The following speech was made by WINNIE MADIKIZELA MANDELA at the May Day celebrations of the Workers' Party of Belgium in Brussels on 1 May 1997 [Edited].
THE united front alliance between the African National Congress (ANC), the Communist Party of South Africa (SACP) and the labour movement brought about the liberation of the people of South Africa.
This alliance is a natural result of a reality of social life that has pervaded our nation for the last 300 years. It is not a product of statements made in the media. It's future will depend on changes to that social reality, and not on the wishes of individuals or statements in the media.
What concerns us today is the relation of socialism and communism to the worker, the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the consequent rise of socialism in South Africa and, in particular, the burning issue of privatisation and nationalisation of state owned assets and its implication for workers.
In Africa, capitalism has been associated with oppression. From east to west Africa, from north to south Africa imperialists preached the virtues of capitalism while they stole the wealth Of the nation from the people. This has been the experience of most South Africans.
The terms "capitalism" and "democracy" have been used interchangeably. We were taught that democracy was good, and therefore that capitalism was good. The prime evil against capitalism and democracy was said to be communism. Communism and socialism were made out to be all that was sinister and oppressive. Billions of Rands were spent by the apartheid regime to misinform the people about communism and socialism.
In reality, it was this perverse system that subjected human beings to such indignities. It was apartheid that led to the widespread physical and psychological suffering of our workers and their families. Furthermore, it has inflicted severe damage on the natural world in South Africa.
When the apartheid regime assumed power in 1948, it created what might be called a perverse state. It was perverse/perverted in that the country's assets and workers' labour were used to benefit only the white minority.
In a very short time, the wealth of the nation was secured in their greedy hands. With capital in their control, all the ill-gotten spoils of capitalism flowed directly back to them.
There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy. And a case in point is "affirmative action", which was originally set up in the United States.
In principle, affirmative action is designed to uplift the worker, but capitalists are entrusted to promote this social programme. How can it be expected to succeed under such bizaar circumstances?
After all, one of the realities of capitalism is the drive to minimise all costs of production, including labour. in order to maximise profits. So it would be irrational to expect the boss to hand over those profits to workers. In fact, it's worse. The government is toothless.
Therefore, affirmative action will only be implemented to patronise us workers while failing to invest in labour. There will be increased pressure on the demand for existing black skilled workers, but given the limited size of this labour pool, it will also lead to increased wages while the rest of the workers are left out.
In the final analysis, affirmative action will do nothing for those workers who need it most. But we're not surprised that it actually exploits workers. And we have learnt sotnething from this: We cannot place the aspirations and rights of workers in the hands of capitalists.
If capitalism in South Africa breaks down, the consequences will be very painful. And the bigger this system becomes, the more disastrous the result of its break down will be. If this is to occurr, better sooner than later.
Our answer is revolution. It may or may not be violent, it may be sudden or it may be a gradual process spanning a few decades -- none of this we can predict. But this is not a political revolution where governments will be overthrown. The object is to transform the economic and ideological basis of present South African society.
South Africa is still in a process of change. The period that we are currently in is a test of what it can deliver. In 1994 the black majority won political freedom. Our struggle always had two agendas. The first was political liberation and the second was economic emancipation.
In the years leading up to the first democratic elections, we held peace talks with the apartheid regime. In these discussions many compromises and concessions were made. But what we now see, in hindsight, is our biggest mistake: opting for capitalism.
By putting aside our right to nationalise state assets, we also put aside our duty to feed our people. In agreeing to privatise existing state assets, we ensured that the citadel of capitalism in South Africa got fatter at the expense of our people who created the wealth with the sweat and blood of their toil.
The apartheid regime built state empires such as Telekom, Eskom and Transnet -- they are today recognised as world leaders in telecommunications, energy and transport.
The idea that the apartheid government was inefficient was a myth. The white minority rulers, with a motive beside the profit take, worked according to an extreme ideology that justified apartheid. It was sanctioned by their law and religion.
The new government has dispelled apartheid's legitimacy. But following the death of SACP leader Chris Hani in 1994, there now exists an ideological vacuum. The failure to deal with this has led to greed and self-interest moving in. It has become a haven for corruption and inefficiency.
While we grapple to find asolution to this enormous and unforseen problem, our people starve and the rich wallow in the ill-gotten gains. This cannot go on indefinitely, and 1999 will be a watershed year for South Africa. It will represent a shift in political power from proportional representation in a governmentt of national unity, to a government of absolute control. A decision will have to be made about how this change is to be made.
Simply put, the decision will have to be between capitalism and socialism. The future well-being of our people and our children depend upon It. It is important that we choose wisely.
We have suffered under capitalism. The land, natural resources and the industries are largely privately owned. Each owner is producing, not for the public good, but for private profit. The boss pays as little in wages as possible, but the boss takes as much as possible.
This may seem an over simplification of the nature of capitalism. But then again this is not an academic debate between capitalism and socialism. The debate, in fact, is as old as the hills. It is heard around the world, from the factory floor to Parliament. And it is a debate that will rage on long after we are gone.
But there is a more fundamental question. How can we improve the quality of life of the economically disadvantaged majority?
While we are attempting to transform South African society, we face constraints that are not of our doing. These problems include:
Firstly, the legacy of apartheid. This, in itself, includes the mismanagement of our economy, the debt burden, the destruction of our human resources, a deformed public sector, vast unemployment and poverty, marginalisation of the majority from economic activity, massive income disparities and social inequalities.
Secondly, there is the fact that the new South African democracy is born into the new world order. Politically, this means power is in the hands of the G7 countries and their international financial and trade institutions.
Economically, the process of globalisation has trampled the sovereignty of many countries. Capital has unprecedented mobility, aided by new technology and the new information age.
The world economy has been organised into powerful trading blocs. Those who don't play by the rules of their new game, we are told, are forever marginalised to fall by the wayside. So the question arises: Is it possible to achieve equity and growth under the constaints inherited from apartheid and imposed by the new world order?
Two dangers arise in answering this question. The first is falling into the trap of fatalism -- passively accepting that these forces ranged against us are too powerful to counter, that we must simply accept fate.
The second is that of blind idealism -- pretending that these constraints do not exist; and that we can impose our agenda of change, without taking account of these objective realities in our transformation equation.
Our country is in danger of digging itself into a trap from which it will be almost impossible to escape. This will happen if the path of transformation we have set ourselves is abadoned and if we relinquish our national severeignty in the sphere of economic decision-making. This would be to sacrifice everyone on the altar of profits.
It has become widely accepted that the implementation of economic policy ideas derived from Thatcher, Reagan, the World Bank and IMF, has had devastating consequences on countries where they have been imposed. These harsh facts are acknowledged, if not by all economists, then certainly by the vast majority of people living in these countries.
Yet there is enormous pressure on South Africa, particularly by the "market", to adopt precisely these policies which failed elsewhere. This neo-liberal framework has by now become familiar: Wholesale privatisation; state spending cuts; rapid deregulation of the labour, trade and financial markets; recessionary monetary policies; and export pressure.
These policies are ideologically driven, and they are applied regardless of countries' conditions. But we do not only reject them on such grounds. We reject this package because it would be a disaster if it were applied in South Africa.
There is also another flaw in the privatisation-equals-revenue-for-development argument. In fact, privatisation will probably mean that investment finance is directed towards the purchase of existing state assets, rather than towards new productive investment in infrastructure or industry.
In other words, privatisation could have the effect of "crowding out" investment in activities that would create new jobs and accelerate growth.
Another consequence of privatisation of central concern to the labour movement is that it will lead to massive retrenchment and lay-offs at a time when our number one priority is to create jobs. To simply retrench workers with the hope that new job opportunities will emerge elsewhere is not a route that the labour movement is prepared to take.
For us, any declaration that suggests privatisation, resulting in increased unemployment, has been successful, is akin to a surgeon coming out of an operating theatre and saying: "The operation was success, but unfortunately the patient is dead."
We are aware that the call for privatisation forms part of an international trend to reduce the role of governments in their economies. It is our view that much of the impetus fo this trend is a result of the desire of multi-national competitors to expand their markets and mcrease their profit margins.
We warn against a situation where South Africa's economic decisions are, to our detriment, dictated by interests other than our own. And while we welcome foreign investment in our country, we should remain vigilant to ensure that such investment does not have the effect of depriving government of some of its key institutions and our people of some of their basic rights.
These include rights to: Housing, healthcare, education and fair labour practices which are now guaranteed in the new constitution.
We do not reject opening up our economy, if this is done in a way which promotes our industries. We do not reject fiscal discipline, if it is subsumed in the task of economic development, rather than the other way around.
The attempt by powerful domestic and international intersts, to force us to accept laissez-faire, unfettered capitalism, flies in the face of the entire developmental experience of the 20th century.
All successful examples of reconstruction and development in Europe, America, Japan or east Asia, have entailed the following: Massive involvement by the state; the creation of domestic demand, huge investment in human development, and policies to direct investment and industrial activity. None have relied exclusively on the market or attempted to remove the state from leading the development process.
Experience has proved that socialism is the most suitable method of quickly developing countries which are economically backward. Russia was formerly the most backward of the big European countries. Under socialism the country shot forward over forty years to become the most advanced, despite the fact that many of those years were taken up in wars against Imperialist intervention. It was socialism which gave Soviet industry the strength and her people the fighting spirit to resist.
In a relatively short period of time, socialism and communist leadership have transformed China from a land of terrible backwardness, illiteracy and poverty, to a land of flourishing industry and agriculture, of advanced education and progress.
India and China won freedom from imperialist rule at about the same time. But India chose the capitalist,road; China the socialist road. Today, China has far outstripped India in economic progress.
The success story of socialism is clear. The reason why the new world order fears it is this: When socialism is put to work correctly, it has the potential to undermine the foundation of wealth for the rich in the G7 colmtries.
If communism cannot work ht South Africa, why was the Communist Party banned as soon as the apartheid regime seized power? And almost 50 years on, why was Chris Hani gunned down on the eve of the ANC, Cosatu trade union confederation and SACP as this alliance was due to take power?
We must all prepare ourselves for the rebirth of socialism. All over the world there is a growing disillusionment with capitalism with its inability to address poverty and unemployment. We must begin now to plant the seeds of socialism that willlife for all. deliver a decent quality of life for all.