Talk Elections

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3786785.stm

Snippet: "'Ultimately, all land shall be resettled as state property. It will now be the state which will enable the utilisation of the land for national prosperity,' he {John Nkomo, minister in charge of land reform} said.

Private ownership of land is not allowed in many African countries. "

WTF?! Are these socialists insane?! I guess it's a hop and skip to state-sponsored genocide by famine, just like what Mugabe's buddy Mariam did in Ethiopia. And watch as the ANC will remain silent yet again...

Zimbabwe is a nightmare, even for the people who had it pretty bad under good ol' Rhodesia.

Somebody has to go in their and kill that creature. If not South Africa, than the Brits. Adn if not them, than maybe it's up to us. But this can't be allowed to go on.

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.

Precious little difference between the two.

One has a King and Nobility, one has a Chairman and a Central Committee.  Same thing, different titles.

I'll take feudalism.

Wow. A step in the wrong direction if there ever was one.

Zimbabwe...*shakes head*. Stupid ers. I wish they'd have free elections and let the MDC win, maybe we would get some order then.

Come on, guys. That is like saying capitalism = fascism. There might be some minor resemblence but only on the surface.

Back to this quite interesting topic. The politics conducted by Mugabe are not very sane to put it mildly, but Zimbabwe has been begging for a land reform ever since independence. It was part of the peace agreament that after a 10 years transition period the white farmers would begin to parcel out parts of their land, but non of this happened (Britain for one failed to provide the finacial support promised in the peace treaty). When the tide started chancing Mugabe played on the widespread dissatifaction and fustration among the landless black peasants.

This is what happens when you remove a civilized government in the interests of "democracy," aka Communism.

You get neither freedom, nor democracy, nor equality, but genocide and poverty.

You surely don't mean Smith's Rhodesia because I would not call a minority government that was very apartheid inspired, civilized. It was a brutal and oppresive regime that would do anything to hang on to their little "paradise"

How was it brutal? What atrocities were committed?

How is the current government better?

Why is everyone poorer now?

Both Smith and Mugabe's regimes were/are evil. Case closed.

Mugabe is a lot worse, and it's not even debatable.

The Smith-regime forcefully moved parts of the population and burned their villages. The regime refuged to give the majority of the population the right to selfdetermination and waged war against those who tried to claim that right. Rhodesia attacted its nabour countries on several occations and armed and trained RENAMO, effectively initiating a very brutal civil war in Mozambique.
I am not claiming that the recent Mugabe-regime is much better, but until he snapped around 1996-97 and sent troops to Zaire, Zimbabwe had been the most important country in the battle against Apartheid and played a very important role in SADCC (Today SADC). You have to see the nuances.
When it comes to poverty one of the reasons is Mugabes politics and AIDS/HIV, but another reason is that most of the wealth was concentrated on very few hands who got their money out of the country very fast hurting those who has not got the means to leave.
Claiming that "Mugabe is a lot worse, and it's not even debatable" is a too simplistic conclution on a very complex situation

The country's economy has been destroyed. Even with a problematic social/political system, there can be reform. But when destroy the economic base- particularly the agriculture necessary to feed the populace- you cause a permanent change for the worse.

I'm not saying whether Smith or Mugabe is a better guy, rather, which regime did/has done more to hurt the country.

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.

The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.

All good points.. and I never said it was perfect, just better than the current regime.  The real heyday in that part of the world was the British Empire.

For the majority no. There still is a lot of poverty and disaster, but countries like Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia (I know - never a british colony - only RSA and Der Kaiser) and even South Africa the majority is better of than they where 10, 20, 50 and 100 years ago. They are all still very poor but in these countries people have a chance to do something about it. THAT is my main dislike when it comes to Zimbabwe. The Zanu-FP have taken away that right and is abusing real problems like the need for a land reform, to promote their own agenta. Take this from a man who spends most of his time studying the "Good Old Days." There is very little good about those days (oh and remember it was only a few hundred kilometers south of the Limpopo that those nice British fellows invented the Concentration Camp. What a jolly bunch ;) )

You cannot simply make intertemporal comparisons though. You have to try and reason about what it would be like today if those countries had remained parts of the British Empire.

Do you think that I would have been better if Zimbabwe still was a part of GB??

That obviously depends on the forms of the government. If the scenario is that Britain tried to keep it as a colony or an integrated part of the country against the will of the population, then obviously not. If an agreement that both sides agreed on had been reached and in which the black population was not discriminated against (let's remember that GB was a much more tolerant country after WWII than RSA or Rhodesia and that they even planned to overthrow the Rhodesian government in the 60s) then yes, it would most likely have been better. Though not likely to occur, of course.

I have heard that opinion sometimes but I have to say that I consider it a modernised version of Kiplings "White Man's Burden." (Nothing personal :) ) Most African nations are perfectly capable of taking care of their one affairs, but sometime things goes the wrong way, like it does in European, Asian and American countries (like Sweden around 1770-90 ;) ). It is not curtain that a union between Britain and her African colonies (or just those with some white population) would be a happy solution. In the modern society most people appreciate that the ones who makes the decisions are close bye (like the EU-scepticals ;D ).

When in history have Sub-Saharan Africans produced a real civilization???

No, the like 10 years of being Pharoah do not count.

Ghana

Mail, Songhai, Monomatapa, Ashanti and the empire of Prester Johan, Ethiopia to name but a few

Zulu

Forgot those guys. That's what I call military organisation. Remember Isandlwana - that was not a battle that Black Adder would have enjoyed ;)

Khambula was *much* better ;)

That was quite a battle, and a good example of how hard it is to defeat a well prepared and dug-in ()

No, I meant real civilizations, not make-believe tales.

i.e. cases where there is evidence of their existence...

Well, the really isn't much doubt about the existence of the Zulu Kingdom and it seems to me that you don't know very much about African history if you claim that countries like Ashanti and Songhai are "make-believe tales."
There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that Ethiopia is a very old country. There exists some very good portuguese descriptions from several explorers visiting Ethiopia between 1500 and 1600 - a powerfull and quite developed country even at that time whose roots can be traced back to Axum more that a 1000 years before

Um... there have been trading links with sub-saharan africa since God knows how long!

There is a reason why the slave trade is known as the slave trade...

Yeah, of course there have been tribes... however, there is no African equivalent to the Romans, Chinese, Atzecs, etc.

Hah, good one!  Revisionist history is such a laugh.

Well, it looks like you need to do just a bit of reading about African history.
Al and I have already given you the names of a couple of the civilizations that has existed in Africa thoughout the times -
and remember that most of the "common knowledge history" taught in the schools tends to be rather "eurocentric" and affected by the Victorian idea about the white man's mission af bringing "civilization" to the savage Africans and Asians.

Sure, you named some big tribes, but that isn't the same as a civilization. The Romans had the aqueducts, massive road systems, the Colosseum, etc. Chinese people built the Great Wall. Africans have accomplished nothing of significance... ever. History tends to focus on things that matter, which is why Africa does not figure prominently.

Microevolution is probably to blame. African societies prioritized skills such as hunting prowess, since there was more than enough food available. In other places, survival was more difficult. Heck, Caucasoids and Mongoloids probably left Africa because the Negroids were kicking their butts.

But the downside is, when someone figured out a better way to do things, they were declared a witch or whatever and eaten for dinner. Over enough generations, the effect becomes significant.

Oh, and Jens, are you in college? Curious what school you go to.

Again, we turn to Ethiopia where there is a fair amount of "Grand Buildings" and a long lasting civilization - strong enough to withstand the pressure from the Caliphate and its decendants and still, a 1000 years after being cut of from the rest of the christian world, possed some kind of christianity.
What we lack is written evidence and that is were Africa fails. No African nation managed to create its own alfabeth and suffered from the lack of fertile lands that is so abundant in the Fertile Crecent, around the Nile, the Indus and the Yellow River.
The Portuguese decribes, even with the distortion when decripting heathens, quite advanced societies in Monomatapa (Present day Zimbabwe) and Congo and cooperated with native kings all over Africa until the industrial breakthrough and the scramble for Africa
(The main reason why the Europeans were able to take over most of Africa from 1870 to 1920 was a highly succesfull weapons embargo. In Senegal and Natal the embargo failed and the French and the English had one hell of a fight)

besides that I study at the University of Copenhagen (We have no colleges in Denmark). I think that you would call me a postgraduate (again different system makes the translation a bit difficult). I have a BA in history and a MA in African Studies (that is why I know a bit about Africa, but mostly modern)

Nice to see an answer with a bit more motivation eventhough I disagree ;)

Al,

When you grow up, you'll realize that socialism in practice IS feudalism.

Feudalism is a system where power is in the hands of powerfull magnates who de facto control their own land. The King has very little power himself and is dependant on the coorporation of the magnates, who has has their own armies and juristical kontrol in their territories. Quite often the magnates conducted war on their own.
Another term used to describe the feudal state is as an oligopolistic system. Oligopolistic is the opposit of monopolistic where the state has a monopoly of power, whereas in the oligopolistic system the power is spread out.
In terms of power the feudal state is a oligopolistic state.
The communist states that has existed or still exists like China or Poland are - as nearly all modern states - monopolistic states where the bulk of power is helt by the central government.

If you would like to know more, I recommend: Raaflaub & Rosenstein: War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. London 1999

Jens,

Yes, I'm quite aware of what feudalism is, so I don't need your lectures or any outside reading references. It's painfully clear from your post that my comment went way over your head.

Please explain what you define Socialism as.

Al,

Come on, I know you're a smart guy. Forget for a minute that you and Jens are in love with theoretical bullsh*t and then go back and read what I said again. This has nothing to do with DEFINITIONS or THEORY...I am way past that. I'm talking about the practical impact of application of socialism on average citizens...try thinking in the real world and outside the cozy confines of the classroom.

Well I would argue that the Leninism is nothing more than "cargo cult socialism" and that as a result none of the old Commie countries can be (IMO) thought of as Socialist.

In the real world, the post war Labour government over here changed the U.K for the better by introducing the NHS and also saved millions of real people from dire poverty.

Hi, to my socialist buddy Al.  I am not up to date on all of what is taking place in Zimbabwe, but I am definitely against the nationalization of land.  If there are socialists involved in Zimbabwe, I am sure there is going to be trouble.  Hopefully the people of Zimbabwe will not trade their freedom for the slavery of socialism.

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people.  And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.  So we have come to a time for choosing.”
-- Ronald Reagan

Al,

The point I'm trying to make is that since the very base principles of socialism are in fact contrary to human nature, that what emerges from attempts to establish pure socialism is essentially glorifed totalitarianism. The Soviet Union and virtually every other Marxist/Socialist state in the 20th Century serves as a pretty good proof of my hypothesis. As for you point about England, employing a few policies consistent with socialist tendencies is NOT the same as employing a true socialist state. Even in the US we have adopted certain policies that have socialist roots, but that doesn't mean we a re a socialist country, nor is England.

No need to become condescending!

The reason why I became a socialist has nothing to do with any cozy classrooms. I grew up in an area where the harsh economic politics of the conservative government in the eighties createted widespred poverty and enormous social problems. That was good people who had been working hard all their life who lost their jobs and the government didn't cared, because it wasn't their core voters. I say that uncontrolled marked ecomony creates social inequality and I believe that every human counts. In a democratic socialist society (not China or USSR - they only had a socialist facade) everybody should get a change to do his best - It should be a question about abillity not where you are from or your daddys surname!

Jens,

I refer you to my last post in which I explained to Al why I feel that the socialism of which you and he speak is purely theoretical and has no practical application because it is counter intuitive to human nature. No nation that has fully adopted socialist principles has ever turned out to be anything other than a dictatorship, where precious few control the resources and the thought process of the vast majority.

I think you and I strongly disagree on what socialism is. I would never call the tvisted societies in USSR, China, North Korea or Eastern Europe socialist. They were autoritarian with on respect for human life and failed to acomplish anything near a society containing socialist values.
I think Britain or Spain is closer to incorporate core socialist values in their society than USSR ever were. The USSR forcefully made other countries subcribe to its believes and failed to listen to the people.
Claiming that an ideology is counter to human nature no matter what kind of ideology we are talking about is not a valid argument.
We humans make our own ideologies and whether you like like the ideology or not, does not make it counter intuitive to human nature, because that we ourself define.

Jens,

OK...you and Al both seem to be missing the point, so I guess I'll have to go back and walk you through this. Since you both seem to think I am misinterpreting the definition of socialism, let me start there and see if I can walk you through the argument.

Socialism--An economic and social system where production and ownership of goods and services is controlled by the state rather than private enterprise. This system is characterized by its belief in the utility of goods solely for benefit of society rather than profit. The goal being to create a society that is essentially classless, where individual wealth is subverted in favor of the common good, with government playing the most important role in determining the methods and levels of production. Socialism representing the transitional period between Capitalism and Communism, the latter being the inevitable conclusion of socialist implementation. The final stage being complete equitable redistribution of goods, services and wealth.

Can we agree, that this is the historical definition of socialism? It's not out of a textbook, but a paraphrase of what I've learned over many years of study on this subject. If you say "no" then we probably have very little else to discuss because you have ignored several hundred years of history that went into that definition.

I wonder how conservative the “conservative” government in Denmark in the eighties was.  I agree with you that “everybody should get a chance to do his best.”  That is why I am a free market capitalist.  I believe that in a true free market environment (the United States does not have that environment right now) someone who takes personal responsibility can reach their highest potential.

Ah. Marxism. Oh dear.
I'm no marxist and I would disagree that marxism=socialism.

I agree with Al on this on. I don't agree with Marxist Dialectics and its predestination.

Al and Jens,

Gee, that's nice that you guys have an alternate definition of socialism, but I think you'll find that 99% of the respected academic and legal scholars in the world would define socialism in roughly the same terms that I have. Sorry fellas, but that IS the historical definition no matter how much you guys want it to be your watered down, 21st Century Euro, pseudo-leftist definition.

So how would you two define socialism?

PS--Go find a dictionary or read any historical interpretation and you will see that I'm right

"I have said, both in writing and from the platform many times, that the impetus which drove me first into the Labour movement, and the inspiration which has carried me on in it, has been derived more from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth than from all other sources combined"

Al,

That's nice, but what exactly does that have to do with your definition of socialism?

Al and Jens,

What happened to you guys in this thread? I thought you were supposed to come back and tell me, the dictionary and the respected academicians of the world why we have the wrong definiton of socialism?

I suppose a simple answer would be a belief in community, equality, social justice, compassion and so on.
Remember the first man to be called a socialist was Robert Owen.

It's Nationalize no 's'.

LOL!!!

Yeah, the Euro boys are not allowed to use "s" instead of "z" again until they come in here and defend their indefensible misinterpretation of the word "socialism"

Er... I just have.

You presented a rip of "Manifest der kommunistischen Partei" (the Communist Manifesto) that's classic Marxism.
I fail to see the hordes of academics that claim that the manifesto represents modern day socialism. No modern academic would claim that the todays socialism is based on the Marxist dialectics.
-
But if you would like to discuss the development of socialism thoughout history I'd love to participate :)

In the modern understanding of socialism - I think that Al and I are fairly close

Jens,

Go buy a dictionary and read the definition of socialism. Go ask a respected professor what the historical definition of socialism is...you won't like the answer.

I suppose socialism, in the strictest definition of the word, means state ownership of industry, but throughout the decades it has been warped and realigned so many times that by now it means many different things to many different people.

Well, this thread sure got interesting in my absence...


A point or two for Jens...
1. You are aware that in the process of "land reform", it just so happened that Mugabe and his cronies coincidentally grabbed all the best land for themselves, right?
2. And as for events before 1996-1997, why don't you ask the Ndebele about what kind of person Mugabe was, eh? "Tens of thousands massacred", right?
3. And for that matter, isn't Mugabe's favoritism toward the Shona awfully like Rhodesia's apartheid?

Typical bloody Third World story: The "Revolutionary Party" takes power, wins the first election, and decides there's no need for real multiparty democracy since things are going so well under their enlightened rule...the economy shrinks, but the leaders' bank accounts don't. Repression and stagnation, all blamed on those naughty white Westerners.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat...and that's the Third World!

This is getting a bit silly.
It doesn't really matter how Marx defines the word "Socialism" back in 1849. What is important is the breakup of the 1st internationale and the splinter between the orthodox communist parties and the social democratic parties. The first defined socialism as you did in your earlier post - the second did not accept the Marxist dialectics aka the inevitabel triumph of Communism.
I think that you need to update your definitions! ;) and remember that definitions don't last forever

Splendid, back on track

1. I know and to make it even sillier some of the "Veterans" that claimed the land wasn't even born in 1980! I support the idea of a land reform in Zimbabwe but not the way Mugabe did.


I will not defend Mugabe nor ZANU's actions. The attacts on the Ndebele in the 80' was yet another example of brutal "nationbuilding" and should have been stopped. - But I still belive that he went bananas around 1996-97 when he witnessed other longtime dictators or semi-dictators like Banda in Malawi and Kaunda in Zambia lose their powers and face trial.


You cannot compare Apartheid with favoritism towards one etnic group. Apartheid was a sick system based on separation between the "races" and the idea of white supremacy.
The ZANU fought most of the liberation war in Shona lands and much of the ideology merged with the traditional Shona symbolic world thus creating a strong connection between the Shonas and ZANU.


As said earlier Zimbabwe was during quite well in the 80' and 90' but yes with a lot of corruption and bad management.
I don't know what kind of money Mugabe has in offshore accounts but probably some (like Mobutu, Bukassa, Baby Doc, Mengistu or any other terrible man around the 3th world kept alive by people thinkin a bit too much about realpolitik and not about the people living in those countries).

Sorry for the delay!


Yes, I've heard about those veterans! Insane, eh? And the best land reform I've ever heard of was Taiwan's, where they bought off the big landowners, who went into business and grew the economy while the common people got their land. Expensive, though...


From bad to worse...OK, that's possible, and for the reasons you state. Kaunda in Zambia is one of my favorites - the social democratic Movement for Multy-party Democracy uses some force to prevent the extreme left United National Independence Party from ever taking power again. The center-left vs. the far left! Fun! ;)


Well, I tend to agree with the position that the Boers are, basically, a white African tribe. Don't they actually have considerable amounts of black African blood in them? I've heard their answer to that is "well, it's Zulu blood", which shows ya how silly it all was. Now of the Rhodesians aren't Boer, then whoops on my part. :) A sick system, yes, but not that different from what tribes do to each other in places such as...Nigeria (Hausa-Fulani oppression against Ibos, Yorubas, etc.), Rwanda/Burundi (pick your flavor from the Tutsi and Hutu), and so on. And I didn't know about that second paragraph at all - thanks!


Fair enough - look what Obote, Amin, and Okello did to Uganda! And that was the fault of the Islamic/Arab world, in part, due to their support for Amin (who died in his gilded exile in Saudi Arabia). I didn't have much use for Nyerere's Tanzanian leftist one-party state, but thank God they beat Amin's forces in their war...of course, they reinstalled Obote, who then proceeded to match Amin's brutal record, but sometimes you just can't win - see Liberia and the Congo, which went into the abyss even after brutal dictators were overthrown... :(

Socialists think capitalist means greedy robber barons using the state to limit competition and destroy individual effort, maximizing welath into the hands of the few.

Laissez-faire capitalists (especially libertarians and anarcho-capitalists) think socialist means state intervention into the economy for any reason, whether nationalistic, selfish or idealistic, and anything stomping on the free market principles.

So instead of socialist I just say anti-market.  Most aristocrats and uber-rich people are moderate interventionists on the economy.  Why not?  They can actually afford taxes and usually think it's their obligation to throw a few dollars at poor people.  It's usually the middle class that really buys into laissez-faire, although in America I notice a lot of lower-middle class people that are intensely offended by welfare and socialism, like it's calling them stupid or weak.

Anyway, say interventionist, authoritarian, anti-market, something like that.  Just avoids having to define socialist when clearly there are plenty of Europeans who buy into it.  It's a lot easier to argue the point with Americans, most of whom consider "socialist" just this side of "Nazi" even if they advocate the exact same thing as classical or contemporary European socialists.

The original European socialists were anarchist-leaning, same as the original European liberals.  Nationalization and regulation are the manifestation more of policies like the German SDP, then the UK Labor, and similar state socialist parties.  The fact that academics and observers feel the need to add the modifier "state" in front of socialist should suggest that it might have a very different meaning alone.