Not only the ecological crisis involves all major balances of the planet - Climate change,
pollution and radioactive chemicals that affect biodiversity, etc. - But its likely
consequences will be devastating for humanity itself: critical risks food crises, health
risks for future generations, forced migrations of populations, etc.. ---- Faced with this
crisis struggles to defend the wider environment are not up to par. While fighting against
a nuclear plant against an industry that pollutes the environment, against the
construction of a highway or airport extra is legitimate and necessary, the combination of
these struggles point provides no real solution to the ecological crisis. To date there is
simply a movement of relocation of polluting industries and the development of green
capitalism whose only motivation is to create new opportunities for capitalist profits.
A conception of ecology limited to the protection of the environment will hardly slow down
the destruction of the planet. Human activities must be completely reoriented. In Congress
Agen in 2006, Alternative libertarian rightly stated: "ecological challenge facing three
revolutions are necessary" - revolution in international trade revolution in consumption
patterns, revolution in production methods.
We know that within capitalist society, no significant changes in these critical human
societies will be possible. Social inequalities are in fact at the root of these
destructive human societies on the planet. This is why anti-capitalism is inseparable from
the struggle ecologist. Of course we're talking about anti-capitalism, which is not just a
change at the head of the State, such as that of the Stalinist parties who have built in
the former so-called "communist" state capitalism even more destructive for the
environment. We speak of a profound questioning of capitalism by generalized
self-management of the economy and society. This should lead us to completely revise the
model of social organization. It is resize the development of human societies to allow a
balance between productive capacity and local needs. Several considerations are to be
taken to not be satisfied with mere criticism rhetorical question but the pseudo comfort
in which the capitalist system we install. Far adjust supply and demand for all types of
control mechanisms such as markets, have to be tackled to restore direct links between
producers / consumers and matrices / matrices and solve the adequacy of production
necessary social and societal .
To make a significant contribution to the ecological struggle Alternative libertarian
must: demonstrate the link between the struggles against unequal society and ecological
struggles, in-depth analysis constraints and changes in capitalism. The analysis should
include both economic and ecological considerations and cultural - "cognitive capitalism"
- the essence of this system is to transform all aspects of life into a commodity; bring
environmental concerns into the whole movement social: in union struggles for housing,
health ... For we know that the opposition can occur between certain ecological struggles
and, for example, some struggles for employment is the result of non-delivery relevant
interests of the capitalists and not taking into account the real interests of workers and
employees. It is essential to carry arm design theory of ecology cuts across all social
struggles. Provide turnkey solutions is not necessarily the responsibility of a political
organization but focus the debate within the trade unions, even some contradictions point
should be. We must also work to radicalize the ecological consciousness that develops on a
background of green capitalism, without any sectarianism. This is a prerequisite for
building a mass intervention, describe and disseminate alternative acts even imperfect
(scop, amap, etc.). integrating the environmental dimension into the discussion. A
self-managed company may limit the health consequences for workers and the environment for
those without removing them. The transverse dimension of thinking is a priority to be an
actress of a cultural revolution involving all forms of low consumerism today advocating
elements of lifestyle and working alternative to those imposed by capitalist society.
Firstly, AL must acquire a culture collective environmentalist; wear a reflection on the
place of humanity on the planet, physically and psychologically dependent on its
relationship with the rest of the living world can not live permanently placing himself
"in outside "the living world. It has no future in that as part of the living world and
integrated in an ecological balance found. Debates on the footprint of human activity is
just beginning. The concept of decay, very popular in the environmental community must not
lead to a choice between growth and voluntary simplicity. The main problem is the lack of
articulation between theory and practice. This is because there are now more real
environmental movement organized within the libertarian movement. AL to give full meaning
to the questioning of productivism and advance based on what already exists.
Capitalism, having invented the concept of sustainable development states to reconcile the
economy, growth, and social environment through the use of new technologies, will continue
its regeneration after its neoliberal phase, through the development of the green economy.
Indeed, the Rio +20 Conference, the United Nations Programme for Environment (UNEP)
introduced the global commodification of nature. It claims to give a value to any
environment tangible or intangible. At this conference, the inability of the concept of
sustainable development to resolve the contradictions of capitalism was recorded. To start
a new cycle of growth it is to extend the logic of the market for the right to pollute by
assigning a value to the living and to the mineral world with a system of compensation for
destruction of nature. We must understand this new struggle and organize.
To advance to face all these challenges, Libertarian Alternative adopts a work plan for
the next two years, the achievement will be followed by the new secretariat intervention
Ecology - transformation of the former commission ecology - created at this conference.
Posted January 30, 2013 by commission congress
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:57:00 +0200
From: a-infos-en@ainfos.ca
To: en <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>
Subject: (en) Anarkismo.net: Southern Africa, Reaping what you sow:
reflections on the Western Cape farm workers strike by Shawn Hattingh
- ZACF
Message-ID: <mailman.216.1360439841.24843.a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
The series of strikes and protests that recently took place in and around farms in South
Africa?s Western Cape Province was fuelled by the deep-seated anger and frustration that
workers feel. On a daily basis, farm workers face not only appalling wages, bad living
conditions and precarious work, but also widespread racism, intimidation and humiliation.
The extent of the oppressive conditions run deep and it is not uncommon for workers to
even be beaten by farm-owners and managers for perceived ?transgressions?. Indeed, life
for workers in the rural areas has always been harsh, but over the last two decades it has
in many ways gotten even worse and poverty has in many cases grown. ---- In fact, since
1994 farm-owning capitalists have been on the attack. Approximately 2 million farm
dwellers and workers have been evicted from farms since then in South Africa [1].
Many of these people have been forced into townships in the rural areas, where they have
become either unemployed or casual or seasonal workers on farms. Services in these
townships are also of an appalling standard with most people living in shacks or
dilapidated Reconstruction and Development houses. Coupled to this, there has been a
proliferation of labour brokers exploiting people?s desperate need for work, and piecework
has been re-introduced on many farms. Farm owners obviously benefit from this situation:
many no longer have to provide accommodation for workers, and hiring people on a casual
basis or based on piecework keeps wage bills low. Thus, whether workers are seasonal,
casual or permanent, life in South Africa?s rural areas is defined by exploitation and
extreme oppression. It is no exaggeration to say that farm workers, who are mostly black,
are viewed and treated as sub-humans by farm owners, managers and labour brokers. It is in
this context that farm workers in the Western Cape rose up for the first time in decades.
For once this saw farm owners and managers really reaping what they had sown
This article examines, from an anarchist-communist perspective, the issues surrounding the
farm workers strike including the workers? actions and demands, and the responses of the
state and bosses to this. It, however, also looks at the role that some union officials
and local politicians played, and how this impacted upon the strikes, including the
sometimes contradictory role of officials from the Congress of South African Trade Unions
(COSATU). Finally, suggestions around how the struggle of farm workers can be taken
forward in the aftermath of the strikes are made with a focus of building struggles and
movements under the control of workers.
Background
The strikes and accompanying protest action in the Western Cape?s rural areas initially
began on the 27th of August 2012 when workers on farms surrounding De Doorns downed tools.
Poor pay, bad living conditions and unfair labour practices were their main grievances.
Protests soon erupted in Stofland (Dustland), the township outside of De Doorns where most
of these workers live in abject poverty. As part of this, running battles erupted between
strikers and the police and people barricaded the national highway and railway that runs
past the township. The appalling conditions on other farms and rural townships in the
Western Cape soon meant that hundreds of thousands of workers across the province soon
joined the strike. This saw protests spread to almost every rural town in the south
Western Cape.
By early November a number of strike committees had been established by mainly, but not
exclusively, casual and seasonal workers in many of these areas. It was clear at this
point that the farm workers strike had been largely self-organised and had initially taken
place largely outside of trade unions and political parties. In fact, trade unions in the
farming sector are relatively small, with as little as 3% of farm workers in the Western
Cape belonging to a union [2].
Along with the initial formation of strike committees, a demand also emerged from workers
that the minimum wage for farm workers should be increased from R 69 a day to R 150 a day.
Added to this, workers also demanded paid maternity leave, an end to labour brokers, an
end to piece work, rent free housing, a moratorium on evictions, and an end to police
brutality in the rural areas [3]. In the early stages of the strike, the police were
overstretched, and both the state and farmers were firmly on the back foot. At this point,
the real prospect existed that the workers could win substantial gains through the strike
as it was gaining momentum and spreading.
During the initial phase of the strike wave, local politicians and prominent trade union
officials also waded into the battle. With the entrance of these players into the strike,
the situation became far more messy with political agendas playing themselves out and
personalities often attempting to jostle for the limelight to increase their and their
organisations? profiles. As part of this, the strike was suspended undemocratically
several times by certain union officials, the first being in November: the very point when
the strike was gaining momentum (how and why it was suspended will be looked at below).
Yet despite repeated suspensions the strike repeatedly flared-up. Indeed, in January 2013
the strike recommenced, which saw protests once again erupt across rural towns in the
Western Cape and battles once again rage between the police and protestors. What has
become clear, therefore, is that despite the strike being suspended several times, and
recently called off by Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) in late January,
workers are going to continue to fight. In fact, plans are underway by farm workers to
march on Parliament in the next few weeks.
The messy entry of BAWUSA and COSATU officials into the strike
While the strike was initially self-organised outside of the unions, officials from the
BAWSI Agricultural Workers Union of South Africa (BAWUSA) and the Congress of South
African Trade Unions (COSATU) ? along with its affiliate the Food and Allied Workers Union
(FAWU) ? soon entered the arena, particularly in De Doorns. Their entry gradually saw a
shift of power away from the workers? themselves and the strike committees that had been
formed. In terms of this, the officials from these unions started to become the public
?face? of the strike, and at times they were able influence the strike in profound and
often unhealthy ways. In fact, their actions were not always to the benefit of workers in
practice.
The reason why BAWUSA officials were able to enter the strike is that although the union
is small, it has had a presence amongst some farm workers in De Doorns for a number of
years and its general-secretary, Nosey Pieterse, has helped farm workers with eviction
cases in the past. Through these connections BAWUSA officials soon gained a foothold in
the strike in De Doorns. In fact, Pieterse along with the COSATU regional secretary, Tony
Ehrenreich, were also soon singled out by the media as the unofficial spokespersons of the
strike because of their already existing public profiles. Both of them, therefore, played
a prominent role in the strikes; and came to largely overshadow the initial strike
committees that had been formed by workers.
Although BAWUSA is a trade union and supported the strike, it was established by aspiring
black capitalists within the wine industry through an organisation called the Black
Association of the Wine and Spirit Industry (BAWSI), which it is still linked to. The aim
of BAWSI and BAWUSA, therefore, has been to ultimately push for greater black involvement
in the wine industry across class lines. It is clear that BAWSI and BAWUSA officials saw
the strike as an opportunity to grow the profile of these organisations and its officials,
like Nosey Pieterse, soon manoeuvred into prominence. BAWUSA?s agenda during the strikes,
however, was to negotiate a settlement with the state and farm owners through dialogue.
While it led demonstrations in De Doorns on a number of occasions, these often seemed to
be a secondary tactic with the primary objective being to enter into negotiations that
included unions, the state and farm-owners (with the strike committees having no direct
representation in the negotiations). The cross-class nature of BAWUSA was also evident in
terms of Pieterse himself. Pieterse is an emerging capitalist farmer, and through BAWSI he
has an interest in one of the largest wine companies in the Western Cape, KWV. Due to its
cross-class make-up, the commitment that BAWSI/BAWUSA officials have in building a
struggle based on worker control and direct democracy is probably questionable, despite
their support for the strike [4].
COSATU officials from the start also supported the strike, and through FAWU it had some
presence in De Doorns. COSATU officials viewed the strike as a way of finally making
inroads in terms of union membership on the farms. COSATU from the start, however, made it
explicit that it did not want a similar situation as had occurred on the platinum mines,
where workers took action outside of the unions and set up their own independent
structures. COSATU made this explicit when it stated: ?The unions are trying to avoid a
Marikana situation where workers act without guidance from unions, and resolutions are not
found in negotiations? [5]. Thus, COSATU wanted to gain leadership over the strikes and
its agenda was to push for a negotiated settlement along with driving the strikes into the
confines of the existing labour legislation framework. Indeed, Ehrenriech himself added:
"When workers take their own action without direction and guidance, that is when the
danger comes about?they don't understand the parameters of the law and all the other
stuff? [6]. Hence, COSATU?s interest was not to build a struggle based on direct democracy
and militancy. So although it supported the strike, it pushed for dialogue between unions,
the state and the farmers? organisation ? in the form of AgriSA ? to resolve the strike.
In the process though, the workers and their strike committees were excluded from the
negotiations.
The fact that Tony Ehrenreich is also a well-known ANC politician (in legislative
opposition at a provincial level in the Western Cape) with a high media profile, gave him
a major influence in the strike ? despite most farm workers having no affiliation to
COSATU or its ally, the ANC. COSATU and Ehrenreich used this profile to, on a number of
occasions, suspend the strike and ultimately call it off, without consulting or getting
mandates from workers themselves. In fact, COSATU officials unilaterally called for the
suspension of the strike when they deemed it useful or necessary. Perhaps the most
important occasion was in November 2012 when the strike was spreading and gaining
momentum. At that point, COSATU suspended the strike unilaterally, in order to try and
negotiate a settlement with farm owners and to allow time for the state to supposedly
intervene to legally raise the minimum wage.
Thus, both BAWUSA and COSATU wanted to negotiate a settlement through dialogue, and
suspended the strike unilaterally on a number of occasions to follow this path. Yet, this
strategy largely ended in failure and excluded the workers themselves ? they were
supposedly ?represented? by the unions, but not directly. The limitations of dialogue by
union officials were perhaps best highlighted by the fact that the state point blank
refused to raise the minimum wage ? a demand of both COSATU and BAWUSA at the negotiating
table ? until it is up for review in February 2013. Likewise, AgriSA refused to reach any
national or regional settlement that would see an increase in the minimum wage. Where
there were gains, for instance where some farmers offered higher wages, these could mainly
be attributed to the pressure farmers felt from the strikes and protests; and not the
negotiating skills of union officials. When the state finally announced in February that
the minimum wage for farm workers would be raised to R 105, this was also mainly due to
pressure the strike created, and not due to slick dialogue by union officials. The
problem, too, was that each time the strike was undemocratically suspended by union
officials it was difficult, but not impossible for workers to regain the momentum.
The fact that COSATU could, however, unilaterally suspend the strike on a number of
occasions ? to follow a path of what amounted to social dialogue ? also reveals much about
the strength of the fledgling strike committees. Although they initially played a major
role in starting the strike in a number of areas, the strike committees simply did not
have the strength to counter COSATU?s calls to suspend the strike, and workers gradually
drifted back to work when the calls were made. A strike coalition was also established
during the strike by unions and progressive non-governmental organisations to build and
bring strike committees together so that workers could control the strike. Some of the
unions and organisations in the coalition, like the Commercial Stevedore Agricultural and
Allied Workers Union (CSAAWU) and the Surplus People?s Project (SPP) have a long history
of attempting to build workers? committees and forums in the rural areas. However, while
the coalition did bring some strike committees on board, and helped strengthen some on the
ground, many areas remained without any such committees, and the coalition did not
effectively become a platform controlled by workers themselves to coordinate the strike
(despite the coalition?s intention to facilitate this). This meant there was no strongly
organised and effective counter-weight to the COSATU and BAWUSA officials and their
agenda. Indeed, COSATU ? despite participating in the coalition ? largely ignored the
resolutions and the mandates that did emerge out of it. Rather COSATU unilaterally
followed the path that its leadership thought was appropriate, and in effect sidelined
other organisations including in many cases the strike committees and other organisations
in the coalition.
Perhaps also playing into this situation, was the fact that farm workers do not have a
long history of organising or undertaking major struggles, unlike mineworkers, in South
Africa. When a major organisation, in the form of COSATU, suspended the strike, most
workers went along with it. Certainly many workers were confused by these calls to stop
and start the strike and many felt disgruntled with it. Yet they did not effectively mount
a challenge to it. This could be due to a lack of a history of sustained struggle, limited
experience with workers? direct democracy and the confidence that these bring.
The reaction of the state and bosses to the series of strikes
While the state and bosses were involved in on-and-off negotiations with COSATU and BAWUSA
officials, they used the numerous suspensions of the strike that accompanied this to go on
the offensive. Across the Western Cape, and in the aftermath of the first suspension of
the strike, thousands of farm workers were fired or suspended. Many more had disciplinary
actions taken against them. When the strikes recommenced, some farm owners even locked
workers in on the farms, preventing them from striking. Added to this, some farm owners
hired private security to intimidate workers. In one instance in Robertson, a farmer drove
around with a shotgun threatening to shoot CSAAWU workers that were out on strike. As part
of their propaganda offensive, many farm owners threatened to also mechanise in the future
and lay-off workers. Some of the registered unions, such as CSAAWU, also now face legal
battles in the aftermath of the strike and some farm-owners are threatening to use these
unions? legal status to sue them for damages. The state too used the suspensions of the
strike to repeatedly strengthen its forces. While it was initially overstretched during
November 2012, when it was unable to cope with all of the protest actions, it used the
first suspension of the strike to re-enforce police units in the area and deploy a
Tactical Response Team (TRT) to undermine the strike and end the protests.
Many of the police units seem to have relished the task of attempting to end the protests
surrounding the farm workers? strike. At least 3 strikers were killed at the hands of the
police. Tear gas, stun-grenades and rubber bullets were also fired at strikers in almost
every rural town in the Western Cape. On one occasion during the strikes in Wolsely, the
police started using live ammunition when they ran out of rubber bullets. Townships where
farm workers live were also raided at night, and a number of people were threatened and
beaten up in their houses by the police. During one incident workers that had been
arrested also reported that police fired tear gas canisters into the police vans in which
they were being held. The National Prosecuting Authority also instructed state prosecutors
to oppose bail for workers and activists that were arrested during the latter stages of
the strikes and protest actions.
Of course, the role of the police and the state in general during the strikes was to
protect private property and the welfare of the capitalist farmers. So despite the fact
that a number of local ANC councillors at times supported the strike, due to the dynamics
of local oppositional politics, the ANC-headed state in practice backed the farmers. Thus,
although there has sometimes been tensions in South Africa between sections of the ruling
class in the form of top officials in the state (who are mainly black) and capitalist
farmers (who are mainly white), the state has played a massive role in protecting farmers
against the strikers. While there may, therefore, be internal squabbling in the ruling
class, they have united when faced with workers rising up, and they have used the state,
amongst other things, to try and crush the strikers. As Bakunin pointed out this is what
the state is designed to do when he said ?the state is authority, domination, and force,
organised by the property-owning and so-called enlighten classes against the masses? [7]
and its role is to protect and maintain by force the privileges of the ruling class. It
is, therefore, not a neutral entity or negotiating partner that will simply intervene to
help farm workers, as COSATU and BAWUSA officials hoped, but rather an enemy of the
strikers. Indeed, its forces will gun down workers if necessary to protect the interests
of the capitalist farmers; as they did at Marikana to protect the interests of mine
bosses. As such, the state has to be forced from the outside by the workers through
struggle to meet their demands and not through a reliance on social dialogue.
Forward to workers? power
Despite the internal and external challenges, the farm workers? strike was both historical
and in many cases heroic. One of the poorest sections of society finally rose up to fight
for justice and better wages. While the strike has been called off for now, it is also
clear farm workers are going to embark on strikes and protests in the near future ? many
still want R 150 and their other demands met. So while the battle is over for now, the war
is still being fought.
The strike also was successful in highlighting the appalling conditions facing the poor in
the rural areas, and it has probably changed the outlook of farm workers forever. As such,
the strikes that have taken place on the farms and rural towns offer a great opportunity
to begin to build a militant workers? movement in the rural areas. Certainly, there is a
massive need for militant worker-controlled structures and radical directly democratic
unions on the farms and in the rural towns that can fight for not only reforms, but
eventually revolution.
Perhaps the task for now is for worker activists, activists and organisations that are for
workers? power and control to put their energy into contributing to building and
maintaining the worker and strike committees that have emerged and to put energy into
expanding them into new areas. This too includes building the coalition into a structure
controlled by workers. It is important too that a culture of direct democracy be
consolidated amongst activists on the farms and in the rural townships as part of this.
Certainly, if the strike and workers? committees that have emerged are expanded and
consolidated, this could enable workers to take the struggle forward in the future and
direct it themselves. A start has been made during the recent strikes and this should be
built on. Even if the current strike does not resume, future battles lie ahead and it is
important that worker-controlled directly democratic structures are there to take this
forward. Hence, the battle must also be seen as a long-term one.
In the aftermath of the strikes there is also an opportunity for militant unions, like
CSAAWU, to grow and bring more workers into the union. The problem faced by such unions in
the past is that it has been hard to recruit on the farms due to intimidation and being
denied access to the farms. The climate in the aftermath of the strikes may have changed
this. Unions such as CSAAWU could also use the strategy of recruiting workers and
community members in the townships first, where the major battles during the strikes were
centred around, and then use this as a spring board to recruit amongst workers that live
on the farms. As battles go forward, strong and militant, worker-controlled unions will be
vital.
It is also important that within the committees a revolutionary counter-culture, based on
working class pride, be built going forward. This could help sustain people in struggle
and counter any opportunists that may wish to use the movement for their own ends. Coupled
to this, radical popular revolutionary education needs to be built.
What is also important is that in trying to build a worker-controlled movement, the likes
of the BAWUSA and COSATU officials would have to be engaged in a political battle. Their
ideology of attempting to work with the state, as if it were an ally or neutral entity,
would have to be effectively countered, along with their practices of undermining direct
democracy. This is vital for when new strikes and protests erupt. Hopefully, workers have
also drawn their own conclusions about the necessity of struggles remaining under their
control and not under that of high profile individuals. An opportunity has been opened by
the strikes, and it should not be left for the COSATU and BAWUSA officials to fill, but
rather it must be filled by workers? power.
Notes:
1.
http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20080304-farm-evictions-briefings-deputy-minister-nkuzi-development-transvaal-
2. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/23/south-africa-farmworkers-dismal-dangerous-lives
3. Xali, M. Western Cape farm workers courageous struggle. Workers? World News. February 2012
4. http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/strike-leader-is-also-farm-owner-1.1454850
5.
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-14-one-killed-in-farm-unrest-before-cosatu-calls-end-to-strike
6. http://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-25-00-farm-unions-pull-together-for-now
7. Bakunin, M. 1992. The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871. AK Press, p.140
Related Link: http://zabalaza.net
Home »
» Southern Africa, Reaping what you sow: reflections on the Western Cape farm workers strike by Shawn Hattingh - ZACF