From: South Africa's Radical Tradition, a documentary history, Volume One 1907 - 1950, by Allison Drew
Document 53 - Remarks of Comrade Dubois", Internal Bulletin of the International Communist League (B-L), no. 2, May 1935
The efforts of our South African comrades do not sufficiently stress the essential point of the question: that in the First place, it is a matter of attacking British imperialism', all other questions are subordinate, their correct solution stemming from the out come of the question which we have just called the fundamental one. That means that the entire strategy, as well as the choice oftactics which are useful and effective in South Africa, revolves around the essential question: how to weaken the domination of British imperialism in South Africa? The slogan, "Land to the Natives," for example, entirely correct in itself, remains completely inadequate because it is not based on any other political slogan except one of pure, abstract propaganda, summed up in the slogan of a "South African October." Although useful in providing a perspective, this slogan remains empty in the present circumstances. For the rest, the comparison made by our comrades between the Russian October and that of - in the future, naturally - South Africa, reveals the hollowness of their understanding.
We will not push the matter of their simplistic interpretation of October: that the workers listen to the grievances of the peasants, and the peasants, those of the workers ("and vice versa"), after which a union takes place and the revolution is won; but what the thesis says on national liberation in Russia ("after the proletarien revolution") to justify their haughty disdain or the slogan, "Africa - Black Republic", shows that the question, hardly having been posed, is seen from an angle at the same time too narrow and - apparently - too wide. For, if "October" remains the goal to attain everywhere and in all circumstances, the repetition of that slogan can hardly be said to mobilise the masses. Here, in Africa, it is a matter of setting the natives against the oppression of whites, who are the British imperialists. This is why the potential of an effective slogan has to be closely studied with the greatest care. The absence of a black bourgeoisie, at least of any significance, noted in their theses, demonstrates that seemingly "nationalist" slogans are not harmful if they mobilise the masses. One is opposed to the purely statistical explanations found in these theses. It is true that the statistics state that the part of white workers imported into Africa by imperialism is important. But it is not a question of galvanising this present state nor of a schematic equalisation of white workers with workers of color: for white workers are, unfortunately, in South Africa (as elsewhere) first of all to represent the oppressors, the imperialists who use them, so to speak, in the front line by granting them privileges which the black workers do not enjoy. This is why the still-born schema of our comrades' thesis does not address the question which is the central one from the strategic as well as tactical point of view. One might ask, for example: what to do with and for white workers? But when the thesis so often repeats the expression "development of class consciousness", unfortunately, it is always directed at blacks.
The tactical question which we have just posed depends, on the contrary, entirely on the development of class consciousness amongst white workers, and the outward sign of this development is the adoption of the slogan: down with British imperialism (not an abstract, general imperialism). That is to say, down with the privileges of the white race, natives to the fore, and the right of total separation from the British empire. The same is true for the agrarian revolution. One cannot imagine an agrarian revolution outside of a political framework. The agrarian revolution both poses and resolves, at the same time, what is called the national question of this country. This is why the two questions are inseparable. The thesis, instead of indicating the connection, neglects it, separating the two sides of the same question quasi-independently of one another. This is why this thesis remains weak, not providing any tactical guidelines and offering only inadequate and abstract propaganda.