upon misery to try win back into the ANC).

Conclusion 1: what the ANC really is

What this sordid tale reveals is that the ANC is central to the current order in South 
Africa, to deep racial divisions, enormous inequality and ongoing attacks on the working 
class. ANC factional struggles, and supposed ANC ?radicals?, have nothing to do with 
fixing this mess ? these are simply fights over access to the spoils ? having very little 
to do with issues like nationalisation or privatisation, socialism or capitalism.
The ANC and the ANCYL actively maintain the system that traps poor black working class 
youth, the majority of the unemployed, in misery. The ANC (like all political parties) is 
not a party that can change society for the better; it is not for the working class, it is 
not a party that end the national oppression of the black, Indian and Coloured working 
class, and nor will it end the exploitation of the white working class.

The ANCYL (like the ANC) played a role in the anti-apartheid struggle, an often heroic 
role, but post-1994 is another matter entirely. The ANC since 1994 must not be mistaken 
for a liberation movement; but rather an integral part of the state machinery ? the 
central role of which is to ensure the continued existence of capitalism, and to defend 
the ruling class.

A jackal cannot be expected to look after sheep. An elite party cannot be expected to look 
after the working class and poor masses.

Neo-Liberalism plus ?Black Empowerment?

Official ANC economic policy is fundamentally neo-liberal. This predates the so-called 
?1996 class project?, being the central thrust in the RDP White Paper (1994), Growth, 
Employment and Redistribution (Gear), 1996, Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for 
SA (Asgisa) 2006, and the New Growth Path (NGP), 2011. (See article ?All Geared Up for a 
New Growth Path? in Zabalaza 13 and on Anarkismo.net).
In this framework, state outsourcing and public-private partnerships (PPPs) are used as a 
key means of creating a black bourgeoisie via state-backed Black Economic Empowerment 
(BEE) ? the rise of Malema from son of a domestic worker to a very wealthy man, through 
state contracts, is a case in point.

The ANC-led, largely black, state elite is allied to the largely white private corporate 
elite: together they wreak havoc upon the working class, and perpetuate the legacy of 
apartheid for the black, Coloured and Indian workers and poor, impoverish a growing 
section of the white workers, and terrorise immigrant workers.

BEE serves a small, powerful elite, while the NGP attacks the poor. By 2002, 10 million 
South Africans (mostly poor blacks) ?had their water cut off and 10 million ? had their 
electricity cut off?; further, ?two million people have been evicted from their homes? for 
non payment of services. [30]

Cut-offs, evictions, and shoddy (but expensive) services will continue to generate ongoing 
protests. These factors contributed to the rise of the Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF); 
official reports noted around 19 township ?protests? per month in 2009, half ?violent.? [31]

No Principles but Power

Tolerance of the Malema faction?s racist demagogy, because of political calculations, 
exemplifies the cynicism and lack of principle at the heart of the ANC. Senior ANC 
officials including Mantashe supported Malema when he was prosecuted for hate speech. 
Regardless of whether we support this kind of censorship (see below), Mantashe?s backing 
effectively enables hate speech to be a legitimate part of ANC discourse ? and mocks the 
ANC?s own 1955 Freedom Charter, which declares that South Africa belongs to ?all who live 
in it, black and white,? that ?our people? must ?live in brotherhood, enjoying equal 
rights and opportunities,? and that ?all national groups shall be protected by law against 
insults to their race and national pride.?
And this incident, as Mikhail Bakunin pointed out, shows that the ruling class has a ?very 
shabby, very narrow, especially mercenary? attachment to its own ?patriotism?: it is 
?quite willing to sacrifice the property, life and freedom of the proletariat,? but 
?rather reluctant? to sacrifice its ?own gainful privileges? on any matter of principle. [32]

Conclusion 2: on Hate Speech

Malema was subject to two successful prosecutions for hate speech: one, for claiming that 
a rape victim had had a ?nice time?, and another, for calling whites ?criminals,? and 
singing the now-banned Dubul?ibhunu, which certainly advocates racial violence.
Anarchists/ syndicalists defend free speech, and this means defending the right of people 
to express views that are fundamentally against the basic principles of anarchism ? 
including sexist and racist ones. This implies disagreement with censorship of any kind, 
including that which is attempting to silence Malema.

But equally, a defence of free speech must include using it to openly contest, critique 
and defeat these anti-anarchist views. And where those views are tied into actual racial 
or xenophobic attacks, even more serious actions may be needed.

Facts must also be faced: Malema?s racist attitudes promote his agenda, but also reflect 
the views of a deadly tendency in the ANC. This tendency has second thoughts about the 
black elite?s alliance with big white capital; it would rather have big black capital instead.

Now, an attack on big white corporations is hardly dangerous, but racially polarising 
South Africa ? a country with a serious national question and deep racial tensions 
certainly is, no matter what reason is given.

It can only inflame multi-sided racial and ethnic conflict, divide the working class, and 
burn down the door to civil war. The combination of immense misery in the country and the 
lack of a powerful left pole of attraction provides explosive grounds for populist 
demagogy to ignite. No matter how cynically racist demagogy is used, it has real consequences.

Anarchists defend Malema?s right to sing racist songs, but must explain that South 
Africa?s problems cannot be solved through racial conflict, that working class whites are 
not real enemies of the black poor ? any more than poor black immigrants are the enemy ? 
and that the real enemy is the ling class, rich black capitalists like Sexwale (and 
Malema) as much as rich white capitalists like Nicky Oppenheimer.

Conclusion 3: Take the Gap

Unwittingly, Cosatu and the SACP create the space for corrupt demagogues like Malema 
because they fail to provide a serious, socialist struggle and alternative.
This is because they are, first, tied to the ANC (which is part of the problem, not the 
solution); and second because their most ambitious hopes, which they hope the ANC will 
implement ? Keynesianism plus exports ? is unworkable in today?s South African and 
international conditions. [33]

It is a severe indictment of the revolutionary movement ? of the whole left, not just the 
anarchists/ syndicalists ? that it was outpaced by a crooked millionaire, who can promise 
nothing more than looting the state and keeping the working class down.

Malema is not a solution, but a warning. Unless there is a real alternative to the ANC, 
black working class desperation will be ruthlessly exploited by demagogues of the Malema 
type, emulating his political style of authoritarian leadership, patronage politics, and 
the larger system of BEE plus neo-liberalism.

But what sort of left alternative is needed? The collapse of the Soviet Union, and the 
horrors created by its classical Marxist dictatorship, should shatter any illusions that 
the old road of ?the dictatorship of the proletariat? under the Marxist-Leninist vanguard 
is worth following. This is a discredited system of totalitarian state-capitalism.

Faced with this collapse, the SACP and Cosatu have shifted to social democracy, hoping to 
slowly reform capitalism into something better. Not only, however, will the ruling class 
never allow itself to be peacefully shut down, but the greatest social democratic examples 
? the Nordic Keynesian welfare states ? are in crisis, destroyed by the very capitalism 
they promised to tame.

So, this leaves anarchism/ syndicalism.

Black Working Class

What is needed is an independent, participatory-democratic, revolutionary front of the 
oppressed classes, infused with anarchism/ syndicalism: a counterpower to the system and a 
counterculture based on honesty, solidarity and humility, and internationalism ? far 
removed from the politics of the ANCYL and ANC.
This requires building an anarchist/ syndicalist pole of attraction, centred on a black 
working class cadre. And black working class youth will be central to this project, 
belonging under the red-and-black banners of anarchism/ syndicalism, not the ANC?s black, 
green and gold.

Footnotes
1. ANCYL. 2010. Towards the Transfer of Mineral Wealth to the Ownership of the People as a 
Whole: a perspective on nationalisation of the mines, available at 
http://us-cdn.creamermedia.co.za/assets/articles/attachments/25571_nationalisation_of_mines_document-feb_2010.pdf
2. SAPA, 20 July 2011, ?Malema: My money is nobody?s business,? Business Report
3. IOL NEWS, 4 March 2010, ?Malema a Bourgeoisie and Not Pro-poor ? PAYCO,? IOL News, at 
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/malema-a-bourgeoisie-and-not-pro-poor-payco-1.475274
4. B. Naidu & S. Pliso, 21 Feb 2010, ?How Malema made his Millions,? Sunday Times
5. See M. Wiener, 2011, Killing Kebble: An underworld exposed. Pan Macmillan
6. 951 out of 3450 posts: M. Sibanyoni, 10 Oct 2010, ?Black Directors Arrive on JSE,? City 
Press.
7. R. Southall, 2010, ?Introduction: South Africa 2010: Development or Decline?? in J. 
Daniel, P. Naidoo, D. Pillay & R. Southall (eds.), New South African Review, no. 1, p. 11
8. SAPA, 15 Feb 2012, ?Juju: whites control judiciary,? The Citizen
9. ?We?re guilty for thinking ? Malema,? 10 Feb 2012, News24, 
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Were-guilty-for-thinking-Malema-20120210
10. B. Naidu & S. Pliso, 21 Feb 2010, ?How Malema made his Millions,? Sunday Times
11. SAPA, 1 Oct 2010, ?Cosatu defends Vavi after Malema Criticism,? 
http://www.polity.org.za/article/cosatu-defends-vavi-after-malema-criticism-2010-10-01
12. See M. Wiener, 2011, Killing Kebble: An underworld exposed. Pan Macmillan
13. S. Adema, 2 Sep 2009, ?South Africa: price fixing can land company directors in jail,? 
IPSNews
14. SAPA, 25 Sep 2011, ?ANCYL Membership Half as Claimed: Report,? The Citizen
15. M. Moloko, 5 Feb 2012, ?Malema?s Foes Celebrate his Downfall,? IOLNews, at 
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/malema-s-foes-celebrate-his-downfall-1.1227403
16. Malema has finally admitted the ANCYL was backing anti-Zuma, anti-Mantashe factions 
for the 2012 ANC Mangaung congress: M. Mofokeng& G. Matlala, 29 Jan 2012, ?Malema Puts up 
his Fists,? IOLNews, 
http://www.iol.co.za/news/special-features/malema-puts-up-his-fists-1.1222526
17. E.g. B. Peta, 25 Nov 2011, ?I Didn?t support Malema ? Sexwale,? Cape Times
18. NUMSA, August 2011, Numsa Central Committee Meeting 15 ? 19 August 2011: Central 
Committee Statement , D1.1
19. NUMSA, August 2011, D1.1
20. B. Naidu & S. Pliso, 21 Feb 2010, ?How Malema made his Millions,? Sunday Times
21. R. Rumney, 2005, ?Who owns South Africa: an analysis of state and private ownership 
patterns,? in J. Daniel, R. Southall & J.Lutchman (eds.), State of the Nation: South 
Africa 2004-2005, HSRC: Pretoria, pp. 405-406
22. See R. Southall, 13 February 2012, ?South Africa?s Fractured Power Elite,? WISER 
seminar, University of Witwatersrand
23. Sibanyoni, ?Black Directors Arrive on JSE?
24. Murray Bookchin, 1999, ?The 1960s,? in his Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the 
Left: interviews and essays 1993-1998, AK Press: San Francisco, Edinburgh, p. 76
25. Beeld, 6 July 2010, ?W?reld sien Wit Armoede?
26. ANCYL, 6 August 2009, ?ANCYL to close Lembede Investment Holdings,? media statement, 
at http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=138824&sn=Detail
27. G. Underhill, May 27-2 June 2011, ?Toilet Activist on Cape Metro Council,? Mail & Guardian
28. E.g. Jared Sacks, 2012, Sweet Home Report: An investigation into the socio-political 
character of recent road blockades by protesting shackdwellers, unpublished report, Cape 
Town, at http://cdn.mg.co.za/content/documents/2012/09/19/Sweet_Home_Report_Final.pdf
29. A. Basson & P. Rampedi, 6 Nov 2011, ?Malema?s Sugar Daddy,? News24, 
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Malemas-sugar-daddy-20111106-2
30. D.A. McDonald, 2002, ?The Theory and Practice of Cost Recovery in South Africa,? D.A. 
McDonald & J. Pape (eds.), Cost Recovery and the Crisis of Service Delivery in South 
Africa, HSRC/ Zed, p. 21
31. H. Jain, 2010, ?Community Protests in South Africa: trends, analysis and 
explanations,? Local Government Working Paper Series no. 1, pp. 4, 11
32. Maximoff, G. P. (editor), (1953). The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: scientific 
anarchism. Glencoe / London, Free Press / Collier-Macmillan, pp. 133-134
33. L. van der Walt, 2010, ?COSATU?s Response to the Crisis: an anarcho-syndicalist 
assessment and alternative,? Zabalaza no. 11
Related Link: http://zabalaza.net
This page has not been translated into Esperanto yet.

This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/25033

Anarkismo.net is a international anarchist-communist news service