As people falling on the far Left of the ideological divide we have learnt that Marxism-Leninism seeks to carry out a socialist revolution by organizing the working class and its labour reserve forces using the strategy of Vanguardism and the organizational principle of democratic centralism (DC). Most Marxist-Leninist formations subscribe, in theory, to this organizational make up and fabric.

Most notably, both of these strategies have been tried and tested in the past and were successful, and particularly well suited for bourgeois societies where class contradictions were glaring.

History is replete with examples where vanguard parties, the world over, led socialist revolutions, marshalling popular mass energies who longed for freedom and a society free of exploitation. A key highlight down this history lane is the famous Great October Russian revolution of the 1917 led by the Bolsheviks party. The Bolsheviks was a vanguard party.

What is important to note about this notion of the “new party” (or Vanguardism as it is affectionately called) is the idea that it combines leadership skill and sound political consciousness at the level of strategy, tactics and expertise together with the broad mass movement and a big popular revolutionary possibility.

As a consequence, the vanguard party then needs a leadership collective that will ground mass action ideologically, ensuring that every step taken by the masses strengthen the revolutionary project and drives it nearer a socialist renewal.

Having said that, it is worth noting that the typical problem with parties that have a warped idea of Vanguardism, like the Economic Freedom Fighters, which is the subject of my critique; is that they are the very antithesis to Vanguardism. This is because they lack the constituent elements and revolutionary fervour defining a vanguard. Their action(s) strip the concept off all revolutionary content and undermine the coming revolution. Think of the instrument of people’s war now in the indirect hands of the ruling elite.

To place this argument within context is to start by reminding comrades that socialism is our envisaged Nirvana. It is a stage in history that must be sacrificed for, strived for and that should be constantly sought after until it is realized. A socialist renewal of power relations is what the vanguard seeks to achieve. 

Therefore, in the pursuance of a socialist revolution it becomes a damming indictment to use the socialist strategy of Vanguardism (as a proven tool in the hands of the people) to strike a bourgeois deal with capital in the hour of confrontation. This not only undermines the ever-existent revolutionary situation which is primarily about sharpening contradictions between the exploiting ruling class and the exploited masses, but, it also calls into question the sense of revolutionary leadership in the EFF and its ideological direction as an expression of its political goals.

Stated differently; what political gaols does Capital cede to, and which goals are off limits as far as engagement and negotiations are concerned? This is the focus of this piece and my area of interest as far Vanguardism relates to EFF and the events of the yester-weeks. 

This is the frank admission and candidness we need in conversation, also serving as the intellectual honesty, required to make sense (or lack thereof) of the EFF’s decision to abort its nationwide protest actions in favour of negotiations. It is important that we understand the rationalization behind the disruption of protests in favour of “talks” and its degenerate finality. Add to this the philistine and bourgeois celebrations that flooded social media following the calling off of action. 

To want to dismiss calls for a political explanation on the part of EFF for this overtly questionable move it has taken, on the basis that “the EFF started protests, and it is the EFF that can call off protests” as some people have maintained is the height of political arrogance and zealous activism and also shows a very limited perspective of how revolutionary change as charged by the vanguard occurs. 

We now know that the racist corporation brokered a deal with the EFF’s national leadership in which an apology was also forwarded. To which subsequently Uniliver and Clicks made the following further concessions: 

-60 000 of sanitary towels.

-50 000 of masks. 

-50 000 of sanitizers. 

-5 scholarships. 

These were the resolutions that prevailed over the burning rage and a resolve to fight of ground forces nationwide; who had an entirely different set of political goals if we take the extent with which they took the protests to as an indication. Ground forces were not only demobilized out of the unfolding moment but were further criminalized in a deluge of official statements issued by the party whereby they were projected as some “rogue elements” and “agent provocateurs” with mala fide intentions to paint the EFF as a violent organization. Action which led to the arrest of EFF’s Member of Parliament, and political ex convict, fighter Kenny Motsamai.

The misguided and dogmatic application of the organizational principle of democratic centralism, that was lorded over the rented mob as command coming from Braamfontein, calling for a ceasefire was reactionary and betrayal of ground forces. 

Most noticeably, the toned down ending was not the same rage and verve we saw on Twitter and other social media spaces on Sunday, charging ground forces with emotive slogans like “ATTACK”. There was a deliberate call for action from the Commander-in-chief to ground forces to which he later reneged on. One can only read the preceding ‘Twurf’ waged by the top party brass to have been nothing short of a performative rage and grandstanding. 

Furthermore, it is crucial to note that there is a reason why there have been spontaneous and random outbursts in South Africa over the recent years; part of which reflects the failures of the post-94 government to decolonize society and liberate the national productive forces from the shackles of white monopoly capital and its imperialist masters. 

This failure to transform society has evidently deepened the brewing rage of the largely excluded black majority and in the same breath created fertile ground for a revolutionary situation to grow which the EFF now finds itself commanding. The honest truth in all of this is that there are young men and women who genuinely want change in South Africa, but, are let down by a political elite leadership that is decisively inconsistent, counter-revolutionary and has invariably subjected the EFF project to capitulation. The EFF leadership needs to abandon engagements with the ruling class and its neoliberal mould of problem-solving and return to the revolutionary paths as guided by Marxism-Leninism both in theory and praxis. 

It is as the Marxist-Leninist intellectual Joseph Stalin had said, “The battlefield for revolutionaries is on the streets”. It is not in boardrooms. 

As a budding student of Marxism-Leninism and a member of the EFF, I agree wholeheartedly that we need a Vanguard party in South Africa that will not only organize the people but will politically educate them to see things from a revolutionary point of view as people who want to see change and are committed to the agenda of national liberation. 

However, the pervading question on my mind is; what is a Vanguard party, and how is it expressed organizationally, ideologically and, indeed, politically? 

This is a question that demands us to speak about what constitutes vanguardism both in theory and in practice so as to feed our understanding; politically and otherwise, on why EFF conducts itself the way it does, that is; like a liberal social democratic party, posturing as Marxist-Leninist.

But I again to hasten to answer my own question and provoke critical reflection since I have raised the debate; so let me provide a brief idea of the vanguard party as conceptualized by Vladimir Lenin. 

Lenin, we know had theoretically and practically conceptualized the vanguard party as the most politically conscious, most experienced (in the terrain of struggle), most politically active and most capable group of people. This group is what in popular Marxist lexicons has been termed the “advanced section of the working class”. 

This advanced section of the working class then organize itself into a vanguard party as an organizational expression of a credible project of the Left. However its credibility (or lack thereof) must be earned in the cauldron of action and in how the party conduct itself; that is, its idea of praxis and/or its ideological vision towards socialist revolution, its strategy to capture state power and a resolve to defeat the national bourgeoisie. All these speak to living revolutionary vanguardism as an embodiment of the material and spiritual aspirations of the working class people. 

This new group organized under the all-inviting banner of “vanguardism” is as I have explained the advanced section of the working class because it is class conscious, politically conscious and politically active as well. These are characteristics that must define the EFF and its leadership collective. As a proclaimed vanguard it cannot be at the tail of mass consciousness that descends into right-wing negotiations with the capitalists for minimal demands.

The backward section of society which is not part of the EFF and was expressed indifference to the protest actions is what must be won over because as a class it doesn’t really understand what’s going on or even know how to guard against its class interests; this section of society should automatically fall on the shoulders of the EFF as the vanguard that must elevate the consciousness discourse. 

Regrettably, the EFF has limited the whole moment to an aimless protest with a reactionary set of political goals. The type of demands negotiated for are nothing short of an assault on Marxism-Leninism and its organizing instrument of vanguardism.

I am therefore left to make the following deductions:

(1) To call yourself a Vanguard is good if you are genuinely interested in the socialist revolution.

(2) It is however not enough to just pronounce yourself as one.

(3) Vanguardism must be earned on the ground and how an organization makes tangible inroads towards socialism.  

You can’t just end at pronouncing only; you still need to do a few more things; that is, to ground the movement on sound ideological principles, exhibit credible political leadership that is always biased towards the interests of the working class people and also be committed in struggling at building organizational capacity that can bring about real change. 

It is the revolutionary duty of the Vanguard party to provide political consciousness and create sound political goals. 

A revolution is after all, as Lenin once said, a difficult task. Anyone who is even remotely serious in revolutionary change should realize that the politician’s game of rhetoric alone and playing to the public gallery is not enough. You still need to do a whole lot more than that. 

This is ideological. It is political. It is personal. It is a matter of life and death!

I heard DA, FF+, IFP, Cope, Afriforum and others saying land expropriation without compensation will result in food insecurity.

Is it true? What is the real threat to food security? What is food security?  Do millions of people in South Africa have access to food?

Firstly, food security is where there is enough food to feed people. This means that a state or society has the capacity to feed its people, and to a certain level has a consistent surplus. This must mean that ordinary people have access to food, implying that they have economic freedom or buying power, alternatively, the capacity to produce for themselves.

Is this the current situation in South Afrika? Since there is a view which says that there is food security now and it will be hammered by expropriation of land without compensation. The answer is a big NO. Millions of people go to bed with an empty stomach, even though there is food on the shelves of Checkers, Woolworth, Spar, Pick n Pay and others. Millions of poor people lack access, which is the buying power, and equally don’t have land to feed themselves.

It is my view that the issue of food insecurity is raised to instill fear in the hearts and minds of black South Africans who demand justice by talking about land expropriation without compensation. It is exactly the same to the theology of hell which was instilled in black people by colonial masters to scare them. As far as my knowledge of African belief systems go, we, African natives, prior colonialism believed in God and knew nothing about hell, because we believed that UQamata (God) cannot create us and then burn us after death.

We were told that our God is superstitious and that their God is scientific. This was a tool to brain wash Africans so that they can forget about their culture, religion and Africanism, consequently land was brutally taken away from the hands of black people.

Climate change is real and is happening now. Recently, some parts of Eastern Cape and Nothern Cape Province were attacked by severe drought, and livestock farmers suffered a major blow because livestock mortality rate was high due to lack of forage. We attested to many carcasses on the veld, which led to a drop-in supply of red meat to the market and consequently the prices of red meat increased due to low supply and high demand. Floods also attacked some parts of KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape provinces. This also had a negative impact on agriculture.

I conducted a series of experiments for my MSc study using open-top warming chambers for more than one year to simulate the elevated temperatures as suggested by International Panel on Climate Change. The effects of warming and grass competition on seedlings of an invasive woody species were tested. The study revealed that elevated temperatures with an increase of 1 – 2.5 ^oC increased the growth of invasive woody seedling irrespective of grass cover. This implies that as the temperature increases, the rangeland which is the major source of feed for grazing livestock will be invaded by woody plants. These woody plants decrease grazing capacity for rangelands, consequently, a decrease in the production of milk and meat.

This is the real threat to food security not land expropriation without compensation. The land must be expropriated without compensation and state should be the custodian as clearly postulated by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). This is because access to land must not be limited to a select few but land must be accepted as a basic right to self-determination, food security and an instigator for economic participation and subsequently growth.

Few white males own at least 80% of about 40 thousand commercial farms, which makes up to 87% of agricultural land. This land should be given to many farmers by dividing some farms. In some instances, you find that a farmer owns 100 ha of productive agricultural land but only using 25 ha of that land. So, dividing these farms can result in many small holder farmers that currently own only 13% of agricultural land and some are not productive agricultural land, but they make means to produce.

I believe small holder farming is the future; they need to be financially supported and capacitated with climate-smart agricultural practices and marketing. Government must be involved in the food supply chain by owning agro processing companies and super markets and this will give market to small holder farmers which they have been denied by the existing markets. Reducing wasteful expenditure (i.e. by getting rid of deputy ministers) to fund the model. This supporting model can work because it worked for white famers during the apartheid era where they had land bank that loaned them at a very low interest.

On the 26^th of January 2020, I was listening to Ernst Roets Afriforum deputy CEO on News Room Afrika channel anchored by JJ Tabane, he said the murdering of white farmers create inequality because farms are closed down once the owner dies and some go to Europe and close their farms, this results in increase in prices of goods due to low production as the number of commercial farmers decreases.

 Mr. Roets correctly so, said commercial farmers close down their farms and move to Europe hence their contribution to food insecurity but he incorrectly so said there is murdering of white farmers in South Africa. In reality the decrease in number of commercial famers is not as a result of the murdering of white farmers. In fact, there is no such in South Africa, there is crime and criminals target any one at any time.

The reduction in commercial farmers is due to sole ownership of agricultural productive land which is also a threat to food security. The succession plan lies within the family and if the child of the owner of the farm is not interested in farming, the farmer will close down or sell the farm and the new owner might change the land use. For example, in September 2019, I was part of a team that conducted a vegetation survey in Northern Cape near Springbok, we went to one of the farmers that was targeted by the study, when we got there the old white male told us that it would be useless to conduct a vegetation survey because he is closing down the farm as his only son is not interested in farming.

There is no succession plan in the agricultural industry in South Africa because majority of productive agricultural land is owned by few white males. Expropriation of land without compensation can solve the problem of succession. This is simple, the state will be the custodian of the land and a person who wants to farm will be given the lease for some time with proper monitoring, evaluation and support. If the farm is no longer productive, the land will be given to someone else who will actively produce, and this will be sustainable to generations of generations. It will also contribute in low prices because there will be more producers, hence guaranteed food security without fail.

The argument that expropriation of land without compensation will lead to food insecurity is misplaced and seeks to undermine the needs and demands of the people. People are seeking for an opportunity to contribute to the country’s economic growth. It is important that food insecurity be seen and understood as the end result of the centralization of productive land by a few who, at most, chose to service the international system and not the domestic markets because of greed.