African workers employed by
Cof British-based or multinational firms, arguing the case
direct links and messages of
South Africa and
imperialism
SOUTH Africa has always been to a
degree dependent upon Western
imperialism: but is has never been
simply a puppet regime.
With enormous mineral and raw
material resources at its disposal
Pretoria has far greater economic
independence than its counterparts
in Tel Aviv, who depend almost en-
tirely upon US handouts to keep the
ailing Israeli economy afloat.
This, coupled with the old colonial
links with Britain has been one of the
factors establishing a special relation-
ship between the apartheid state and
the Western banks, with the lion's share
of business going to British bankers and
British capitalists hold 40% of the E12
billion foreign investment in South
This represents 7% of total
British overseas investment, and means
Britain controls over
foreign-owned firms, Two British banks.
Barclays and Standard Chartered. con-
trol 66% of South Africa's domestic
banking
British capitalism sold "Invisible" ser-
vices valued at £1.3bn to South Africa last year alone, on top of E1.2bn in ex-
ports which left a trade surplus £500m. British exports to South Africa are double those of any other nation. and concentrate on the most profitable manufactured goods.
In addition British companies have Indirect Investments and shareholdings) totalling another billion. Small wonder the Thatcher government have outpaced even Honald "Hambo" Reagan as supporters economic sanctions.
But while these investments have in
generated stupendous superthere is every indication that British investors are becoming extremely wary of further Involvement with a regime they see as a bad risk.
When Barclays in mid-August renounced control of its South African
National Bank, reasons, its shares in Britain went up in
All kinds of previously unthinkable calculations are increasingly being himself off from the chances of doing made. What banker wants to cut business with a future black majority government in South Africa - and with other African nations? Who wants to lend more money to a Botha regime which is already in dire straits? What government will risk alienating potential black African consumers for the sake of preserving their own marginal economic involvement with the Botha regime?
Hence the move by Mitterrand's French government - the most heavily involved nation yet to bar further in-
vestment in the apartheid regime
Tand Australia.
however. and for West Germany's Kohl
Tas Thatcher, the financial
stakes Involved in breaking the links
with apartheld are much higher.
These same leaders are also
committed to the mission of "containing communism"
which Botha has always used as a key
selling point for the apartheid state.
The South African regime is not only
the Western world's key supplier of
gold, platinum, diamonds and uranium
(plundered from occupied Namibia): It
Is also a regional strong-arm force.
striving to subvert the radical na-
tionalist governments of Angola and
Mozambique, and posing
military threat to a circle of "front line"
African states.
Reagan has dreamed of siting Cruise
missiles In South Africa: Thatcher prior
Malvinas war hoped to enlist
Pretoria's support in a reactionary South Atlantic alliance involving Latin
American dictatorships (even tina) to police the strategie shipping
"South African Defence Force" — and in
particular the occupation of Namibia -
rings its own price tag, however, with
spending taking 20% of the
South African budget.
This cost can only increase with internal disorder forcing Botha to deploy increased firepower on the streets. And the morale of the white conscripts. fac-
d with a long war while the econom
uns downhil and lamilies flee
sustained
As yet South Arica's army is of course
long way from the open dissent an
lisarray which helped force Israel ou of Lebanon and totally different in character from the Shah's army which dissolved so spectacularly in the face of mass demonstrations in Iran. Botha correctly emphasises that there are several more levels of brutality open to him yet. before the regime has used the force at
However, the memories of that col. lapse in Iran and the vanishing hopes of the Smith regime in Zimbabwe: the recollection of the international isolation which preceded the abrupt departure of Batista from Cuba and Somoza from Nicaragua, will not be lost on South Africa's rulers.
If the white racists have new cause to be alarmed, the possibilities for black Africa reawakened by this new wave of struggle in South Africa are exciting in the extreme.
A socialist revolution in South Africa would unleash the resources of an advanced economy to aid the development of other economies across the continent. By cutting off the resources for Socialist Viewpoint. No. 7, September 1985. Page 6
By HARRY SLOAN RELEASE ALL 50. AFRICAN NAMIBIA POLITICAL PRISONE: NOW Photo: Andrea Campbell the reactionary guerrillas in Angola and Mozambique, and pulling the rug out from the remnants of the old regime In Zimbabwe. a socialist South Africa could herald important steps towards a Socialist United States of Southern Africa.
South Africa's strong. militant and organised working class would offer a powerful counter-weight to the conservative nationalism of Mugabe. Kaunda and other leaders, and an example to workers throughout the ex-colonial countries.
This is the line of development for which socialists must struggle, fighting in every possible section of the labour movement for solidarity union action with the South African workers. In cutting the and employers in Britain. The "own" South African struggle also helps sharpen the struggle here.
Stop the rot: organise against Kinnock!
"KINNOCK takes on the left"
was the headline of the London (Evening) Standard" Wednesday September Although this was particularly related to the vote at the TUC on the miners' motion, it sums up Kinnock's whole strategy.
The election defeat of 1983 meant that Labour was faced with choices -either go further from the '83 election manifesto and campaign for socialist policies, or retreat to
policies as the (supposedly) easy way to win electoral support. himself has never pretended anything else but "regaining the mid. die ground" - winning the argument while disavowing direct struggle against the Tories. Of course consensus policies themselves are those acceptable bourgeoisie and the media: they are not plucked out of nowhere. It is a long hard task to make respectable as an alternative party of government, but Kinnock has tackled it manfully - distancing himself from the miners' strike, silence railworkers' struggle, a refusal to repeal anti-union laws and reinstate cuts... he's done it all.
Previous Labour oppositions have made radical "left" noises in the safe knowledge that they were the only alternatives to the Tories. Kinnock, with the 11S0 of the Alliance, would have had to put programmatic flesh on the rhetorical one. Instead, and it was never going to be otherwise, he chose the option of dropping all semblance of left
on 4. leader writers. the "safest" of situations (GCHO) and its "consensus" capitalism but its Kinnock labour movement bureaucrats, life is comfortable as they are, and the class struggle too dangerous. They might "moral" be pushed out of the way by a work- ing class recognising them for what they are: one of the most important upholders of capitalist society. the to gle, while some "social justice" Labour Kinnock's strategy. policies and methods which threaten the basic "status quo" and intimidate on the those who oppose this into submis- sion, and expulsion if they won't lie down. front bench have only been willing to challenge the Tories on issues where they believe they have a clear moral and popular Liberal/SDP health and social security cuts, local democracy (though God forbid they should support any struggle against cuts) and where chance of breaking the "Wets" from the "Thatcherites" Socialist Viewpoint, No. 7, September 1985. Poge 7
By PETE FIRMIN policies and challenging the Alliance for the hearts and minds of Guardian Manoeuvred into position by the "new realists" of the TUC it is hardly Labour surprising that Kinnock shares their basic preconceptions; rejection of tion, class struggle in all but the logical conclusion: not the reform of overthrow. For refusal From rejection of the class strug maintaining a belief in and follows the central thrust of Throw out those reformists decline. crease In Parliament Kinnock and his advantage, such as deed, they see a fair • The unpopular
JOBS ANI issues (miners, Belgrano, etc.) are left to principled back-benchers to raise, often with the open disapproval of the leadership.
Kinnock's "new" programme, A
Vew Partnership, A New Britain resurrects all the traits of previous
governments. Whilst Socialism does not get a single men-
"Britain's problems" "partnership not confrontation" "a new sense of common purpose", "putting Bri tain back to work" and benefitting all our people" are recurring themes. Four million unemployed, low wages, deteriorating health and social services, etc., are not seen as an intrinsic part of capitalism but as a result of ill-will on the part of the Tories. A
Wto recognise that monetarists' programme is not fuelled by malice but by an understanding of the fundamental problems of British capitalism means that class itself, let alone class struggle, is denied and all that is needed is the good will of the
Wto reverse Britain's
The drive to bring down wages, in-
productivity, break strength of the unions and reduce the amount spent on social services is essential to the restructuring of the economy in order to make it more profitable, with high unemployment a basic weapon in forcing them down the throat of the working class. In-
Othe Callaghan and Wilson governments recognised the same problems and were no way backward in trying to achieve the same. The difference between them (and Kinnock)
and Thatcher is not one of ends, but of means.
Where Thatcher sees confrontation as the only way to increase exploitation and profitability, Labour's right hope to achieve the same by cooperation and consensus. That sections of British capitalists agree doesn't prove the co-operators rights, it merely shows that if bosses believe they can achieve the same ends without conflict they prefer to do so
The "programme" is vague in the extreme, but even so a few home truths occasionally slip in, such as:
"Despite the 30 years of slow progress, Britain was still — even before the present Government came to office - an unequal society." SINCE the expulsion of the Militant Editorial Board there have been no nationally determined witch-hunts, leading many on the left to believe that it is no longer a major issue and that the few cases they hear of are isolated exceptions without wider significance.
However. the overall picture is very different. Not only are there many ongoing examples of constituencies expelling. suspending, refusing to accept new members or transfers because their politics do not fit, but important larger bodies have been swung behind the witch-hunt.
NUPE and the Welsh