The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of the class struggles dialectical materialism

                                                                                                                                                                – Karl Marx, 1947

A lot has been written about Marxism and why it is relevant in our context of the capitalist society. Thus, I won’t dwell on this explanation. Marxism is a very broad body of thought, and it requires a lot of conviction in order to understand it. Additionally, one must go beyond reading introduction to Marx, preface and supplementing that with lecture slides together with notes from the tutorial. Moreover, one must read what Marx has said and go beyond that and link it with its relevance in present day. This is because plethora of scholars have contributed a great deal of writing and contribution towards this body of knowledge. Furthermore, afield the scoop of this paper- because of time limit – this paper shall be centred to what I call the dialectics of historical materialism, one can also refer to it simple as historical materialism or dialectical materialism, whatever drives the point home.

What informs my exploration of this subject matter is the understanding that the history of all societal struggles is the history of what I would call objective properties in the Aristotelian logic or categories of extension in the Cartesian duality-the material objects qua the land. In the Aristotelian logic, the objective qualities are the material bodies which have measurable qualities and are subsequently the primary subjective to the qualities the of value form and/or the money form of the capitalist spirit. Similarly, in the Cartesian duality, the categories of extension are the objective world, matter and the body. In the primordial period in Europe what gave rise to Capitalism was the commercialization of agriculture, and the commodification of objective properties such as the land and nature in general. Human beings, specifically their labour, were commodified as well.

 Slavery was informed by this development. Black people in the eyes of the modern European Cogito “ego sum subject” qua homo-economicus subject were in the state of nature. Therefore, the sources of cheap labour; fit for slavery and colonialism. Similarly, this is what informs the proletarianization of black people in the colonies in Africa. In order for them to attain market identities qua class categories, they had to be dispossessed of their land and their cattles had to be burned etc. Meaning, their material realities had to be turned upside down. It is for that reason that informed the young Marx and he aptly said it that in a capitalist epoch what was once Holy (Nature) has become profane (commodity). Having teased out what made it possible for the enslavery of Black people by the Europeans and subsequently colonisation, we are then propelled to delve to the study of history and social formation in the epoch of capitalism from a materialist perspective, the subject matter.

It is salient before I delve to the study of history and social formation in the epoch of capitalism from the materialistic perspective to be lucid to the reader that I won’t probe into other aspects of Marxism. This is informed by the scoop of the paper.

Materialism is a school of thought that is genealogically linked to the early Greek sophists such as Democritus and others. At the level of ideology, it is dialectically opposed to idealism. We can say that idealism is the synonymous with mysticism; it assumes the existence of the universal, spatiotemporal unlimited Spirit A la Hegelese. In the Hegelian idealism Spirit is God. It is for that reason when we speak of Spirit in Hegelianism, we can adamant refer it a ‘Theocentric logic’. Nevertheless, in the capitalist world the Spirit is the money form and the value system, this we can call it ‘the capitalist Spirit’ qua ‘value-centric monotheism’. In contrast to capitalist Spirit, materialism is based on the material conditions on the ground and is based on scientific methods of inquiry call this a ‘socio-bio-centric logic’, as opposed to the Hegelian and young Marx’s idealist conception buttressed on liturgical construction of mystic utopia.

This is, then, relevant in our understanding of capitalism and colonialism experiences of and imperial conquest. The value system of capitalism qua money in the scientific locus of enunciation is subjective property. In the Aristotelian logic the subjective properties are those properties that are observable but cannot be measured (in area, volume breadth etc), and whence they are secondary to primary objective qualities (land, cows and minerals to mention only just a few). Thus, central to our struggle for economic emancipation take first the land and all its natural resources.

In the process of dispossession and commodification of objective properties emerges two classes diametrically opposed to each other. On the one hand are those who have monopoly over the ownership of commodity, namely, the bourgeoisie and on the other hand are those who have nothing qua the proletariats. Those who have nothing sell their labour to the owners of commodities for survival. This process of selling your labour to the market is called ‘work’ -or ‘wage-labour’ in a more capitalist language and its violent to the have nots. The violent manifest itself in the ever gang ridden township the have nots dwells.

 Central to this relationship of the proletariats and the bourgeoisie is alienation experienced by the former and contrition fetish ceaseless accumulation by the latter. Drawing from the Hegelian philosophy of contraries, Marx believed this phenomenon would eventually be overthrow-ed.

In the philosophy of the dialectic there is a trilogy of the chronological movement of events qua development of history. The trilogy consists of the thesis, antithesis and a synthesis. Dialectics is etymologically linked to the word ‘dialogue’. It initially emerged as- in its idealist sense- a trail of thought and, or put differently, a movement of an argument. In Marxist logic, the thesis is the epoch of capitalism, the synthesis is the epoch of socialism and the synthesis is communism. It is important that we note that Marxists differ on the application of this theory depending in which Marxist body of thought are they following.  Marx says that capitalism is ‘pregnant with the seed of its own destruction’, meaning the alienation of the workers courses dissatisfaction and will eventually lead to a revolution. This is the negation and its what informs the thesis. Once the rapture of the revolution broke and leads to the establishment of socialism, it called a negation-of-the-negation and its what informs the synthesis. The negation-of-the-negation is not an end itself but a response to the negation.

 The last stage of this chronological movement of time is like; the biblical MANNA flowing down from heaven, a Buddhist nirvana, and a metaphoric CANAAN- the land of promise where flows endless milk and honey; this is the stage of communism or thee synthesis. This stage will transcend both the thesis and the antithesis, and therefore, will lead to the disappearance of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and it will also lead to the abolishment of the individual ownership of property. In the 1917 Russian revolution, that later had a domino effect in almost all the Eastern side of Europe and South East-Asia and some other parts of the region of West Africa, we had seen the predictions of Marx about the revolution against capitalism and the establishment of the socialist states materialised. However, the last stage of revolution called communism never materialised, reducing Marx from his Isaiahic moments- as a prophet of hope- to the apocalyptical prophet of doom, prophesising failure and doomed.

Here I have tried to show the manner in which Marxism can be relevant in our specific context using a materialistic perspective. I have shown, the extent to which the dialectic can be revolutionary and find its limits. With that being said, I don’t have all the answers as well but as was setting up a base from which people can develop a dialogue around these ideas. Thus, I asked, where to from here?

Stemming from an excerpt of the CIC’s keynote address to the 3rd National Students Assembly of the EFF Students Command, my dear brother poses a question on Facebook (24-07-2019):

As fighters in most but not all instances particularly here in KZN where PYA was dominant during that period. We fought side by side with SASCO/PYA activists and leaders during #FeesMustFall in struggle for Free Decolonized Education. The CiC and President Julius Malema named and shamed us for such deeds in his address (3rd NSA).  Ntando Sindane and Neoza Thipe Hlabirwa can you intervene here am confused 🙄

This question is one of many that emanate from the same speech, another popular one is the CIC’s call for the assembly to critically discuss the need for EFFSC to exist.

Marxists agree that the history of the world has a beginning and an end, and that the end is, in all likelihood, in the dialectical habit of having stark similarities with the beginning. As a result, it becomes crucial to study history scientifically in order to appreciate the proverbial spectre of the present and precisely predict the future. It is against this background that comrade Khanyile is reminded that the commander-in-chief does not have a history of being wrong on any organizational question.

A few of us were crestfallen when the organization took the decision to expel one Andile Mngxitama, protesting that his disciplinary matter seemed to be handled with brashness and undue haste. If comrade Khanyile’s memory serves him well, he will remember that both the commander-in-chief and deputy were adamant that Andile has crossed the line, and had no future in the EFF. With the benefit of hindsight and the events subsequent to Andile’s expulsion, we now know that the comrade Malema’s decision/instinct/reasoning was right.

Apart from his resident truculent personality, Andile’s politics differ markedly from those of the EFF; for example, Andile’s party proudly adopts the literal application of Steve Biko’s approach to the struggle, insisting that an organization fighting for the liberation of black people should only allow for black people in its ranks. The EFF not only subscribes to the freedom charter in its entirety, but it leans towards the classic Marxist internationalist approach, arguing that both black and white working class people can work alongside each other to overthrow global capital. This ideological position has never been amenable to co-existence, thus cannot be reasonably reconciled.

This is but one example of the differences between Andile and the EFF. Andile is not alone, the list includes many of our dearest brothers and sisters: Mpho Ramakatsa, Ayanda Tshabalala, Mpumelelo Masina-Mashifane, Lufuno “Funey” Gogoro, Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala, Maxwell Mothlake, Gcobani Ndzongana and many other backsliders. We love them, we were sad to see them go, but hindsight tells us that on all their individual questions, leadership’s collective wisdom was correct. There’s no doubt that there will be many other backsliders after this December’s National People’s Assembly, even in those instances, the comrade Malema’s wisdom will not let us down.

This bit of history is pivotal in providing a nuanced analysis of the comrade Malema’s sentiments about the Fees Must Fall movement and the protests of 2015-2016. Comrade Bonginkosi, in his article for Mail&Guardian (15-07-2019), urges former Fees Must Fall comrades who are now Members of Parliament to use their new position in society to continue fighting for political change in society. The column implicitly appreciates that the objective of Fees Must Fall has not been achieved because free, quality and decolonized education has not yet arrived. Comrade Malema argues that one of the reasons leading to this is that the struggle was fought side-by-side with students belonging to the Progressive Youth Alliance. Comrade Khanyile ought to recall the many occasions that the EFFSC and PYA publicly contradicted each other during Fees Must Fall on a litany of ideological and strategic questions. At one point, the organizations held two completely different interpretations of the meaning of free education. Most notably, the Wits PYA cabal started introducing the fancy lexicon of “missing middle” and the sell-out position of, “free education yes, but only for the poor”. This exposition argues that it is some of these fractures that derailed the struggle and led it not to attaining free education in our lifetime.

Fees Must Fall activists of the EFFSC should not be incensed by the comrade Malema’s comments, or intuit them as trivializing their revolutionary efforts, but rather construe this as a necessary critique of the internal challenges that the struggle continues face. It is banal to assume that comrade Malema finds joy in ridiculing EFFSC activists. It is extremely crucial for all members of the Students Command to critically analyze all CIC’s utterances with intention to truly understand all its the deeper meanings and gradations.  On another day, we will frankly debate his question; “Why must the EFFSC exist?” But for now, I insist that Julius Malema is right.