Dear friend in pursuit of freedom and justice and responsible government,

I am a 63-year-old white woman. I’m privileged and as such am able to spend a lot of time reading, watching the news and downloading e-mails. I am also very in touch with local affairs.

Typically I start the day downloading mail, my head filled with devastating images from the news the previous night, (skeletal refugees in Darfur, pitiful Haitians desperate for food). I open my e-mails. Several online petitions arrive requesting my support; another devastating deforestation capital punishment for gays in Uganda, Solidarity with Cuba – I add my name and send them on. I read a blog about America's increased troops in Afghanistan, several on Global Warming and spend some time on your thought-provoking piece.

A disturbing thought crops up. While I am in awe of the ease of access to opinions and grateful that I am able to stay informed, local issues have been swamped out – a rape and a shebeen stabbing over the weekend – and ongoing local problems like high teacher absenteeism. Old perspectives on the whole question of protest start to surface. After reading ‘From Sandton to Soweto’ I try to give these form.

The first of these is easy to describe. Beware of jargon:

‘after 15 years of ANC government, the owners of capital now know that the radical leftist terminology that the ANC uses is just a rhetorical spin to sell rightwing programmes'.

It’s so easy to toss out clichéd catch phrases to gain acceptance to the club. That’s why it’s such great fodder for satirists. But your treatise adds far more weighty warnings about leftist spin. It’s a warning to those who, in their naivety and idealism, tend to see compatriots in anyone who talks the talk. Like Julius Malema. The use of a single word turns him into a champion of socialism and the poor, the singing of a single phrase and he becomes an outraged victim, an honourable combatant in The Struggle.

As you point out the old and new capitalists make good use of the spin. Both know the game. You’re absolutely right about the expectations of the comrade-capitalists. They want everything that the old elites have. I suspect that some are aiming for a great deal more.

I think you are brave. You are treading a tricky path because you are trying to expose, within your own readership, this naivety and the dangers inherent in wholesale acceptance of left wing language.

In the former Soviet Union, nationalisation and state ownership resulted in state capitalism and the emergence of the nomenklatura. This replicated itself in many countries going by the label socialist/communist, people’s republic or some variant thereof. Very often, it was the case of the state/party prescribing socialism for the masses and capitalism for itself.

This is another brave statement exposing the dangers of labels. As we are seeing in SA, capitalism is able to take on many guises. But is it wise to believe that corruption and greed are the products of capitalism only? I suppose it’s a matter of opinion but I believe that there is a tragic flaw in the human condition. We seek comfort over sacrifice. We are unable to act upon the needs of the broader society, let alone the globe. And as a citizen of a poor country, where you’ve had a rudimentary education and your only chance for survival is through a government job, or making sure your sister/cousin holds on to her government job, and the salting away of money for the day when your patron, or the entire government, is booted out. Before long survival is replaced by the need for comfort and then opulence. Massive greed takes over. In South Africa, it’s getting hard to tell our apparatchiks from our nomenklatura. They’ve become such a large, well-heeled group.

I have other concerns with regard to some perceptions, strategies and tendencies within the groups which are seeking solutions to societal issues – academics, cultural workers, Civil Society etc. (We judiciously avoid labels these days).

These groups are present in all countries. They are the litmus of the dangers which threaten, the canaries down the mine, the conscience of a nation. They tend to be small. But given the right strategies, and an understanding of the mood and needs of the nation, they can grow – like the anti-Vietnam war movement in America. Maybe too slowly for us? But in those instances, such as the Civil Rights Movement in America, the aggrieved were in the minority. Here they are in the majority.

For brevity let me use the term Movement to describe this loose grouping of social activists.

- The Movement seems to spend much time preaching to the converted. How many of us need to be reminded of the evils of capitalism? Criticism, as they say, is the easy part.

- For many there’s a lack of direction. Since the exposure of corruption within many of the communist states the concept of nationalisation has been seriously tainted. State ownership meant fat profits for the party bosses, unsustainability (continuous reliance on state support) and little concern for working conditions. Nationalisation is now viewed with suspicion, an open invitation to nepotism and corruption, especially in a country like ours. Is there a model that will work for us? Perhaps the Fifth International will yield some solutions. Yet I fear that wholesale adoption of these would be disastrous. It will be up to the thinkers and the well-informed members of the Movement like you, to work out solutions to our unique and urgent circumstances.

- The Movement perceives itself to be bigger than it is. This is a commonplace in any grouping which surrounds itself with opinions of the like-minded and loses touch with the larger society. The Movement must be very careful, as its members receive missives from one another and from across the globe, that the computer screen does not become an infinity of mirrors.

- It needs to beware the scapegoat strategy. Malema is masterful at it. In a corner with corruption charges? Sing an incendiary song, take a swipe at the SACP. Apartheid is the cause of most of our ills, an obvious fact, known to the vast majority of South African of all persuasions and one which must never be forgotten. But inform a crowd on the rampage for lack of services that Apartheid is responsible, that a good socialist agenda has been high-jacked by neo colonials and neo liberal-capitalists and these days they will reply with great clarity and anger – maybe these neo what what’s have a fancy label but they are crooks and we know exactly who they are.

As you point out, the present regime has allowed many apartheid evils to continue. But we need far stronger protest and action. Wake up everyone... the mental holocaust known as Bantu Education is still alive and well in our schools, shaping the minds of our children. I am acutely aware of it in the five rural schools in my neighbourhood. I assume that most supporters of the Movement, like our bureaucrats, send their children to model C schools, which is completely understandable. But it means that the disgraceful state of education in our schools is out of sight. We could wave the blame banner over Naledi Pandor and Kadar Asmal, accusing them of having a neo liberal-capitalist agenda. But will it help?

- The Movement is in danger of becoming just as removed from what’s really happening in this country as the reigning government. We just have to ask ourselves why Malema has caught the hearts and mind of his constituency – the most important in the country. They are not in the suburbs or offices looking at their computer screens.

- The Movement has shrunk dramatically since the advent of democracy in this country. Compared with the size of such groups in other countries, it is totally inadequate to deal with the deluge of ills which beset us. Like the anti-apartheid movement we need to be garnering support from outside our borders. What I see is the opposite – causes in other parts of the world seem to take up a disproportionate amount of our time – including those that pertain to climate change.

There’s an insufficient realisation of the responsibilities that come with being the conscience of the nation. The canary must react to the adverse conditions down our mine, especially those which need to be urgently addressed.

We have to prioritise. Sure, I hate seeing Mandela with American celebrities. I'm sad that Hugh Masekela cannot meet him and I really believe that John Kani should play Madiba. But these two artists are internationally celebrated, living stimulating lives. I don’t think we can afford to take up their cause, which can never move me to outrage the way the Department of Arts and Culture does with its squandered budget, while our artists struggle to put food on their tables. Even big global issues (apart from global warming), while being acknowledged, cannot displace our own shocking problems. I don't need to list them. But we all know that we top the international list of far too many terrible things.

Is it going too far to say that it might be considered morally reprehensible, given the small numbers and positions of privilege of many members, for the Movement to spend protest time and energy on anything else? I can't help but draw comparisons with the protests of the 60s. Sure our efforts as students, mostly from privileged backgrounds, can be seen as pathetic now. What the heck did we hope to achieve as we stood with our amateurish banners on Jan Smuts avenue? But I do remember our total commitment to the most relevant issues. Of course we would pass resolutions condemning the war in Vietnam, the arms race etc. But there was no way we could spare the time that was needed for our own horrors – Bantu Education, press censorship, pass laws, deaths in detention. Protest was really difficult then but I find I cannot use this to counter the accusation posed by this generation: ‘Why didn't you do more?'

Protest is a whole lot easier now. Instituting real changes is always hard but it needs to happen. Let's not see another generation having to face the question put to them by their children: 'Why didn't you do more?'