Talk:Rand Rebellion

Untitled

This article is largely POV. Clearly written by a Communist, who amongst other errors fails to note that the major grievance of the Communists rebels was the mine companies plans to promote black workers.JohnC (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The CPSA and the colour bar

Although I'm leaving it in the article for now (with a 'citation needed' tag), I'm sceptical of the claim that the CPSA "oppos[ed] racist aspects of the strike". The fact that it was only after the strike that the CPSA (at the insistence of the Comintern) adopted the 'Native Republic' policy seems to indicate that claims of Marxist-Leninist non-racialism during the Rand Rebellion amount to an attempt to whitewash the history of Marxism-Leninism in southern Africa.--Life in General (Talk) 09:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found references. So it turns out that the CPSA did oppose racism; it was the South African Labour Party that played up the racial aspect during the strikes.--Life in General (Talk) 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I got to disagree. That article has been written by a Communist LONG after the rand rebellion in a time when Communist adopted an anti-"Racist" policy. So I'd leave that aspect out completely. --41.151.27.163 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as it turns out, I (Life in General is my old account) was wrong entirely not only about the CPSA in 1922 not being unambiguosly non-racist (the term "non-racialism" emerged only in the second half of the 20th century), but even about it being wholeheartedly Marxist-Leninist until much later. Recent research on the history of the South African Left (particularly by Lucien van der Walt) demonstrates that the early CPSA was still heavily influenced by the syndicalist current which had emerged in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century and which had, since its inception, been non-racist (and after the 1910s, also multiracial in character): certainly, the syndicalist influence on the CPSA was a lot stronger than official SACP historians today tend to be willing to admit. So, stating that the CPSA opposed racism during the strike does not "amount to an attempt to whitewash the history of Marxism-Leninism in southern Africa", as I thought it might, nor does it amount to repeating propaganda invented "LONG after the [R]and [R]ebellion", but rather it is an honest restatement of established historical fact. The source used for this in the article at the moment, though, is probably untrustworthy in a lot of people's eyes (understandably, given the deservingly poor reputation "capital-C Communism" has gained over the years) so I'll find better sources and get back to this when I have free time after my exams (which are coming up next week). — Red Hominid^Talk/_Stalk 20:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This article clarifies it: https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/cis/omalley/OMalleyWeb/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv03188/06lv03217.htm 41.146.5.115 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: an important reliable reenactment from the main CPSA main article of Wikipedia to fully explain the dynamics of the situation

"The CPSA supported the strike as the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class but it distanced itself from racist slogans associated with the strike (See the Public Statement on the strike, as a primary authority, issued by the CPSA on the occasion of the strike in 1922. The statement is accessible in the book South African Communists Speak - containing original - Documents from the History of the South African Communist Party, 1915-1980, published by Inkululeko, 1981). The Party said in the statement a white South Africa was impossible, and that workers had to organise and unite regardless of their race to fight for a non-racial South Africa and better conditions for all workers. In 1928, the Communist International adopted a resolution for the CPSA to adopt the "Native Republic" thesis which stipulated that South Africa was a country belonging to the Natives, that is, the Blacks. The resolution was influenced by a delegation from South Africa. James la Guma, the Party Chairperson from Cape Town, had met with the leadership of the Communist International (Dr Raymond van Diemel, "I have seen the new Jerusalem": Revisiting and re-conceptualising Josiah T. Gumede and Jimmy La Guma’s USSR visit of 1927 (2001)). The Party thus reoriented itself at its 1924 Party Congress towards organising black workers and "Africanising" the party. By 1928, 1,600 of the party's 1,750 members were Black. During this period, the party has been accused of dismissing competing attempts at multiracial revolutionary organisations, especially multiracial union organising by the syndicalists, and using revisionist history to claim that the party and its Native Republic policy was the only viable route to African liberation.[3] Despite this, in 1929: the party adopted a "strategic line" which held that, "The most direct line of advance to socialism runs through the mass struggle for majority rule". By 1948, the Communist Party had officially abandoned the Native Republic policy." Untrammeled (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The racist aspects

@Alssa1: Page 292 of "The South African family encyclopaedia"

"Prime Minister Smuts’s efforts at media- tion failed; the barricades went up; the stri- kers formed themselves into paramilitary commandos under the leadership of an ex- tremist group, the Federation of Labour. The Federation, which incited violence, had been infiltrated by a Marxist element, and was supported by the South African Communist Party. The SACP leader, W.H. Andrews, called for a general strike on 6 March. (In retrospect, it is difficult to understand how Andrews and his colleagues could reconcile their ideology with what was basically a racist stance.)"

Communists "Reconcile" with what the author sees as a racist worldview.

Another source (https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/rand-rebellion-1922) also mentions racism, and repeats much of what is in the article. It might not be perfect but I am doing my part.

Given our recent interactions I'm sure you'll find a reason to not accept this, but I did my part. Anyone else is free to accept or reject this. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Errr, as far as I know we haven't had an interaction; you only started editing today. Also I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with this edit exactly. Alssa1 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am the same person. IPs switch and twitch all the time. You've been on this website for 20 years and you don't know that?2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider creating an account? Second you've listed some sources but not really explained what your edit recommendation is exactly. Alssa1 (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the marxist source but you still reverted on the grounds the marxist source was not reliable.

I showed you the source that was already there perputrated the same narrative.

My reccomendation is clear 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Where in your source does it legitimise the statement: "The young Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) took an active part in the uprising on grounds of class struggle whilst reportedly opposing racist aspects of the strike"? All it says is that the author finds it difficult to see how "Andrews and his colleagues could reconcile their ideology with what was basically a racist stance"... Alssa1 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

They initially opposed it before reconciling.

I never said the new edit had to be word for word the same as before 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The dispute on this page, derives from your specific reversion. You ping me then cite a source seemingly (from my reckoning) not relevant to our specific editing dispute. Alssa1 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)