Monday, December 23, 2024

Irony is Dead: Netanyahu cannot Attend Auschwitz Ceremony for Fear of Arrest on ICC Warrant for War Crimes

December 22, 2024
Source: Informed Comment



The Israeli newspaper Arab 48 reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not be able to travel to Poland for the 80th annual commemoration of the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi death camp because he fears being arrested on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

Arab 48 reports that the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, the organizer of the ceremony to be held on January 27, Deputy Foreign Minister Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, said, “We are bound to respect the decision of the International Criminal Court in the Hague.”

Rzeczpospolita reported that the Israeli state never asked that Netanyahu participate in the ceremonies, since the Israelis know very well what Warsaw’s response would be if Netanyahu traveled there.

Netanyahu has throughout his political career played politics with the Holocaust, so it is deeply ironic that he cannot attend the ceremony because he is charged with himself having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Genocide scholars have criticized the use of the Holocaust to justify Israeli atrocities in Gaza.

The ICC issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on November 21, 2024 on the charge of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip, including a charge of deliberately starving the Palestinians there.

The countries that have vowed to arrest the Israeli prime minister if he steps foot on their soil include Spain, Holland, Belgium, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said, “We cannot implement a double standard.”

There is a background to the satisfaction Poland might take in arresting Netanyahu, whose father Benzion Mileikowsky was born in Warsaw. The family changed their name in Israel.

The Poles maintain that the Holocaust was a Nazi German project implemented in part on Polish soil when Poland was occupied and helpless. The Polish parliament in 2018 even passed, and then backed off, a law making it illegal to accuse Poles of having been implicated in the commission of the genocide against the Jews.

In 2019, Netanyahu was quoted as saying in the presence of several journalists, “The Poles collaborated with the Nazis, and I don’t know anyone who was ever sued for such a statement.” He made similar statements on social media, but they were quickly deleted.

Tel Aviv at the time was planning an 8-nation conference in Israel of center-right governments, and the Poles were among the invitees. They boycotted, accusing Netanyahu of racism, which affected the prime minister’s prestige. He then maintained that it was all a misunderstanding and he never said any such thing but had been misquoted.

The two countries clashed again in 2021 over a Polish law limiting any further property claims for damages during the Holocaust. The law was of a piece with the general denial of any Polish culpability in the Holocaust.

Poland has been more sympathetic to Palestinian statehood aspirations than Israel’s right-wing government is comfortable with.

On the other hand, Poland has not itself been vocal in denouncing Israeli actions in Gaza, which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch categorize as a genocide. Two-thirds of Poles in polling say they don’t want to get involved in the Israel-Palestine dispute.



Juan Cole

Juan R. I. Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. For three and a half decades, he has sought to put the relationship of the West and the Muslim world in historical context, and he has written widely about Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and South Asia. His books include Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires; The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation is Changing the Middle East; Engaging the Muslim World; and Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East.
How Progressive Civil Society Became Professional NGO Culture

The disintegration of working-class institutions and the rise of professionalized advocacy has severed the connections between progressive civil society and working-class communities.
December 23, 2024
Source: Jacobin





The Democratic Party has failed to earn the support of what was once its working-class base.

This ought to be a moment of reckoning for the party. The anger it faces is justified and necessary to intensify pressure to abandon its tepid political strategies and overreliance on big donors who oppose large-scale redistribution and pro-worker policies. But while the party deserves a lot of blame, understanding the depth of the crisis on the Left requires a much broader analysis than finger-pointing at Democratic campaign officials and strategists allows.

The problem is the Left’s lack of civil society institutions. Achieving a turn back to the working class and rejecting neoliberalism — with its marketization of social life and hollowing out of government — requires more than finding the right program and messaging. It demands a tremendous democratic will anchored in strong, lasting relationships and institutional ties within working-class communities. Only through such connections can we build a popular coalition that is capable of driving transformational change.

Right now, progressive civil society is poorly equipped for this task. Broadly defined to include left-leaning advocacy groups, NGOs, think tanks, and public forums — such as publications, podcasts, social media networks, and community spaces — progressive civil society has come too close to abandoning mass politics to build working-class alliances and support for left visions.
When Advocacy Replaces Membership

The roots of this problem lie in a decades-long transformation of civic institutions. Since the 1960s, there’s been a sharp decline in popular, member-based civil organizations, and a rapid surge of advocacy organizations run and managed by professional staff. Political scientist Theda Skocpol has identified a key force behind this tectonic shift: the departure of college-educated professionals from mass-member groups in the late 1960s.

This was not a simple story of class snobbishness. Among other factors, college-educated whites turned away from the cross-class, fraternal, and women’s organizations because these groups were often racially segregated and limited by gender roles. However, the transformation that followed left progressive civil society stripped of cross-class social ties and attuned only to college-educated sensibilities. Working-class communities have little influence over the agendas — or even the rhetorical styles — of progressive organizations.

The shift has also fostered an unhealthy, codependent relationship with the Democratic Party. Instead of pursuing mass politics, progressive advocates overwhelmingly focus on mobilizing existing subgroups of Democratic voters to pressure Democratic officials for stronger action on issues like climate change, immigration policy, and disability rights.

Such efforts tend to concentrate on already highly-engaged and mostly college-educated constituencies. There are key and admirable exceptions here — some groups have more presence in working-class communities, particularly brown and black ones in large metro areas. Still, progressive political strategy is largely dependent upon mobilizing subgroups of exceptionally engaged Democrats to pull the party left.

This leaves the work of assembling a majoritarian coalition to the Democratic Party. That’s not good.

Even if we can imagine the party getting more politically and rhetorically savvy, political parties themselves are currently too weak to drive meaningful change. As Anton Jäger vividly documents, political parties in North America and Europe are no longer deeply integrated into community life, as they were in the decades following World War II. They don’t have ward-level muscle to be a real force for cultivating loyalties or providing popular education, especially beyond the peak of campaign cycles.
Mobilizing the Already Mobilized Professional Class

So why aren’t progressive civil society groups lining up to engage all sorts of working-class communities to bolster popular support for their causes while cultivating left loyalties generally? The reluctance here is unfortunate but not irrational. Rather, it’s rational within the irrational conditions of our political landscape. While everyone on the Left would benefit from relentless efforts to expand our appeal deep into new territory, for most individual organizations, investing in popular education and persuasion efforts in communities without existing progressive ties appears much less efficient than mobilizing their existing base.

Consider, for instance, a modestly sized advocacy group fighting for bold climate action. Should it focus on building connections in small Midwestern towns to grow popular support? Or should it stage sit-ins at politicians’ houses, organize teach-ins at college campuses, and stir social media fervor among already engaged supporters? The latter tactics are much more likely to yield near-term results — potential political wins, especially when pressuring Democratic officials in solid blue areas, or boosts in visibility, volunteer recruits, and donations from progressives.

It’s not hard to sympathize with the individuals and groups that make these calculated choices. When working on an urgent issue, not placing the most pragmatic short-term bet feels like political malfeasance. But when the vast bulk of progressive advocates follow the same logic, we leave our political commons in tatters. This collective focus on short-term gains further erodes progressives’ connections with working-class communities, leaving those weaker and harder to rebuild.

Advocacy groups prioritize campaigns that most excite donors and funders, narrowing their strategies for engagement and persuasion. As a result, many communities are cast off from our political horizons. And all we can do is hope the Democratic Party has some way to bring enough members of these abandoned communities on board to win majorities.

Yet the Democratic Party itself faces similar pressures. It would be the height of irresponsibility, a Democratic pollster told me last year, for the Democratic National Committee to invest money in a congressional race in Western Virginia — that swings Republican by 20 points — instead of spending that money in a swing district in Arizona. Missing in the calculation here is the longer-term impact of failing to put a vigorous fight to appeal to a region’s voters in election after election.

Such calculations of campaigning efficiency happen at a more granular level too. Writer and organizer Micah Sifry reported what a volunteer had learned from canvassing in politically split neighborhoods in Pennsylvania: “One way I could typically tell how a voter was leaning in 50/50 neighborhoods before even knocking: the nicer homes were with us and the more beat up homes were with him.”

While the Kamala Harris campaign might have had enough idealistic canvassers (most trekking in across a class divide) to keep knocking on those dilapidated doors in a crucial swing state on the eve of an election, such residences are unlikely to be the priority for Democratic campaign efforts when resources are tighter.
Flyover Constituencies

For too long, progressive civil society has been passing over “beat up” homes and downwardly mobile communities. It is perhaps not surprising that these choices, though conditioned by structural incentives, have spawned an ideology to justify them: the belief that the people we’re not speaking to are not worth speaking to.

After Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, progressive pundits quickly embraced the notion that those who voted for him did so because of deep flaws in their character or cultures. According to this prevailing account, racism, xenophobia, and misogyny were the driving forces behind Trump’s victory.

Fortunately, this way of thinking seems to be losing its grip. In 2024, there is still much desire among some to blame this election on sheer stupidity or other flaws supposedly endemic to vast swaths of the American public. But the political conversation appears to be changing.

The stark education divide among voters has come into sharper focus than it did eight years ago. Exit polls from ten key states show that in 2024, noncollege voters favored Trump by 14 more points than college-educated ones. At the extremes of the education divide, those who had never been to college favored him by 25 points more than those with graduate degrees. Chalking up such differences to the unequal distribution of congenital racism or innate stupidity is not only unconvincing; it’s embarrassing.

Parts of the democratic left have also been developing richer understandings of how group political loyalties are won. The passing of the “Sanders moment” has brought plenty of disappointments and challenges for the Left. His 2016 and 2020 campaigns demonstrated the tremendous power of economic populism to attract non-college-educated voters and galvanize tens of millions to support an outsider candidate. But Sanders’s just-shy attempts to win these primaries also suggested that full-throated economic populism, when given broad exposure only during a campaign, is still insufficient to propel a soaring victory.
What Is to Be Done?

Lainey Newman’s and Theda Skocpol’s Rust Belt Union Blues, which has generated much recent conversation on the Left, illustrates how social ties and institutional bonds are crucial for a realignment of political loyalties. Their detailed study of the rightward shift in union-heavy counties in Western Pennsylvania reveals that the issue is not simply declining union membership — many active union members have also moved to the right. What has vanished is the role unions once served as hubs of social life and camaraderie.

Unions in these counties didn’t simply advocate for workers; they organized clubs for hunting, sports, and card-playing. Their halls and lodges hosted weddings and parties. Their newsletters provided essential local news. As Newman and Skocpol found, it was these “dense networks of interpersonal and community-level ties” that intimately touched daily life throughout these communities that gave unions “the capacity to shape member’s political commitments” and influenced the common sense shared throughout their neighborhoods and towns.

As unions’ centrality to Rust Belt social life disintegrated alongside deindustrialization, right-wing civil society filled the vacuum. Right-wing populist news voices, churches, gun clubs, and other organizations, Newman and Skocpol have found, “moved into some of the space vacated by grassroots unionism.”

Progressive civil society cannot afford to sit idly by, hoping a mass wave of unionization will recreate these community ties. Even with some spectacular recent success stories, union membership in the United States remains at a post-WWII low of 10 percent, with only 6 percent of private sector workers unionized. Jared Abbot of the Center for Working Class Politics observes that “the radically different social, political, and economic conditions that obtain today compared to sixty or seventy years ago, when unions first rooted deeply in these [Rust Belt] communities” suggests no easy path to revitalizing unions in the mold Newman and Skocpol describe.

The road to building much stronger ties between progressive politics and working-class communities will surely be arduous. Leftists will need to try a multitude of approaches and take risks. Advocacy organizations, think tanks, writers, and activists of all sorts need to engage more deeply with working-class communities and forge ties that go beyond the traditional progressive base.

This must include not just speaking to working-class people and communities but creating spaces for their direct contributions to a democratic left, ensuring participation in decision-making and shaping agendas. It could also mean contributing to an emerging left media sphere that speaks to working-class tastes, centers working-class voices and experiences, and invites many more people to see themselves as respected members of the democratic left. This would involve working with unions and other existing left-leaning groups that already have meaningful community ties, such as the Working Families Party, Common Defense, and the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative. Leftists might also forge new relations with nonpartisan groups in working-class communities open to partnering on specific causes.
Moralizing for Change Is a Dead End

It could be the case that much of the existing progressive civil infrastructure isn’t up to this task, so new or previously neglected organizations may need to lead the way. Political scientist Peter Levine recently proposed a thought experiment about an alternative past — or potential future: “Imagine if the 350,000 people who gave $24 million to the ACLU in one weekend [near the start of Trump’s first term] had instead (or also) formed 1,000 new local groups with an average startup budget of $24,000.” Such an approach might not have benefited working-class communities — there’s no guarantee these groups would have integrated them. Still, this thinking should open us to imagining new ways of channeling resources beyond the most established progressive groups.

In the postelection finger-pointing, progressive civil society — advocacy groups in particular — has faced a round of criticism for pushing Democrats to take unpopular positions. Much of this criticism misses the mark. It’s not that progressive groups should never push for policies that have less than 50 percent approval; the real problem is we also need to put up a robust fight to make our programs popular. Moralizing alone won’t win sufficient support.

To succeed, we need networks with meaningful ties to working-class communities of every stripe. Only by building such connections can we make the best case for properly social democratic policies across different social contexts. If the general strategy of leftists is to lobby for major social changes without popular persuasion or listening, then we only inflame one of the neoliberal era’s great wounds: the painful sense many have of being asked to step aside from democratic participation and leave things to the credentialed classes and experts. Right-wing populists are ready to offer themselves as the balm for this wound.

Leftists are not largely at fault for the shrinking of meaningful civic and associational life experienced by many working-class communities, but it is still our problem. We are competing with two major forces vying to respond to immense discontent produced by the neoliberal decades: the populist right and the siren song of apathy and resignation. To win, we must have compelling narratives to organize these unshaped feelings of discontent and channel them toward a movement backed by a foundation of social ties. It will take a village — many, many villages.

 USA

Elon Musk Goes Full Fascist

Monday 23 December 2024, by Dan La Botz



Elon Musk, the world’s richest man with $430 billion in personal wealth, became an advisor to president-elect Donald Trump a few months ago. Now he is something more. Politicians and the media now refer to him as the “shadow president,” “co-president” or even call him “president Musk.”

Musk, who contributed $277 million to Trump’s campaign, has virtually camped out at Mar-a-Lago, where the president-elect had the tech billionaire listen in on calls with foreign leaders such as Volodymyr Zelensky. Accompanying the president-elect, Musk has also had access to French President Emmanuel Macron at the ceremonial reopening of Notre Dame and to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Melon at a formal gathering in New York. At the moment Musk seems to be on every call, to be commenting on every decision.

Musk originally gained his wealth from PayPal, then from the Tesla car and the Space X rocket ships, and he was once a liberal with vision of a utopian environmental future based on electric vehicles. But when back in 2021 President Joe Biden called a meeting of automakers that included GM, Ford, and Stellantis, as well as the United Auto Workers to discuss the future of EV cars, Musk wasn’t invited because he was anti-union. Snubbed Musk began to turn right. He bought Twitter, opened it up to rightwing extremists and used it to influence his 208.5 million personal followers.

Last week Musk did two things that brought him to the center of attention. First, as the U.S. Congress was about to pass a budget bill compromise in order to prevent a government shutdown, Musk actually intervened before Trump, calling on the Republicans to stop the compromise budget bill. Trump then also opposed it because it had a debt ceiling that might tie his hands when he comes into office, since he wants to cut taxes and carry out expensive programs like deporting 11 million immigrants. So, Republicans killed the first compromise bill.

Musk’s motivation was not primarily about the debt ceiling, but because it contained language that would have made it more difficult to invest in China, where Musk’s Shanghai Tesla Gigafactory produces a car every 30 seconds. In less than four years, Tesla exported a million cars from China. Now Musk is constructing a second factory, a battery plant, in Shanghai as well.

Republicans and Democrats in the House finally agreed on a new budget bill—but left the debt ceiling in place, but without the restriction on foreign investment. A defeat for Trump, but a victory for Musk. This all suggests that Trump will face challenges in the new Congress, because he cannot control the Republican budget hawks who oppose any budget increase.

Second, with Germany in the midst of a political crisis because of the collapse of the government of Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat heading a centrist three-party coalition, Musk tweeted his support for Alternative for Germany (AfD), a neo-Nazi party. Interviewed by CNN, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said, “What Elon Musk thinks tends to eventually be what the president of the United States thinks. And if the United States takes an official position in favor of neo-Nazis in Germany, I mean, it is absolutely catastrophic.”

Musk’s support for the far right in Germany is not unique. He also supports Italian deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, head of the anti-immigrant League party and Nigel Farage’s Reform U.K. party, also anti-immigrant, and is planning to make a big donation to it. Musk could influence Trump, but it may not be necessary

Already on election day, Trump had welcomed his “German friends,” who included Phillipp-Anders Rau, a candidate for AfD. Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon—recently out of jail after serving four months for contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a congressional subpoena—has been working for years to build a brown international.

All of this suggests that fascism will be a factor and may even have a future in America.

22 December 2024

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.




International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

The National Security Law (NSL) in force: The NSL 47 trial an important landmark in Beijing’s annihilation of Hong Kong’s autonomy

Sunday 22 December 2024, by Au Loong-Yu
The 47 pro-democracyactivists in Hong Kong charged in 2021 with trying to overthrow the government by running an unofficial primary to pick opposition candidates for local elections were sentenced on 19 November. Au Loong Yu was interviewed by the World of Labour, Germany about the trial.

Can you summarize what this new wave of repression involved? Who was targeted and what were the sentences for these people?

Benny Tai, the main “culprit”, was handed ten years imprisonment, the highest sentence among the 45 found guilty under the National Security Law (NSL), which is so vaguely worded that in essence it is arbitrary. Two other defendants were acquitted.

This BBC report: Who are jailed? gives a briefing to the NSL 45. On top of that, I recommend the report of American Chinese activist Promise Li which highlights those activists either in the now disbanded Confederation of Trade Unions or those in the new trade union movement 2019. The latter include Carol Ng and Winnie Yu, who were sentenced to 4 years 5 months and 7 years 9 months respectively. Lee Cheuk-yan was the chief leader of the CTU but he is prosecuted under different charges. Promise’s report also mentioned Leung Kwok-hung, or “Long Hair”, the left veteran since 1970s, who was sentenced to 6 years 9 months.

Both Winnie and Long Hair, along with 14 defendants, pleaded not guilty, while the29 others pleaded guilty. Some international leftists have asked me why so many pleaded guilty. Are they repenting of what they did in the primary election? I do not know the answer to the second question, but I guess the best approach to this question is to look at it individually.

As to the first, we may start from a more general picture – their pleading guilty is quite similar to the 1936 Moscow trial, a show trial where the rule of law was totally absent, and where the old leading Bolsheviks pleaded guilty after being tortured and had their families threatened. One should not forget that all 47 were remanded in custody for three years before the kangaroo court sentenced them. A second factor for their plea is that all of them had been active under a relatively liberal environment and never been prepared to undergo such a level of state brutality. Amongst them there are also new hands in political activism who only got involved in 2019, so are inexperienced and untested.

The revolt was very much a spontaneous one, where hundreds of thousands of people became active for the first time. This makes the 16 of who refused to confess, and were even more severely punished for that, even more outstanding.

We were surprised at the severity with which the so-called troublemakers were prosecuted. At that time there was no significant unrest in Hong Kong to which the government had to react. Is there a reason for this timing?

The sentenced 45 were punished simply for doing a primary election, which is a normal thing to do in any part of the world, including Hong Kong before Beijing crushed it. But this is unforgivable from the point of view of Beijing and Xi as autocrat. The primary citizen referendum on the list of candidates was the first ever in Hong Kong. 600,000 citizens came out to vote, showing the public eagerness for democratic participation. This, however, was enough to annoy Beijing.

What was even more annoying to Beijing was that Benny Tai, the mastermind of the primary, publicly announced his intention to continue to challenge the Hong Kong government through voting down its budget if the yellow camp won the election. In Beijing’s eyes this was nothing but treason. This accusation is of course nonsense in any country with some semblance of democracy. The point, however, is that Beijing is the antithesis of democracy, especially after since Xi got his thirtod term.

The self-governing Hong Kong under the regime of “one country two systems” was always meant to be provisional – according to the Basic Law it is only valid for 50 years. But Xi doesnt want to wait for another twenty plus years before he or his successors finish off Hong Kong’s autonomy. All the evidence show that after Xi came to power in 2012, he has been deliberately curtailing Hong Kong’s autonomy, which then kick started a vicious cycle of provoking Hong Kong people’s resentment and resistance which in turn prompted Xi to be even more hard-line, This is what culminated in the 2019 revolt, its suppression and then the big purge.

By March 2020 the mass mobilizations had ceased to exist, but Beijing’s agenda is not to merely suppress revolts, but to crush Hong Kong’s autonomy once and for all, so as to be able to evade all its promises to Hong Kong for ever. This is not just about making Hong Kong safe for the regime per se. It serves a broader purpose – by the great purge in Hong Kong this eliminates the potential of Mainlanders imitating Hong Kong’s democratic movement and rising up again. One of the lessons which Beijing learnt from the 1989 democratic movement is that the moment when the Mainlanders and Hong Kong democratic struggles joined hand in as they did them must never be repeated. With the 2019 revolt, the CCP now see Hong Kong’s autonomy as threatening to its rule in the Mainland. Only by crushing Hong Kong totally could Xi Jinping sleep well.

Thus the November trial and sentencing is just one of the episodes of an ongoing process of breaking Hong Kong’s opposition and civil society as a whole. The fact that right now there is no unrest in Hong Kong to rationalize the harsh sentencing has no bearing on Beijing’s long term agenda.

Can you summarize the development from smashing the mass movement until today?

By spring 2020 the mass protest had already been completely suppressed first by the implementation of lockdown under Covid (where the Hong Kong government also seized the opportunity to make things even more difficult for the protesters), followed by arresting all the 47 organizers of the primary in January 2021, banning the June Fourth Memorial vigil, and finally the inauguration of the National Security Law on 30 June. Freedom of the press was crushed in June when the government forced the Apple Daily to close down, and its boss, Jimmy Lai, was arrested. The next victim was the Stand News. From then on the NSL was used to attack many influential organisations and people, many of whom had nothing to do with any “illegal” protests in 2019.

The disbandment of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China in September 2021 is a typical example. First the Hong Kong government banned its 2021 memorial vigil, arrested its leaders whose only crime was holding an annual candle vigil in memory of the June Fourth Massacre, which it had been doing for more than 40 years.

It appeared that the alliance disbanded itself. In fact it was accused by the government as “colluding with foreign forces“, and then its leader Chou Hangton was arrested, and other leaders were being harassed and threatened, until the government broke their will of resistance and disbanded.

In the past five years Beijing’s repression against protesters has been very severe. As of the end of March, 2024, around ten thousand had been arrested, among them four thousand students. Seven thousand are still remanded in custody. The whole process of retaliation implies that Beijing is not satisfied with just suppressing the 2019 protesters, rather its full agenda aims at the total destruction of civil liberties and associations, a process still in progress today.

The labour movement was struck hard by the authorities. Some trade unions were smashed. What is left?

While the government targeted the Alliance, it was also simultaneously turning against two very important labour organisations – the CTU and the Professional Teachers’ Union. Targeting the CTU should come as no surprise because it was heavily involved in the 2019 protest in a non-violent way. The latter however participated in the protests only marginally and very law-abiding. Yet both were forced to disband. But the teacher’s union was the largest union in Hong Kong, with a membership of 100,000 and the only mass union in the sector, then it should not surprise us why Beijing wanted to smash it as well.

One of the most surprising developments of the 2019 Hong Kong revolt was the sudden rise of a new trade union movement. The revolt started with strong suspicions against all types of organizations. From October onward, however, the tide turned and there were louder and louder calls for union organizing among young activists as well, and soon actions were taken. Between the end of 2019 and the end of 2020, the number of newly registered unions grew explosively. Between 2012 and 2018 the annual net growth in number of registered trade unions never exceeded ten. According to the Registry of Trade Unions, 2019 first saw a sudden net rise of 20 new registrations, followed by a 56.5 percent jump in the net growth rate in 2020 (or 489 newly registered unions) and then a further 8.6 percent rise in 2021.

No one knows exactly how many of them belonged to the pro-democracy camp, because the Beijing supporters, in competition with the former, also launched their “new unions”. But beyond numbers there is also the aspect of public advocacy and militancy, from their leadership to their rank and file, something which only the former possessed. But with escalating repression in the later half of 2021, 74 unions disappeared in 2022, and another 21 in 2023. Some of the pro-democracy unions were forced to disband after being accused by the authorities of conducting affairs unrelated to their charters.

There are still many unions left but the most influential or most militant have gone. For example, the new Hospital Authority Employee Unions had 18,000 members and had conducted a five days strike against the government’s initial refusal to lockdown the city under Covid. No wonder why it was also forced to disband after the implementation of the NSL. The emergence of new trade unions was initially promising as it showed the potential to steer the revolt to an even more labour based struggle. Their disappearance under suppression is a tremendous loss to both the labour and the democratic struggle there.

Another example; just one month after the passing of the NSL, Cathy Pacific, now clearly aware of their power over the union, declared they would cancel all collective bargaining with their unions. The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union, with more than 7000 membership and a long history of standing up to their employer, is now being robbed of their right to collective bargaining. This also shows the real agenda of Beijing’s move in relation to Hong Kong.

Are there signs of new social tensions and open conflicts, of labour unrest and maybe new independent structures or organisations?

Very few. The Foodpanda delivery workers had struck in protest against the management cutting of their wages twice, once in 2022 and then this March, but they also did it carefully, for instance intentionally avoiding assembly. They are also un-unionized. They are mostly South Asian and less connected to local politics, which might partly explain the police’s tolerance. But in general the space for social resistance keeps on shrinking; no sign of new organisation that can effectively and partially resist the repression. Small protests of five or six people in solidarity with the Ukrainian and the Gaza Palestinian might be tolerated, or a similar size of non-political protests. There are still activists engaging in internal gatherings or relief work (for instance supporting those imprisoned activists, attending and reporting on trials, writing letters to prisoners etc) which is of course very important in this situation. Calling larger open protests is just too risky however.

The protest movement was huge in 2019 and brought over a million out on the streets. Especially the youth became radical and militant. They didn’t all leave Hong Kong. What are them doing today? Are there attempts to break out of the silence?

Two hundred thousand, including most of the young people, left for Britian. Thousands had fled to US, Australia, Taiwan etc. We do not know how many are young. Surely most of the young activists have stayed. No matter where they are, most of them are now demoralized. This is understandable. The suppression in Hong Kong, although not comparable to the level of violence and bloody as the June Fourth Massacre, in terms of consequences it is similar, that is, the annihilation of hope among the young generation and instill enough fear into them to stop them thinking independently and acting politically.

We are now in a dark long tunnel with no light in sight. We should not lose hope, because at the same time the CCP is also facing mounting social and economic and, in the future, possibly political crisis as well. As I said before, China is entering the most dangerous period, and under this situation one serious mistake from the top leaders may also create a new opening, just like the 2022 White paper movement. But a long period of calm is also possible. To sum up, for those who still place hope for a democratic transformation, this is a period of caution, patience, intensive reading, learning and debate, not the period of bold actions.

There were left wing magazines that showed protesters waving American flags during the 2019 revolt. This makes all attempts to organize solidarity for the movement from here difficult. Without getting the facts right, it will be difficult to raise interest and solidarity for Hong Kong people suffering under repression.

I totally agree with you. But don’t take individual facts out of context. As I write in my book on the revolt, there was waving of American flags, but also flags of Barcelona, in defiance of those right wing protesters who, in line with some Western allies’ were hostile towards the Catalan independence movement, There were of course right wing voices in the protest, but in a movement of 2 millions, the multitude were united on the five demands which were all basic democratic rights. What defined the movement were these rising masses and their demands, not the few hundreds who waived the US flags. We should fight the right while appreciating the fact that the masses started to take matters into their hands. If the left in Europe refused to be in solidarity with this popular movement and their subsequent repression, abandoning the Hong Kong people and their workers in their fight for basic rights just because their movement had not been neatly leftist enough, dare I say that this is not what internationalism have taught us.

15 December 2024

Translated from the German publication World of Labor.



International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

 

Zabalaza for Socialism: South Africa on the precipice — Rebuilding power and renewing hope amid crisis and collapse


Published 
Zabalaza for Socialism

After our historic Johannesburg launch in December 2023, Zabalaza for Socialism (ZASO), an eco-socialist, feminist organisation seeking to regroup militants active in grassroots movements and trade unions, met in Cape Town as an extended National Committee from December 14-16. Our purpose was to take stock of the political situation, gauge our progress since the launch and reassess our role and tasks in the coming period.

This meeting took place in a context of crises in the labour and social movements, the fragmentation of the political left, the rise of authoritarian ethno-nationalist, chauvinist, misogynist politics, which is positioning itself as an alternative to an increasingly dysfunctional state led by an unstable coalition of the ANC and the DA. Crises reflect both international and domestic factors.

The international situation

We are living in a time where the major crises facing humanity are interconnected like never before. The climate crisis, driven by decades of unchecked capitalist exploitation of the planet, is intensifying, witnessed by extreme weather events and the Sixth Great Species Extinction as biodiversity crashes. The world suffers worsening economic stagnation, ongoing financial volatility, extreme inequality, runaway unregulated technological change, and growing rivalries between global powers, all contributing to the rise of authoritarianism and neo-fascism. Nevertheless, resistance by workers and oppressed peoples rises.

The genocidal war on the Palestinians is being prosecuted by the most reactionary regime running the apartheid state of Israel, actively supported by the United States, Germany, the UK and others in the ‘Axis of Genocide,’ including BRICS corporations profiting from fossil fuel sales (including from South Africa), port privatisation and trade that violates the United Nations General Assembly’s September 2024 call for sanctions. The genocide provides a terrifying insight into how right-wing forces, which are on the ascendancy the world over, are egging on Israel, notably Donald Trump in the USA, who upon taking power in January will enable and embolden authoritarians and fascists everywhere.

In Syria on December 8, the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad was overthrown after the country was carved into fragments by Turkey, Israel, the United States and Russia, following a 13-year war that killed 600 000 civilians and sent many millions into exile. Not only did Tel Aviv invade more Golan Heights land, extending its illegal occupation dating to 1967. Because Syria was the land bridge to Lebanon from Iran, the Hezbollah resistance there – whose leadership was decapitated by Israel in prior months – will be hampered in rearming, as will resistance fighters from Hamas and other Gazan organisations. The urgency of activism against Israeli genocide and apartheid – e.g. with Boycott Divestment Sanctions, even if that entails conflict with a government in Pretoria willing to critique Israel in the courts (but not where it hurts, economically) – is ever more obvious.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is another example of a brutal, unjustified occupation, even if we do realise how NATO forces crept eastwards, breaking the early 1990s promises that the Western imperialist leaders gave to Russia not to do so. We abhor the loss of many hundreds of thousands of working-class civilians and soldiers on both sides, as well as the terribly destructive impact on energy and grain markets in 2022-23, with African economies defaulting (even recent ‘success stories’ like Ethiopia, Ghana and Zambia).

This is a new stage in the history of capitalism. It is different from the neoliberal globalisation that began in the late 1980s. It is more unstable and more intense in terms of class struggle and conflict between nations, especially compared to the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

However, there are key differences between today’s crises and those of the early 20th century, which led to the catastrophic period between 1914 and 1945, marked by two world wars. One is the rise of BRICS and the hopes far too many put in mythical ‘de-dollarisation’ and multipolar ‘alternative institutions’ from this grouping of super-exploitative economies. Another is the growing realisation that global elites are incompetent at crisis management, ranging from the United Nations and multilateral institutions, to the World Economic Forum, to the G20 rich+emerging economies – which will be evident when hosted in Johannesburg next November.

The ecological crisis is the most immediate and dangerous aspect. Two centuries of capitalist accumulation based on the exploitation of fossil fuels, have pushed us to the brink. Environmental crises are escalating rapidly. Global temperatures are rising twice as fast as just a decade ago. The target of holding global average temperatures below 1.5 degrees was breached this year. We are losing biodiversity, and pollution and contamination are becoming unmanageable. The Covid-19 pandemic (and others to come) illustrated this system’s destructiveness. Urgent, radical action is needed before it’s too late for humanity and life on the planet. Already, in mid-December, temperatures rose to record highs in South Africa, reaching a staggering 46 degrees in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park.

And yet those in power stubbornly refuse to take the necessary action to cut greenhouse gas emissions and phase out fossil fuels. DA Environment Minister Dion George’s leading role at the Baku United Nations climate summit in late November is one reason: he opposed African demands for climate justice and ignored the walk-out by dozens of vulnerable countries.

South Africa’s crises

South Africa’s structural economic crisis places the nation at a point of no return, what with the centre-right Government of National Unity being welcomed by negative 0.3% GDP growth from July-September, with gambling the main growth industry at more than a 30% annual average since 2022. The levels of poverty, unemployment (especially for youth and women), inequality, corruption, crime, etc., have reached such proportions that the country could be plunged into violent strife if nothing is done, as occurred in mid-2021 when Treasury cut the R350/month Covid-19 grant.

Our schools, hospitals, public transport (rail in particular), the justice system, correctional services centres, and state-owned enterprises have become dysfunctional. Systems to provide a regular supply of electricity and water are collapsing. Our municipalities are financially, technically, operationally, and often politically bankrupt. The austerity regime mandated by the International Monetary Fund following its $4.3 billion loan four years ago, will lead to an 18.3% decline in per capita state services from 2020-26.

And all the while, government watches over this slide into the abyss, incapable of averting these crises. Its management is not only crippled by neoliberal ideology, but is overrun by cronyism, corruption, and neglect. Local government is where these problems are most severe. Budget cuts deny our people the rightful provision of decent livelihoods and services. The Government of National Unity is selling the family jewels to friends, at the expense of those for whom state assets are vital.

The economy is stagnating and crisis-ridden, incapable of satisfying the needs of the majority. It has become increasingly exploitative, extractivist, and predatory, with the Johannesburg Stock Exchange bubbling at record high levels, contributing to the export of vast sums of capital, robbing the country of the vital resources to overcome extreme forms of unemployment and inequality. The regulatory and prosecutory deficiencies are so severe that there appears no way out of the Financial Action Task Force ‘grey listing’ imposed on South African banks in 2023.

Meanwhile, the concentration and centralisation of capital produces higher and higher levels of unemployment. Including discouraged job seekers, more than 40% of the employable population is without work or income. The social fabric is collapsing, and vulnerable layers of society are subjected to barbaric treatment.

The crisis in Stilfontein, involving several thousand informal-sector miners trapped in an abandoned gold mine, illustrates the dangerous intersection of state neglect, unregulated industries, and community desperation. ‘Illegal’ mining is not a new problem, but it has intensified due to the collapse of the gold mining industry, widespread poverty, and unemployment. Abandoned mines with residual gold have become hubs for desperate miners exploited by powerful criminal syndicates. Weak regulation, corruption, and the high value of gold fuel this illicit trade, which thrives on the ruins of the country’s chequered mining legacy.

The vast depletion of gold from the Witwatersrand – at one point home to half the world’s historic reserves – contrasts with the collapse of municipalities (even Johannesburg water supply in recent days), once again revealing where the main wealth-stripping – and export to tax havens led by the City of London – should enrage society, in contrast to the inhumanity the Stilfontein workers suffer due to the Presidency’s outrageous ‘smoke ‘em out’ starvation strategy.

These crises were born of the government's failure to regulate the mining sector and create alternative economic opportunities. They are a symptom of the broader collapse of governance and the failure of local capitalism, which was built on the backs of black mineworkers from the region. Government’s futile responses only further stoke the flames of xenophobia.

Similarly, the recent spate of food poisoning incidents gripping South Africa’s spaza shops mirrors the broader failures of the country’s food system. Blame has largely been directed at foreign-owned spaza shops, which provide affordable, convenient access to food and daily essentials for millions of South Africans, especially working-class communities where formal retail options are scarce. Food safety problems stem from deeply rooted issues such as insufficient regulatory standards, economic desperation, and the failures of public health oversight. Many spaza shops operate in unsafe conditions, selling expired or low-quality goods to impoverished communities with limited alternatives. The absence of robust public health enforcement and economic safeguards leaves communities vulnerable to exploitation, and fuels mistrust between locals and foreign shop owners. Rather than addressing systemic problems, the state allows conditions to worsen, turning communities against one another, to fight for survival.

Thirty years after apartheid, the horrible truth of the so-called “New South Africa” is that millions of young people are without adequate parenting, a usable education, a job or political agency. For our children, life is often brutal and short. Inequality continues to rise, re-racialising South Africa, and raising already high levels of contempt among those left out in the cold.

The breakdown of the social fabric has turned daily life into a war of all against all. Communities fractured by poverty and inequality are pitted against one another in a desperate scramble for survival. Violent crime, anti-migrant scapegoating, gender-based violence, and social unrest have become defining features of a society that is unraveling. The failure of the state to provide basic services, ensure safety, or create opportunities has left many with no option but to fend for themselves in a system that rewards the powerful and punishes the powerless. Without urgent intervention to rebuild solidarity and address the root causes of this collapse, South Africa risks descending further into chaos, where survival is marked by despair and violence.

The death of the National Democratic Revolution

The political crisis in SA features the fragmentation of African nationalism into competing factions, each claiming to be the authentic flag-bearers of the politics of the National Democratic Revolution (NDR), i.e., first overthrowing apartheid rule and then at some point in the future tackling capitalism but only after it has been deracialised. This past weekend alone – between 14 and 16 December – the South African Communist Party (SACP) held a special national congress, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) an elective conference, and Zuma’s uMkhonto we Sizwe party (MK), an anniversary rally. All express hostility to the centre-right government, but unity between these unreliable, ideologically-vacuous parties and opportunistic leaders – best known for their alleged corruption scandals – is evasive in spite of their stated commitment to the NDR.

And yet, it is the very politics of the NDR that has landed us in this mess. It is obvious enough that national unity has yet to be achieved and that the wealth of the country is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority (who are largely white and colonial in their thinking and orientation), but the nationalist parties fail to recognise how central racial capitalism is to the crises we face in our country. The SACP, EFF, and MK all agree, despite other differences they may have, that it is possible to deracialise capital, through a black capitalist class somehow overcoming mass unemployment and inequality. However, it is the internecine struggle within and between different fractions of capital which is responsible for the very conditions that produce these inequalities. As the crises deepen, petty squabbles between different ruling class factions are disorienting mass movements from the key tasks at hand.

The idea that a so-called “patriotic bourgeoisie” – a locally-committed black capitalist class – can deliver true liberation, is a fatal delusion. It simply replaces one set of capitalist exploiters with another, and we have learned from Cyril Ramaphosa’s emails catalysing the Marikana Massacre or from his brother-in-law Patrice Motsepe’s export of coal to Israel that these ‘black diamonds’ are just as voracious as imperialist firms.

Capitalism, as a social and economic system, thrives on the extraction of surplus value from labour, a ‘social reproduction’ subsidy from unpaid women’s labour, and mainly-untaxed natural resource depletion rife with pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Its logic is driven by profit maximisation and accumulation. Changing the racial composition of the capitalist class does not alter the fact that exploitation of people and nature remain fundamental features.

The old narratives of the NDR have run their course. They have revealed themselves as insufficient to secure freedom, equality, and dignity for the majority. What remains is an urgent need to forge a new politics, one that recognises that the end-goal cannot be national unity behind a capitalist project, but the dismantling of capitalism itself and the building of a new, genuinely democratic, and egalitarian society. Instead, we need an eco-socialist strategy that places the liberation of all people and the sustainability of our planet at its core.

Our strategic tasks

Our National Committee recognised that Zabalaza for Socialism was founded amidst deepening crisis and fragmentation, but also at a moment when clarity and bold political commitments were, and continue to be, desperately needed. Over the past year, we have worked to clarify our aims: to build a revolutionary alternative based on grassroots democracy, worker self-organisation, feminist and anti-patriarchal struggle, anti-racism, and the imperative to restore and heal our environment rather than continue to pillage it. These principles must now guide our interventions and organisational development as we move forward.

1. Rebuilding working class power from below

Faced with a capitalist class ever more brazen in its plunder, and a political elite either complicit or paralysed, the working class and oppressed communities must rely on our own collective strength. We will work to foster the rebirth of independent working class organisations – unions that are truly democratic, community forums that are not captured by political parties, youth suffused with militancy, women’s organisations that assert leadership in the struggle against the manifold injustices of patriarchal capitalism, and environmentalists who understand that the challenge of planetary survival requires an end to the profit system. This means nurturing forms of self-organisation capable of defending immediate interests (housing, services, wages, safety), while opening pathways to systemic change.

2. Struggle against extractivism and climate injustice

South Africa’s carbon-intensive economy is destroying our environment and ravaging communities. The mines, factories, agribusiness plantations, and energy giants that dominate our economy are hallmarks of a violent extractivism that privileges short-term profit over long-term sustainability and human well-being. We will continue to ally with grassroots ecological struggles –local environmental committees, trade unions committed to a genuine just transition, fisherfolk alliances, small-scale farmers, climate justice movements – and learn from them how to integrate demands into an increasingly unified eco-socialist strategy. We oppose all forms of extractivism. But we understand that the struggle for a mass politics around the climate and ecological crisis can only emerge when the symptoms of that crisis directly undermine the foundational pillars of life. Then mass struggles will emerge around issues such as access to water and sanitation, electricity, food and the lack of relief around floods or droughts. That said, opportunities for bigger mobilisations continue to exist, as we have experienced, for example, in the sterling work of the Amadiba Crisis Committee and shoreline allies in resisting the oil exploration of Shell, Total and Johnny Copelyn’s Impact Africa, whether in beachfront protests or in the courts.

3. A feminist and anti-patriarchal commitment

Gender-based violence, the marginalisation of women and LGBTQIA+ people, and the erasure of care work remain central features of South African society. Patriarchy is woven into the fabric of capitalism, and no liberation can be achieved without dismantling it. ZASO will strive to ensure that women’s leadership and feminist politics are at the forefront of our programme. This means incorporating into all our work and personal politics, the struggles for bodily autonomy and reproductive justice, an end to gender-based violence, and the socialisation of care giving. It also means that it is important for us that our organisational practices model the character of the new society we envision – democratic, respectful, and free from domination.

4. Internationalism and anti-imperialism

We do not struggle in isolation. Across the globe, capital uses various regimes – liberal, authoritarian, fascist – to maintain its rule. The working class must build ties of solidarity with workers, peasants, feminists, anti-racist activists, indigenous peoples, LGBTQIA+ communities, and all oppressed groups worldwide. In particular, our solidarity with the Palestinian people and other oppressed peoples is non-negotiable. We reject all forms of imperialism, whether disguised as “development aid,” neoliberal trade agreements, or outright military aggression. An internationalist perspective is not a luxury; it is the recognition that the fate of humanity is interconnected, and that our struggles are strengthened when woven across borders.

As part of this internationalist perspective, we affirm our commitment to pan-Africanism – a vision of continental unity that prioritises the liberation of ordinary Africans from the twin burdens of imperialism and postcolonial exploitation. Across Africa, many people continue to face oppression, not only from global powers, but also from local elites who cling to power through violence, corruption, and the suppression of dissent. This is evident in countries like Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe and elsewhere, where ordinary people have been rising up against governments that serve the interests of the few at the expense of the many. We remain disgusted that South African corporate and political elite continue to deploy working-class SA National Defense Force soldiers in sites of extreme corruption and resource extraction, such as northern Mozambique and the eastern DRC – there, supporting status quo maldevelopment and profits for Western and BRICS fossil fuel and mining corporations which extract ‘blood methane’ within a civil war and cobalt dug by child workers, respectively.

The decline of US hegemony presents opportunities for the global Left to challenge imperialism and build a more equitable international order. Following military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, we are concerned that Russia has positioned itself as a counterweight to the US and France, capitalising on anti-colonial sentiment and the failures of Western-led counterinsurgency campaigns. This engagement, begun under the notorious Wagner Group (now the ‘Africa Corps’), has reproduced patterns of extraction and exploitation rather than addressing instability’s root causes: poverty, weak governance, international capitalist exploitation and climate change. While some view these coups as hopeful alternatives to discredited civilian governments, we reject the false choice between authoritarian strongmen and democracy.

Emerging powers in the Global South, like China and Russia, are often presented as the harbingers of a new multipolar world order, as is the BRICS which was hosted by Vladimir Putin this year. However, their rise does not signify a break from the logic of global capitalism; after all, the global value chains link Western and BRICS capital. So do multilateral institutions’ neoliberalism as the unanimous ideological standpoint. Nor does it represent any progress for democracy. The challenge posed by emerging powers requires addressing the structural roots of inequality, exploitation and ecological devastation that underpin both unipolarity and multipolarity. A revitalized, non-polar internationalism must prioritise the struggles of oppressed peoples – whether they face imperialist domination or repression by their own ruling classes – while rejecting alignment with any imperialist or sub-imperialist bloc.

5. Education, consciousness raising and organisation

To successfully challenge the ruling order and its ideological apparatus, we need a politically-educated membership and a broader public that understands the roots of our crises. This education comes in part from the lessons learned through social struggles, so we will be drawn to these as sites where organic intellectuals guide us in anti-capitalist pedagogy, critical research and movement building. ZASO will invest in popular education, political schools, and cultural work that revives the traditions of working-class self-education. We will produce accessible materials – pamphlets, e-zines, podcasts, videos – that help connect the dots between everyday struggles and the structural nature of crisis. At the same time, we will develop an organisation that is disciplined, yet democratic; strategic, yet flexible; rooted in local struggles, yet guided by long-term vision.

6. Strategic alliances and united fronts

While we must remain clear in our politics and objectives, we will also be willing to collaborate with other radical forces where that is possible. Building united fronts around concrete demands – opposing austerity, defending public services, fighting for public housing, advancing food sovereignty, pushing for a just transition, and fighting racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia – can mobilise mass energy and draw new layers into struggle. However, we will make alliances without diluting our core principles, our analyses, our strategies and our tactics. We will never sow illusions about the interests driving organised politics.

We reject both the so-called “constitutional” camp, defending the Government of National Unity under the guise of stability, liberal values, socio-economic reform potentials and the rule of law, and the anti-GNU parliamentary ‘progressive caucus.’ While the ‘progressive caucus’ claims to offer an alternative to the austerity and neoliberalism of the GNU, it is, in reality, little more than a coalition of disaffected factions and individuals, with no coherent vision or programme for systemic change. Its politics are often defined more by opportunism and the pursuit of narrow political gains – including a route back into the ANC party-state – than by a genuine commitment to the transformation of society in the interests of the working class and oppressed.

At the same time, while the constitutional camp often cloaks itself in the language of democracy and accountability, its programme is often inseparable from neoliberal austerity, and aside from advocating a Basic Income Grant, it is rare indeed to find liberals uniting with working-class social justice struggles. The constitutionalists seek to shore up a state machinery centred on the Treasury that is deeply committed to fiscal consolidation, budget cuts, and privatisation, thus prioritising the demands of global capital over the needs of the local majority. The constitutional camp positions itself as the defender of democracy and the rule of law against authoritarian tendencies, but its vision of constitutionalism is hollow – one that protects property rights and elite privileges, while ignoring the socio-economic rights enshrined in the constitution itself, or accepting that such rights will continue to be neutered by weasel word terms ‘within available resources’ and ‘progressive realisation.’ The ‘rule of law’ they defend too often serves private capital’s property rights, not poor and working people’s human and environmental rights. A genuine constitutionalism must challenge the material conditions that make its promises unattainable for the majority: poverty, unemployment, landlessness, and systemic violence. It must move beyond procedural democracy and empower grassroots movements to realise substantive democracy in every facet of life.

Our task is not to align ourselves with coalitions that defend or merely tinker around the edges of a crumbling system. Instead, we will work to build independent power outside the state, anchored in the self-organisation of workers, communities, women, and oppressed groups. We will also advance the struggle to democratise and transform the state into a tool for genuine popular power and competent, capable governance that serves the needs of the majority. True alliances must be rooted in shared struggle, principled politics, and a clear vision for an eco-socialist, feminist future – not in the consolidation of elite power under a different guise, or in the false promise of stability, which leaves the causes of the crisis unchanged.

7. The crisis in local government

The 2026 municipal elections represent a critical juncture for South Africa’s working class and popular movements. As failures of neoliberal governance continue to marginalise communities, ZASO calls for a radical, people-centred approach to local government.

Municipalities remain the weakest link in South Africa’s governance system, plagued by systemic corruption, elite-driven contestations, and service delivery failures. Instead of addressing the structural drivers of inequality, the neoliberal policies imposed since 1994 have commodified basic services and entrenched austerity measures, leaving communities in crisis. The water crisis, in particular, exemplifies the consequences of this dysfunction, as mismanagement and failing infrastructure leave communities vulnerable to drought, disease, and environmental degradation. With expected electricity load-shedding in early 2025 due to Eskom’s ongoing ‘death spiral,’ extreme price hikes, and ongoing ‘load reduction’ (load shedding for black townships) ensuring misery and declining productivity, we anticipate many more battles over electricity access and cost in coming months.

Against this backdrop, ZASO affirms that the path forward lies not in perpetuating electoral elitism, but in building genuine people’s power from below. So we will actively seek to build united fronts around water justice that are emerging from the struggles for access to a regular supply of water. It is clear that the local state is using the climate and ecological crisis that is driving water stress to limit supply to poorer households. In this context the demand for water for all is fast becoming a revolutionary demand in many parts of our country, in turn opening up prospects for eco-socialist ideas and a local electoral platform where water as a public good under democratic control can take centre stage.

The SACP’s decision to contest the 2026 municipal elections does not offer a solution. Instead, it risks exacerbating factionalism and further complicating efforts to address municipal crises. Likewise, the EFF and the MK Party, driven by populist and ethno-nationalist agendas, fail to provide transformative visions required for local government. These agendas demand robust examination, critique and decisive responses from progressive social movements and communities. At the same time, local conditions may demand tactical alliances with the left popular fronts spearheaded by the SACP and EFF, to keep the right wing – the DA, Patriotic Alliance and Inkatha – from winning council seats in 2026 governments of local unity with the ANC.

In the former homelands, traditional governance structures often overshadow constitutional democracy. Unelected traditional authorities control land allocation and natural resources, leading to undemocratic decision-making, rights violations, hollowing out of democracy, and skewed development captured by local elites. They also have extensive governmental powers in 15 areas established by law, including the administration of justice. This creates a fourth tier of unaccountable government that is not provided for in the constitution. It is also in these same former homelands where elected local government and organised social movements are the weakest. Together, this rural governance system means that former homelands are governed differently than urban areas, often in a way more like feudalism than democracy. This undermines constitutional rights, deepens inequality, and erodes public trust in the state.

ZASO calls on working class communities and progressive organisations to reject the failed frameworks of elite-led governance. Instead, we must embrace a transformative municipal agenda rooted in mass participation, direct democracy, and grassroots control. Where municipalities collapse under corruption and mismanagement, communities have already begun taking the lead – organising mass struggles, challenging state failures in court, and directly managing services. These must be supported as models of popular power.

In preparation for the 2026 elections, ZASO urges:

• Mass Struggles for Responsive Local Government: Communities must mobilise to hold municipalities accountable and ensure they meet people’s needs.

• Transformative Alternatives from Below: Grassroots solutions, such as community-led service delivery and local economic development initiatives are essential.

• A Unified Anti-Capitalist Strategy: Progressive movements, independent candidates, and civic organisations must build alliances to advance a radical agenda for municipal transformation.

• Transparent and Accountable Elections: Candidates must emerge from democratic processes, rooted in community mandates and anti-capitalist principles. Election campaigns must prioritise commitments to transformative change and community control.

ZASO will work tirelessly to ensure that the 2026 elections serve as a platform for grassroots empowerment and systemic change, rather than narrow party-political gains. Inspired by successful movements such as the Makana Citizens’ Front, we believe that independent candidates and local alliances can lead the charge in breaking the cycle of elite capture and neoliberal decay. In doing so they must learn from past errors and put into place democratic measures, such as the right to recall, that keep candidates accountable to the structures that have elected them. The fight for truly democratic, responsive, and inclusive local government cannot end with the 2026 elections. Beyond the polls, ZASO commits to sustaining mass mobilisation and transformative struggles to challenge corruption, oppose privatisation, and defend the working class.

Our vision is clear: a people’s power approach that prioritises community-driven governance, rejects neoliberalism, and builds a municipal system that serves the majority, not the elite. Together, we can reclaim local government and lay the foundation for socialism.

Looking ahead

ZASO emerges determined to fight back against despair and defeatism. The horizon is daunting: an intensifying ecological crisis, deepening social misery, and the global ascendency of authoritarian-capitalist forces. Yet, it is precisely this bleak landscape that compels us to advance an alternative vision and practice.

We are aware that no single formation alone can solve these massive problems. But we know that without an eco-socialist perspective – one that fuses class struggle with the fight for ecological sustainability, anti-racism, feminism, and true democracy – the Left cannot break out of its current fragmentation and weakness. A movement for socialism – far bigger than ZASO – is desperately and urgently needed in the face of capitalism’s worldwide destruction of the foundations of life. But it is possible only if the practices, strategies and perspectives of socialism are renewed. We invite all those who broadly agree with us to join our ranks.

The tasks before us are immense, but so too is the potential power of a united, organised working class and oppressed majority. As ZASO, we recommit ourselves to building that power. We pledge uncompromising struggles against all forms of exploitation, oppression, and ecological destruction, and to work tirelessly towards a society that puts people and the planet before profit – for freedom, dignity, and justice.