A-Infos (en) Revolutionary Anarchism #8 - The 2010 World Cup... the Neo-liberal Agenda and the Class Struggle in South Africa by Lucien van der Walt

The 2010 World Cup is part and parcel of the neo-liberal restructuring of SA 
apitalism. It is also, however, a major opportunity for social struggles.
   South Africa's success in winning the 2010 bid for the Soccer World Cup (the 
biggest international sports event after the Olympics) has been widely hyped as 
the solution to the country's huge social problems. In the speeches of the 
politicians, and the editorials of the bourgeois press, the 2010 World Cup is 
being presented as the great test of the country's ability to "succeed".
   News of the successful bid was greeted by celebrations in the streets ­ 
celebrations that drew in large sections of the working class. Soccer's history 
as a working class sport, worldwide, accounts for some of the enthusiasm, and 
the fact that the Cup is going to be held in Africa also has some appeal to the 
nationalist sentiments that are, sadly, widespread.

HOPE AND HYPE

   Even those who have little interest in the
game have grasped feverishly at the hope
of benefiting from the billions the
State machine is starting to spend
on upgrading or building stadiums
in the host cities and the money being
earmarked for upgrading public transport.
Some jobs will certainly be created, and,
more recently, the State has announce
that money will be injected into the run
down State health system, and that th
main tourist hot-spots will be upgraded
Current estimates are R16 billion, but w
should expect the figure to rise dramatical
ly.
   We believe the State will probably be abl
to get the country "ready" for the Worl
Cup. But does it matter?

THE TOUGH QUESTIONS

   While improvements in transport and
health, and some job creation, can only be
welcomed, the question must be posed:
why is the South African State so keen to
host the 2010 World Cup? Why spend bil-
lions on this once-off event, when there are
so many other serious problems?
   The fact is that there are many powerful
interests who stand to benefit.                Our
increasingly multi-racial ruling class ­ the
politicians, top officials, and big business ­
see the 2010 Cup as a major opportunity.
The ruling class believes that the 2010
project will attract investment by business-
es, both local and foreign, into South
Africa. Global games increasingly play a
central role in marketing countries as desti-
nations for investment.
   Other semi-industrial countries have used
these events in exactly this way: thus, we
have seen major events in Malaysia 1998,
and there will be more to come in China
2008, India 2010, Ukraine/ Poland 2012...
A successful event will tackle the country's
reputation for crime, low-skilled labour, and
general inefficiency. In addition, the Cup
will provide a focus for the State's commit-
ment (made in both the neo-liberal GEAR
and ASGISA programmes) to improve
infrastructure.

NEO-LIBERALISM (AGAIN)
   The focus on marketing the country, and
on infrastructure, is in line with the State's
commitment to a neo-liberal restructuring
of the capitalist economy. Since the late
1970s, first the apartheid government, and,
in the 1990s, the post-apartheid regime,
has been set on liberalising the economy.
   While many left commentators, like Ravi
Naidoo, have helped expose GEAR's
impact on the working class (in terms of job
creation and service delivery, particularly),
it is also important to understand that neo-
liberal restructuring has massive benefits
for the South African ruling class. Not only
has the economy grown at over 4 % over
the last few years (its best sustained per-
formance since the early 1970s), but
unions have been hammered, labour flexi-
bility has increased dramatically, cost
recovery policies have cut municipal costs,
and taxes on high income earners have
been slashed.

CLASS POLICIES

   It is quite wrong, then, to suggest that
GEAR has "failed", as if the policy can be
judged in class-neutral terms: GEAR has
"succeeded" for the ruling class precisely
because it has "failed" the working class.
In a class society, the "success" of a policy
can only be judged relative to particular
class interests and agendas.
   Now, one consequence of economic lib-
eralisation has been the removal of various
controls over capital investments (like pre-
scribed assets policies) and movements
(with a continually rising ceiling on capital
outflows). The State is focussed more on
attracting, rather than controlling, direct
investments, which is where deregulation,
marketing and infrastructure come into play
as major instruments for growth;
the State is, equally, increasingly vul-
nerable to the perceptions of private
and parastatal investors, with
local capital itself "globalising" into
foreign markets.
   In line with neoliberal theory
(expressed in its crudest, optimistic form in
GEAR), implementing neo-liberal policies
means more local and foreign investment,
which means more economic growth, and
then more jobs, which redistribute opportu-
nities to the working class. For GEAR, the
main areas of investment would be manu-
facturing (with a focus on exports), and
services. Essentially, the theory goes, if
the rich get richer, the poor supposedly
also have a chance to get richer.
   Hiding behind this cosy rhetoric of cross-
class compromise and all-round friendli-
ness, however, is the brute reality of capi-
talism generally (class inequality) and neo-
liberalism particularly (restoring profitability
through class war from above).

WINNERS, LOSERS

    The class realities of the situation are
easily seen in the 2010 initiatives. The
State spending is mainly aimed at promot-
ing opportunities for profit: lucrative con-
tracts in infrastructure, a focus on upgrad-
ing health and transport in wealthier areas,
while hiding the poor, a focus on stadiums
rather than houses, schools and township
upgrading. This is intended to attract
investors, drop the cost of doing business,
and making sure that major economic deci-
sions remain out of the hands of the work-
ing class.
    Money spent on 2010 is money taken
from other areas. In 2005, the government
allocated R48 billion to health, covering the
whole government health system, including
400 hospitals. Of this, about R1,5 billion
goes to upgrading hospitals every year: in
other words, government will spend around
6 billion on repairing hospitals by 2010,
which is less than half of the money gov-
ernment plans to spend on soccer stadi-
ums. Yet hospitals are obviously more
important than soccer stadiums. If the full
2010 budget went to hospitals, four times
more repairs could be done. This tells you
something about the priorities of the ruling
class, and how low down on the list public
health is compared to the neo-liberal proj-
ect.
    Where is the R16 billion going to be
raised? First, from central government
allocations (raised from tax on companies,
salaries, VAT, and "sin taxes" on goods like
cigarettes) and, second, from local govern-
ments (which means from various local
rates and service charges, including
charges for property, electricity etc.). The
flip-side of the coin will, of course, be
increasing service charges and tougher
cut-off policies for municipal services.
Social movements: beware!

GAU-TRAINS

    Talk about improving public transport
must surely be welcomed. Around half of
the millions who use the trains are from the
lower ranks of the working class, earning
under R1600 a month and unable to afford
the taxis. However, the commuter railway
system has not only been frozen for the
last thirty years, but was actively run down
in the 1990s; the trains cover only some
areas, are in an appalling state, and around
20,000 jobs have been cut. Spoornet and
Metrorail, part of the giant State company
Transnet, have focussed on cutting costs
to such an extent that even powerful capi-
talist sectors, like the big farmers, have
been seriously frustrated by the lack of
capacity and unreliability of the railway
grid.
    The focus on 2010, and ASGISA's revival
of GEAR's promise to improve infrastruc-
ture, suggest a serious change in direction.
Outright sell-offs seem to be off the agen-
da: the neo-liberal extremism that suggest-
ed that the railway grid be fully privatised
has been replaced by a more pragmatic
neo-liberalist view that recognises that
major infrastructure is (as economist Milton
Friedman puts it) a State responsibility -
and absolutely vital to a successful export
drive in agriculture and manufacturing.
The same applies to ESKOM, the other
giant parastatal, which has gained an
unpleasant reputation for unreliability over
the last few years (to which it has respond-
ed, predictably, not by improving services
but by raising costs and running TV adverts
telling people not to run major appliances-
like TVs!).
    The State is not planning to change its
mind about continuing the commercialisa-
tion of Spoornet and ESKOM, and still has
plans to partly privatise both entities. The
optimistic view - championed by COSATU
figures like Karl von Holdt and Randall
Howard - that union "engagement" with the
State had led to abandoning the neo-liber-
al project in transportation - has no real
basis. Nor is there any reason to start
announcing the death of local neo-liberal-
ism.
    But even the dullest bureaucrat supports
taxi recapitalisation,, and upgrading and
even extending the railways, as with the
new Gautrain project, which runs parallel to
the 2010 initiatives. The Gautrain shows
clearly the class character of the new
course. A multi-billion rand high speed line
between suburbs in Pretoria and
Johannesburg, the self-proclaimed "mid-
dle-class express" will charge up to R60 a
ticket, and is primarily designed to alleviate
highway congestion by encouraging mid-
dle- and ruling class car owners to take the
luxury train instead. It is not about helping
out the working class.
    The 2010 initiatives will create some jobs.
The big construction contracts, in particu-
lar, will need large numbers of workers,
and there is nothing this country needs
more than jobs. But how long will the jobs
last? Building a soccer stadium is not a
lifetime job; at most, it is work for a few
years. What will happen after 2010? We
don't know what will happen in future, but
the terrible record of South African capital-
ism in creating jobs provides reasons to be
concerned.

GRAVY TRAINS

    Of course, there are many other benefits
from the 2010 project for the ruling class.
The politicians and the sports administra-
tors will get a chance to make money,
through various business partnerships and
corrupt deals. As the arms deal scandal
and the Gautrain have already shown, no
major State project these days works with-
out kickbacks, crooked tenders and con-
tracts for pals.
    Furthermore, worldwide, soccer is
becoming increasingly controlled by major
capitalists, and run on capitalist lines. The
big English teams, like Manchester United
and Arsenal, came from the big industrial
towns, and started as workers' clubs: today
millions are made from their "official" mer-
chandise, while the police diligently arrest
sellers and makers of so-called "pirate"
merchandise. There is a fortune to be
made from owning soccer stadiums, selling
tickets, TV rights and merchandise. In
South Africa, this raises millions for people
like Irvin Khoza (owner of Orlando Pirates),
Kaizer Motaung and Primedia (owners of
Kaizer Chiefs), and Patrice Motsepe
(owner of Mamelodi Sundowns).
   Finally, an event like the World Cup has
the great benefit (for the ruling class) of
promoting backward ideas like nationalism.
The teams are organised by countries, and
this provides a way for the ruling class to
promote divisions between the working
class around the world: a German worker
is encouraged to support the German
team, and think about being German,
rather than about being a worker, and so
on.
SOCIAL STRUGGLES
   The 2010 World Cup project is a ruling
class project, but also provides an opportu-
nity to mobilise social struggles, particular-
ly as the State will be uncomfortable with
bad publicity under the global spotlight.
There are opportunities to mobilise not just
for small things (like affordable tickets), but
for more jobs, better transport, unionised
well-paid jobs in the 2010 initiatives, and
for resisting the commercialisation and pri-
vatisation of soccer. There is a serious
danger that the process will be associated
with major evictions of squatters and hawk-
ers, as well as rising taxes and service
charges.       If the government wants to
spend R16 billion, let them raise the money
by taxing the ruling class.
   Life doesn't end in 2010: what we need
are sustainable jobs, pro-poor develop-
ment and strong working class move-
ments. This must be independent of the
2010 programme ­ reports that COSATU's
investment arm may become involved in
stadium building should raise alarm bells.
2010 is a chance to highlight popular
issues, but this can only succeed if we
avoid the poison of nationalism, with its
Proudly SA, lets-hold-hands-with-the-boss-
es propaganda. We need a different type
of society, and this needs struggles, equal-
ity, internationalism, and working class
struggle. Human dignity and rights are not
possible under the current social order.
-------------------------------------------------

This is an edited version of a talk given at the 5
     May 2007 Red and Black Forum, held at
          Khanya College, Johannesburg.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracted from: http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/sapams/zab08.pdf
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
http://ainfos.ca/en