The Left that is not left at all

The agenda of the Conference of the Left remains ideologically murky, even contested and it may be forced to navigate choppy waters in its attempt to resolve intractable hurdles created by the country’s political realities. The conference was convened at the Birchwood Conference Centre in Boksburg, east of Johannesburg, at the weekend. The reason for the convergence of politically disparate parties is to “unite progressive forces to fight deepening inequality, mass unemployment and capitalist dominance”. At the end of three days of meetings, the conference committed itself to forming a Council of the Left, whose focus is to facilitate joint campaigns, including the sharing of resources and agitation against the government of national unity (GNU). Crucially, accountability among political entities is an essential ingredient of the newly created body. But if the Conference of the Left is to meet its objective of creating a common agenda, what could be the biggest challenge? Is it possible to create consensus among disparate organisations drawn from different political and ideological backgrounds? The creation of a cohesive socialist state appears crucial, among other objectives, yet it requires ideological flexibility rather than rigidity, as well as tolerance that allows diversity and dissenting voices to find an outlet. The general secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), Irvin Jim, was candid in claiming that he did not view the MK Party as a socialist-oriented party. He argued that a true understanding of socialism required a strict Marxist-Leninist framework, something he wished all participants would understand. What this assertion means and how it may be interpreted by the MK Party, may be difficult to fathom. Yet the organisation’s deputy president, Tony Yengeni, did not mince his words, declaring that his party sought “political and state power” and that he wished left-wing forces could coalesce to achieve this objective. Might