Not dangerous, just corrupt and wildly idealistic. The EFF manifesto makes for a wild read with all the crazy promises and policies proposed, many of which have very little to do with Marxism. Nationalisation might be one of their few good proposed policies.
Already the first few pages of the document listing their accomplishments are full of contradictions and exaggerations:
The EFF got former President Mr Jacob Zuma to pay back money spent on non-security-related upgrades at his homestead in Nkandla.
Is that why the EFF tried to court Zuma and get him to join the EFF as a partymember?
The EFF held a successful national shutdown on the 20th of March 2023 to demand a stable supply of electricity and the resignation of Cyril Ramaphosa.
Lmao! I don’t think I saw a single EFF member engaged in this “shutdown” outside of the city centres of South Africa’s capitals.
The EFF has gained credibility at institutions of higher
learning by constantly winning SRC elections.
The EFF has built the confidence of black people and
confronted racism everywhere where it encounters it.
Very refreshing to see a sober perspective on the EFF. There are plenty of good things about them, but ultimately they’re still servants of capital so I can’t see them escaping the problems that plague the ANC.
It’s worth it to remember that the ANC also campaigned on a platform of nationalisation and job creation up until 1994, but when push came to shove they capitulated to neoliberal reforms. I don’t have much faith the same won’t happen to the EFF, but as you said, alteast they’re good at making the racists scared :)
Nationalisation might be one of their few good proposed policies along with land reform.
And that’s all that is needed. A complete reformation of the relations of production will have a profound effect in elevating the productive forces.
Your critique on the manifesto seems lazy because most bourgeois democracies and their parties over-inflate and exaggerate in their manifestoes. Doesn’t say much about their class character.
Many things can happen when a large mass movement built on consensus is in charge.
I am not saying the EFF is one either, but the critique you bring forward doesn’t showcase your points well.
Bringing back military conscription? For what?
It is answered in the quote you mentioned.
offering life skills and discipline.
Teaching the masses life skills is GOOD.
Military conscription (which in the cited quote doesn’t necessarily imply “conscription”) is not only about invading other countries or protecting sovereignty. That’s colonizer talk.
The army can help with a lot of people’s projects, mobilizing resources for the betterment of the country. Furthermore, most places that have conscription also have options to participate in other governmental bodies, like firefighting. It is not strictly just into the army.
Furthermore, all AES countries have mandatory military conscription.
The countries that do not have military conscription are often those tainted with liberal individualism, prioritising the rights of the “individual” rather than the service to the community especially wrt to Global South countries.
many of which have very little to do with Marxism.
May I get specific examples of which policies “are not relevant” to Marxism? And I want something that is unequivocally and undeniably for the empowerment of the comprador classes and Capital.
Anytime a government can promise specific numbers of something everyone understands that to be a goal. Whether they are competent enough to meet the goal is another matter.
If one wants to nationalize the economy and you can command the government, the army is a good tool to use. All armies always have been logistics managing institutions. Through them they can bulk purchase whatever products they want from domestic industries and distribute them at whatever price they want.
Also the one thing that anyone needs to make sure that they stay in power is to keep the millitary on the side of your political institution. A loyal army is better than a neutral army which is better than having an army hostile to you. This is especially true if foreign powers want you to do things differently.
Of course one can run things poorly (regardless of ideology), but I don’t see how any of this stuff listed is serving the interests of foreign capital.
Your complaints about not being directing the communist movement, thats not necessarily the worst thing. If the movement can get them in power and they can implement what the movement wants more than the bourgeoisie parties can, thats GOOD!
Not dangerous, just corrupt and wildly idealistic. The EFF manifesto makes for a wild read with all the crazy promises and policies proposed, many of which have very little to do with Marxism. Nationalisation might be one of their few good proposed policies.
https://effonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/A5-EFF-2024-Manifesto-full-version.pdf
Already the first few pages of the document listing their accomplishments are full of contradictions and exaggerations:
Is that why the EFF tried to court Zuma and get him to join the EFF as a partymember?
Lmao! I don’t think I saw a single EFF member engaged in this “shutdown” outside of the city centres of South Africa’s capitals.
Ok this is at least true.
Very refreshing to see a sober perspective on the EFF. There are plenty of good things about them, but ultimately they’re still servants of capital so I can’t see them escaping the problems that plague the ANC. It’s worth it to remember that the ANC also campaigned on a platform of nationalisation and job creation up until 1994, but when push came to shove they capitulated to neoliberal reforms. I don’t have much faith the same won’t happen to the EFF, but as you said, alteast they’re good at making the racists scared :)
And that’s all that is needed. A complete reformation of the relations of production will have a profound effect in elevating the productive forces.
Your critique on the manifesto seems lazy because most bourgeois democracies and their parties over-inflate and exaggerate in their manifestoes. Doesn’t say much about their class character.
Many things can happen when a large mass movement built on consensus is in charge.
I am not saying the EFF is one either, but the critique you bring forward doesn’t showcase your points well.
It is answered in the quote you mentioned.
Teaching the masses life skills is GOOD.
Military conscription (which in the cited quote doesn’t necessarily imply “conscription”) is not only about invading other countries or protecting sovereignty. That’s colonizer talk.
The army can help with a lot of people’s projects, mobilizing resources for the betterment of the country. Furthermore, most places that have conscription also have options to participate in other governmental bodies, like firefighting. It is not strictly just into the army.
Furthermore, all AES countries have mandatory military conscription.
The countries that do not have military conscription are often those tainted with liberal individualism, prioritising the rights of the “individual” rather than the service to the community especially wrt to Global South countries.
May I get specific examples of which policies “are not relevant” to Marxism? And I want something that is unequivocally and undeniably for the empowerment of the comprador classes and Capital.
Anytime a government can promise specific numbers of something everyone understands that to be a goal. Whether they are competent enough to meet the goal is another matter.
If one wants to nationalize the economy and you can command the government, the army is a good tool to use. All armies always have been logistics managing institutions. Through them they can bulk purchase whatever products they want from domestic industries and distribute them at whatever price they want.
Also the one thing that anyone needs to make sure that they stay in power is to keep the millitary on the side of your political institution. A loyal army is better than a neutral army which is better than having an army hostile to you. This is especially true if foreign powers want you to do things differently.
Of course one can run things poorly (regardless of ideology), but I don’t see how any of this stuff listed is serving the interests of foreign capital.
Your complaints about not being directing the communist movement, thats not necessarily the worst thing. If the movement can get them in power and they can implement what the movement wants more than the bourgeoisie parties can, thats GOOD!