MILTON SHAIN: Shivambu wants to destabilise SA, much as Zuma did KZN

Sometimes we should take politicians at their word. Sometimes they mean what they say.

Today we know we should have heeded Hitler’s words and warnings. In Mein Kampf (published in two volumes in 1925 and 1927) the Nazi leader ascribed international significance to the elimination of Jews, which “must necessarily be a bloody process”.

Years later, with tensions rising in Europe, Hitler told the Reichstag that the outbreak of war would mean the end of European Jewry — the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe”.

Floyd Shivambu is no Hitler. He is infatuated with “scientific Marxism”, as opposed to obsessively fulminating against it as Hitler did. Indeed, Shivambu is steeped in the intricacies of Marxism-Leninism and schooled in the byways of “historical materialism”.

Even so, we should take note of his writings and listen to his words. These betray a mind imbued with revolutionary zeal. This was proudly on display when he outlined his reasons for leaving the EFF. It is a “revolutionary gesture that will unite progressive forces behind an agenda to work for progressive and revolutionary change”, he told the media.

For Shivambu, economic revolution is paramount. It is the unfinished business of transition. As he wrote in his master’s thesis, mining, finance and black capitalist interests have “reigned supreme over the transition from apartheid to an inclusive political system and notably reigned supreme over the ANC-led liberation movement’s economic aspirations”.

To Shivambu the government of national unity (GNU) has consolidated this trend. What is to be done? The EFF has run out of political steam. In the words of veteran editor and columnist Mondli Makhanya, the brand of Julius Malema “is losing its glitter”. Shivambu knows this. He also knows revolutionary time is running out — and not only because the National Prosecuting Authority has him in its sights for his alleged connection to the VBS Mutual Bank heist. It is primarily ideology that drives him.

While reports of disagreements between Shivambu and Malema on participation in the GNU are no doubt true, the rift is far deeper. In essence, Shivambu adheres to a Marxist-Leninist critique. He opposes incrementalism and does not respect Malema’s — albeit grudging — support for constitutionalism.

While Malema may want to nationalise “the mines, banks and other strategic sectors of the economy” and expropriate “SA’s land without compensation for equal redistribution in use”, he wishes to do it incrementally and within the bounds of law.

Shivambu has no time for such niceties today. His new home, Jacob Zuma’s MK party, has provided an opportunity and an agreeable revolutionary home for the former EFF deputy president. He especially appreciates Zuma’s views on the constitution, which they both see as constraining “the political will of the majority”.

The MK party’s “political manifesto”, which identifies “the true wielders of power” in SA as “unelected institutions and those with money” is music to Shivambu’s ears. It is perfectly aligned to his Marxist-Leninist Weltanschauung.

Given Shivambu’s knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, one can hazard a guess that he recognises in Malema the other Julius. I am referring to Julius Martov, Lenin’s one-time collaborator. Both Martov and Lenin oversaw a schism in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903 that resulted in Martov becoming the leader of the Menshevik or minority faction against Lenin’s majority Bolsheviks.

Despite being presented at the time as a clash over party membership rules, the rift was in reality rooted in theoretical differences. Lenin was “hard” and Martov “soft”, wrote Trotsky. In classic Marxist tradition, Martov anticipated a proletarian revolution only after capitalism had matured. Lenin, on the other hand, wished to hasten change through a centralised or disciplined vanguard party.

Crucial decisions would be made by a narrow elite. For Lenin, bourgeois capitalism — in effect inherent in Martov’s stance — would do nothing for the Russian proletariat. At best, it would produce a Russian version of the German Social Democrats, who he abhorred.

Ideological divide

In many ways, Shivambu’s break from Malema resembles Lenin’s break from Martov. While strong personalities are at play, the ideological divide between the two is deep. The MK party promises action. The quicker the GNU shows results, the greater the pressure will be on the broader “progressive” camp. Shivambu feels the urgency Lenin felt in 1903 when he clashed with Martov. Within a year of the split, Lenin called the Mensheviks “traitors” to the Marxist cause.

The MK party’s feudal and reactionary ethno-nationalism will pose no problem for Shivambu. He can live with what Lenin referred to as the “zigzags and roundabouts” of history. Nimble footwork is necessary. Lenin’s 1902 pamphlet “What is to be done?” serves as his template. In this seminal document — penned a year before he broke with Martov — Lenin warned that the proletariat would not spontaneously be politicised around worker struggles. Only a vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries could conscientise the workers.

Shivambu understands this. He wants to destabilise the country, much as Zuma destabilised KwaZulu-Natal and parts of Gauteng in July 2021. The government would do well to take him seriously. Perhaps the arrest of one-time MK youth leader Bonginkosi Khanyile, for allegedly inciteful remarks made before the May election is indicative of a new mood in the justice department.

Shivambu will be more circumspect and subtle than Khanyile. The bottom line, though, is that he abhors constitutionalism and Western democracy. “I will never compromise my commitment to true emancipation and Marxist-Leninist ideological lenses to view and understand society,” he wrote in his resignation letter to Malema.

These lenses would have placed him on Lenin’s side in 1903. The question is, will Malema follow in the footsteps of the other Julius? Will he become the Martov of progressive politics in SA, a forgotten man of history? In the words of Leon Trotsky, “one of the most tragic figures of the revolutionary movement”?

• Shain is emeritus professor in the department of historical studies at the University of Cape Town.