On Protectionism in Dependent Countries

(Letter)

7 February 2017

Dear comrades,

In our article “Mexico: Mass Protests over Gas Price Hike” in WV No. 1104 (27 January), we write: “Trotskyists do not equate protectionism in neocolonial countries, where it constitutes a measure of national self-defense, with the protectionism of the imperialists, which pushes chauvinism and seeks to bolster the domination of one or another imperialist bourgeoisie.” This line is correct insofar as our attitude towards protectionism as pursued by imperialists. However it is not always the case when implemented by neo-colonial countries. In neo-colonial countries protectionism can be adopted for national self-defence, as well as to subdue/dominate other neo-colonial countries and, just like in the case of imperialists, encourage chauvinism as well as to support the imperialist overlords.

For instance in June last year, Zimbabwe decided to ban certain imports, mainly consumer goods from South Africa, Zambia and Botswana. The Robert Mugabe regime justified this move by asserting its dire need to revive local industry. Despite acknowledging Zimbabwe’s economic woes, the ANC [African National Congress]-led Tripartite Alliance government declared that Zimbabwe cannot revive its industry at the expense of South Africa. To this end, the South African government issued ultimatums and threatened to retaliate, claiming that the ban violated the SADC (Southern African Development Community, a regional economic body) treaty. This squabble led to massive protests on both sides of the Beitbridge border. The Zimbabwean protesters were mainly concerned about the prospect of goods scarcity with the inevitable higher prices that would follow, while the South African protesters were mainly traders worried that they are going to lose business.

Some local media here painted Mugabe and his acolytes as being selfish and out of touch with reality, hell-bent on perpetuating the misery of Zimbabweans. They conflated the genuine concerns of Zimbabweans with business interests of the South African small traders and the bourgeoisie, who obviously favour the status quo. In seeking to overturn the ban, the South African bourgeoisie wants to consolidate its economic dominance, whereas by banning these products, chiefly agro products, Zimbabwe seeks to revive its key national industry, and this is being constantly frustrated by the Randlords. That the South African bourgeoisie benefits from the wretched economic state of Zimbabwe was hardly mentioned even though this fact was staring many in their faces. South African consumer products, including canned fruits and vegetables, have a huge market in Zimbabwe.

Because of their vulnerable legal status, Zimbabwean immigrants are a boon of cheap labour for the South African bourgeoisie. From farming and construction industry to the service sector, these workers endure untold abuses. Meanwhile COSATU [union federation] and other unions are indifferent to organising them. Recently, in a move that will certainly encourage pogroms against immigrants or foreign nationals, the ANC-led Tripartite Alliance government announced that they are going to heavily fine companies hiring Zimbabweans instead of locals. This move is clearly aimed at gutting the remittances which are a lifeline for the Zimbabwean economy.

Another weakness of our formulation above is that it doesn’t take into account what our attitude is regarding protectionism pursued by neo-colonies against deformed workers states, in particular China. For one thing, due to a slump in worldwide steel prices in the past two years, the bourgeoisie and NUMSA [metal workers union] have been calling for tariffs on steel imports from China. It goes without saying that this neatly dovetails with the thinly veiled, aggressive imperialist campaign to demonise China in the South China Sea, which aims at nothing less than counterrevolution in the most powerful of the remaining deformed workers states.

Comradely,
Kgori