babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Nelson Mandela speaks about Iraq

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Nelson Mandela speaks about Iraq
Ice Foot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2531

posted 30 January 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for Ice Foot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nelson Mandela on US war against Iraq

Its refreshing to see someone who's in a position of some influence truly speaking his mind on this issue.


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ValleyGirl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2315

posted 30 January 2003 12:53 PM      Profile for ValleyGirl        Edit/Delete Post
Unfortunately,I doubt the U.S. is listening.Mr.Mandela says the U.S. is undermining the UN.I would say they've been ignoring the UN for many years.
From: Slocan;British Columbia | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Art J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2259

posted 30 January 2003 02:26 PM      Profile for Art J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I like the way Nelson Mandela (an honorary canadian) refers to Bush as a president who can't think properly.
From: British Columbia Inc. - Let us Prey | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fat Bastard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3669

posted 30 January 2003 03:23 PM      Profile for Fat Bastard     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. Mandela might want to, er, reflect on the fact that it was SANCTIONS agin Pretoria that got his ass outta the hoosegow. How might Nelson react had the Left said "Let the poor bastards rot under de Klerk" the same way we are saying about Iraqis today: "Let 'em fend for themselves against Mr. Electric Drill To The Genitals". No war. No sanctions. See no evil. Outta site, outta mind.

Fsshpp.


From: On Your Couch | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3517

posted 30 January 2003 03:47 PM      Profile for rubble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This has always been Mandela's stance on the issue. I'm pround to have him as an honorary Canadién. Now only if he can get elected as the Secretary General of the U.N.,

Do you think he'd get blackmailed the same way as Koffee.


From: Earth | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 30 January 2003 05:09 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Give em hell, Nelson!

It was Big Dick Cheney who was the only Senator who voted against a resolution demanding S. Africa let him out of prison.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 30 January 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm, this is a frivolity break from a deadly serious issue, but am I the only babbler who thinks Nelson takes the sexiest octogenarian prize?

[ 30 January 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Human
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3671

posted 30 January 2003 07:22 PM      Profile for Human        Edit/Delete Post
The U.S did not rescue Mandela from the white south african regime,only after 40 years of internal (S.African) struggle did the U.S. finally give in to pressure from within.
From: St.Catharines Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 31 January 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
it would be interesting to see a poll of african-american support/opposition to the war from *before* his statement and *after*. you wonder if that may be part of mandela's thought on the issue, encouraing dissent within the US.

desmond tutu is also appaled at blair:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2628607.stm


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 01 February 2003 01:25 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder how much of the U.S. news media even bothered to report what Nelson Mandela said.

One of my favourite memories of Nelson Mandela was a "town hall" meeting held on "ABC Nightline" with Ted Koppel some years ago shortly after he was released from prison.

Nelson Mandela caught Mr. Koppel in one of the many contradictions of U.S. foreign policy...and Koppel for a change was left absolutely speechless.

After about 30 seconds of "dead air" Nelson Mandela says to Koppel "What...are you paralized?". I was just rolling on the floor laughing.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 01 February 2003 03:40 PM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post
Too bad the corporate media didn't gibe Mandela much press. I guess that's what happens when the corporate war-mongers own the media...


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 01 February 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As much as I admire Mandela, there were aspects of this speech which were not exactly "balanced". I'm troubled in particular by his insinuations about racism (Kofi Annan reference). Whatever your views on Bush et al, he has black people at the most senior levels in his government. The US was also a staunch supporter of Mandela, and led the coalition to apply sanctions against the apartheid regime.

[ 01 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 February 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The US was also a staunch supporter of Mandela, and led the coalition to apply sanctions against the apartheid regime.



Get real. The US opposed santions everystep of the way, referred to Mandella as a communist and the racist government as a democracy.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 February 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 01 February 2003 04:06 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WingNut that is very racist (i.e., suggesting that a person's skin colour does or should dictate their political views). There was a big stink in Florida over the past couple weeks about a radio DJ who created an extremely racist "parody" of Condoleezza Rice, calling her an "answer mammy", etc. If anyone on the right tried to get away with this kind of obvious racism they would be pilloried (and deserve it). Why do people on the far left think they are exempt from the rules?

As for your remarks about the US and sanctions, the US supported sanctions against South Africa from the mid-1960's on, when it endorsed U.N. Resolution 181.

Were there gaps in the support and mistakes? Yes. Is that the same thing as being "opposed santions everystep of the way". Obviously not. There were times when Americans were concered about ANC ties to the Soviet Union. Whether you like it or not, the Soviets were the enemy at the time. Nonetheless the US ultimately endorsed all major UN resolutions against Pretoria.

And by the way, Mandela was a communist. So what? Apartheid was still wrong.

Anyhow I know from reading this board in the past that you are not a person I want to engage, so I'll drop it here.

[ 01 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 01 February 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Crossfire bashed Mandela for those comments.

Called him old and senial.

Go CNN!

[ 01 February 2003: Message edited by: Hawkins ]


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 February 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Were there gaps in the support and mistakes? Yes. Is that the same thing as being "opposed santions everystep of the way".

*cough*

RONALD REAGAN

*cough*


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 01 February 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To *cough* reiterate: "Were there gaps in the support and mistakes? Yes."

I am not attempting to elide the truth. Then again, I'm a moderate.

[ 01 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 February 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, you and everyone who agrees with you is a moderate. Everyone else is a far- something. You are just fargone.

The US congress even voted for a semblance of sanctions. But they were sanctions without teeth. They were flouted and ignored by US corporations.

And the US would have declared Mandella and the ANC communist regardless of the USSR. By labelling something or someone socialist is how they excercise their political correctness to stifle speech.

Edited to add:
Oh, yeah ...

quote:
WingNut that is very racist

.. tell these guys:
http://www.blackcommentator.com

[ 01 February 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 01 February 2003 05:44 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that the United States government, well Bush, anyway, is disregarding the United Nations because Kofi Annan is black. Other than that, I would wholeheartedly endorse Mandela's statements in the article. He may be so outspoken at this point because, as he is no longer the head of state in South Africa, he is free to speak his mind, and does not have to concern himself with the political ramifications these statements would have on the people of South Africa. It's refreshing to see someone with this much credibility reinforcing what is clear to most people, despite U.S. efforts to spin it.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 01 February 2003 05:51 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, verbatim. I think the Bush administration will ignore the UN whenever the UN says anything that contradicts Bush policy.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 01 February 2003 09:56 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And remember when sanctions were placed by the world on the racist South African regime, two countries continued to sell them arms (both puppets and under the control of the US) - Pinochet's Chile and Israel. The latter being the largest contributor of arms to the S.A. government. Arms that were being used to oppress black South Africans.

Reagan and Margaret Thatcher fought very hard against any sanctions, but these two countries eventually and reluctantly joined the embargo.

When I hear CNN commentators talk of how America worked for freedom in South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela, I reach for the barf bag. What a total distortion of history.

When Bush and Blair talk about freedom for the Iraqi people from a regime that was placed there originally by these two imperialist powers I see the same distortions taking place.

At least Mandela knows the truth and that is why he isn't afraid to tell it.


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 01 February 2003 10:22 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And by the way, Mandela was a communist.

No Mandela was not a communist. He was on the left definitely, but not a communist.

However it was true that the ANC and the SACP were in an alliance. The SACP originally arose from the white working class.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 12:05 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*Sigh*

You are, naturally enough, simply wrong:

quote:
In their rush to proclaim him a symbol of freedom, none of the networks covered Mandela's ideology or the relationship between Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). In his own handwritten manuscript How To Be A Good Communist, Mandela wrote "Under a Communist government, South Africa will become a land of milk and honey." With the exception of NBC's Bob Kur and Mike Jensen, no reporter even mentioned Mandela's support of economic nationalization. With Mandela's ideas and "loyal and disciplined" membership in the ANC, would South Africa become a multi-racial democracy or a one-party Marxist state like its neighbors? No one asked.

Mediawatch


[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 12:15 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Chris Hitchens is nearly single-handledly leading the movement to dissociate the Left's lunatic fringe from maintream politics (just as the Right has dumped the white supremacists). Michael Walzer and Ron Rosenbaum are other notable leftist leaders in this drive to rescue the Left from terminal irrelevence. That their efforts are working splendidly can be seen in the inevitable apoplectic and/or sarcastically dismissive reactions of the far left screwballs whenever Hitchens et al essays are reproduced in places like this. What else can they do? When you have neither facts nor common sense on your side then all you have left is historical revisionism and outrageous ideological posturing. (E.g., America is the new "Third Reich" -- John Pilger is the Left's answer to David Duke).

So, Hitchens once again shines light into the dark recesses of the radical Left and exposes this latest Mandela screed for what it is: the rantings of a sadly confused old man.

Race and Rescue: Nelson Mandela's odious views on Iraq

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 02 February 2003 12:26 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, Can - ...

That link is from a site that in my opinion lacks credibility. "The Liberal Media bias" and all that.

Economic nationalization. Now there's a crime!Maybe Nelson Mandela hasn't read the modern moral tale called Bechtel and the Bolivians yet.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 12:31 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That link is from a site that in my opinion lacks credibility. "The Liberal Media bias" and all that.

Well frankly your opinion of Slate (which is moderate-Left) is irrelevent to whether Hitchens' arguments make sense or not. (I'm assuming you know that Hitchens is the former editor of The Nation. If that publication has no leftist cred here, then further discussion is pointless).

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 February 2003 01:32 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hitchens doesn't really say much in that column. Is Nelson Mandela nothing more than a doddering old fool now that he has no more political power? There was a lot more to Mandela's statement than just the allegation of racist disregard for the United Nations based on Kofi Annan's leadership. What about the allegation that the United States is doing it just for the oil?

Anyway, I don't feel comfortable second-guessing the opinions of someone else on issues of racism, especially when a person was jailed for decades because he fought against a racist regime. I think he's entitled to his opinion.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 02 February 2003 02:05 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ho, hum. Hitchens is another former leftist who sold out. Bernard-Henri Lévi, anyone? Or Oriana Fallaci? How dull.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 02 February 2003 02:38 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The other link. Mediawatch.
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 02:51 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hitchens is another former leftist who sold out.

Perhaps from where you sit. To many people he is one of a growing number of progressives who don't like where the hard left is headed (e.g., World Workers Party affiliations with Kim Jong Il, support by and for Saddam) and is committed to re-centering the Left around human decency. Michael Walzer (another "sellout" to you, no doubt) examines the whole issue in his superb essay Can There Be a Decent Left?

For those of use who desperately want a healthy, effective Left as a viable counterweight to the overweening power of the Right (at least in North America) all of this is good news. Just because you want to fight against oppression, for the environment, for labour rights, against sexism and racism, etc. etc. does not mean you have to embrace the quasi-Stalinist, paranoid/delusional belief system which--to be frank--is often on display here from a minority of posters to a disquieting degree.

If, on the other hand, all the conspiracy nuts and "smash the state and shoot the capitalists" types are right after all then they should have nothing to fear from such "sell-outs". Because the Revolution must be right around the corner...

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 02:55 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No Mandela was not a communist. He was on the left definitely, but not a communist.

Nelson Mandela, is and was a communist and as a communist I am proud to say it. But communism and communists are not some kind of monolithic ideology without nuance, that people like Can am would like them to be. Mandela is not Stalin through association.

Let us look at his achievements and judge what his brand of communism has done for his country and the world, rather than allowing people like Can Am smear him and all communists by false associations with Stalin.

Hitler was a capitalist, so what? Does that mean the Hitler and FDR are the same. Give me a break.

Enough of giving into this red bating.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 February 2003 02:55 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...the quasi-Stalinist, paranoid/delusional belief system which--to be frank--is often on display here from a minority of posters to a disquieting degree.
Examples please?

From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 03:04 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look back a few days at a thread where a poster named "Marx" called the office workers in the WTC "legitimate targets in a war". It would be bad enough if he was talking only about Americans, but some 40 of those "targets" were Canadians, and others came from some 50 different nations. That statement alone struck me as among the most vile and despicable things I have EVER read in my life, anywhere.

Just today a poster called "WingNut" posted a cartoon about Condoleezza Rice which was so blatantly racist that it would almost certainly result in a Humans Rights Tribunal case if a mainstream Canadian paper tried to print it.

There are literally hundreds of other examples since I have been reading this board. In some ways in reminds me of a mirror-image of the odious far-right board lucianne.com which is similarly full of people who make horrific statements daily. Statements which are not challenged except by a few people like me. I am called a "troll", "leftist scum", "traitor", you name it, on lucianne.com, just as I am sure I will draw the ire of many here (though I am not a troll. I am 100% sincere).

Now, it is my personal belief that whereas the hard right is composed primarily of nasty, if not evil human beings, the hard left more often seems to contain people who are basically decent people at heart but are for some reason very angry and very confused. That said, there are true sociopaths on both political extremes, for sure.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 February 2003 03:14 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting. I have to admit that I agree that nobody who died in the attack on the world trade centers was a legitimate target for anything. I don't think endorsing the attacks on the world trade centers has anything to do with being on or not being on "the left." I think it has to do with being able to recognize that humanity exists even in the offices of multinational corporations. I think terms like "left" and "right" are rapidly becoming irrelevant. I personally don't use them very much in my own description of political reality anymore.

[ edited to add ]

quote:
Just today a poster called "WingNut" posted a cartoon about Condoleezza Rice which was so blatantly racist that it would almost certainly result in a Humans Rights Tribunal case if a mainstream Canadian paper tried to print it.
...also interesting. I have some familiarity with the law surrounding human rights in Canada, and characterizing the cartoon about Ms. Rice as racist never once occurred to me. I suppose you're technically correct in writing that it suggests Ms. Rice should support affirmative-action just because she's an African-American. But, as political comics are designed to do, (although often they don't succeed) it highlights the irony of someone who may have benefitted from Affirmative-Action now condemning the idea.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 03:18 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sincere you may be, but you are sincerely one of the most arrogant little pkers to hit this board in some time. How easily you dash about making judgements: this one is 'hard' this, this one is 'extreme' that, but where is the substance in your taudry little snot-balls, nothing but ironic blasts of self important posing, as you liken your self to a 'moderate?'

But what is a moderate? What does that mean? Can you explain to me where I can find the 'moderate' party? Or who are its founding philosphers, or what are the moderate principals of governance?

Or perhaps a moderate is just someone who in their struggle for 'relevance,' (as opposed to the irrelvant left) objects to nothing, and toadies for whatever the ruling party of the day is.

The life blood of Stalanism and Hitlers facism were such moderates, who stood for nothing, and let them do as they please.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 03:21 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads:

I refer you to what I said above:

quote:
That their efforts are working splendidly can be seen in the inevitable apoplectic and/or sarcastically dismissive reactions of the far left screwballs

And either your drool is fouling your keyboard or you should invest in a spell-checker.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 03:23 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And what do you stand for? You have done nothing but say derisive and nasty things since I saw your first post. What is a moderate, for instance?

A spelling flame! How clever, is that the best you can do for wit, or did you just run out?

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 03:26 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
verbatim:

The cartoon in questions insinuates that Ms. Rice is no longer a black person because of her political views. In other words, a "race traitor". Maybe you are not aware of the underlying malevolence here, but there was a plethora of such cartoons published in 1950's era Southern US newspapers which attacked white politicians who were anti-segregationists as having lost their "white" status.

This cartoon is deeply, offensively racist and there is no excuse for it.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 February 2003 03:30 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh I see.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 03:31 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What is a moderate, for instance?

Well, for starters a moderate is someone who can argue intelligently against the war in Iraq without resorting to calling America the "New Third Reich". Or discuss how to tackle issues in the Third World such as poverty and HIV without resorting to a endless stream of invective about "world capitalism", American imperialists, etc. etc.

A moderate is someone who recognizes the general validity of arguments from many sources, but does not paint herself into an ideological corner such that the most idiotic notions are proffered as rational argument simply because they are required to keep the whole shaky edifice from collapsing of its own weight.

Above all, a moderate is someone whose mind can be changed through persuasive rational argument backed up by facts.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 03:36 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The cartoon is a cartoon, rather like yourself, actually.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 03:39 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok then. lets start from scratch.

"World Capitalism"

Question: What is the primary mode of the of the worlds economy? Is it primarily capitalist or is the world dominated by planned economies?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 03:41 AM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Touche, Moredreads. You should've been a stand-up comedian.

Anyhow, I've got no bone to pick with you. And it's late, so I'm signing off.

G'nite.

PS: Glad to see you're up for some (hopefully friendly) debate!

Tommorrow?

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 02 February 2003 03:46 AM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nelson Mandela, is and was a communist and as a communist I am proud to say it.

Sorry Moredreads, but Mandela was not a communist. Have you not read his autobiography? He certainly was quite prepared to work with the SACP and acknowledged the contributions they made in fighting apartheid, but he also stated that he always looked upon the American form of government as the ideal to strive for. Not what I'd define as a communist outlook. ;-)

The West lauded this man, after he left prison and took over the reigns of power for two main reasons. Firstly, he never had any intentions to change South Africa's economic system. And secondly, he was a much needed stablizing force to prevent an outright slaughter of the whites in South Africa who had been such bastards for all those years under the apartheid system. (btw, I do appreciate his contributions in the latter instance)

The struggle for economic liberation by the downtrodden of South Africa, sadly continues to this day. In fact, there appears to be some pretty significant friction between the ANC government and the SACP, although they still attempt to maintain the coalition of the ANC, COSATU and SACP. The ANC has not challenged the neo-liberal agenda of the transnational corporations that still own much of the wealth of that country. The poor of South Africa are really no better off economically than they were under apartheid because of this. Although the majority have liberated themselves from apartheid, liberating themselves from the international capitalist class hasn't been as easy and is still on their agenda, as it is for the rest of humanity.


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 04:38 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Though technically right, I think that Nelson Mandela was and is a communist. As with Tambo and much of the rest of the ANC leadership. It was certainly not politically astue for him to admit such, before or after apartheid's end, when he became president. But I think in terms of shared ideals, there is not a lot of difference.

I think more that the ANC sought to divorce itself from the kind of dependence to Russia that Cuba under Castro, and North Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh experienced. Also, it was well worth it to avoid the ongoing feud between China and Russia, both important allies.

quote:
The ANC has called upon and encouraged workers to use their labour power, not only to improve wages and working conditions, but also to destroy the exploitative system itself. Workers have been and are responding to this call. In the process, employers have been dismissing large numbers of the poorly paid and brutally exploited strikers.

The right of the workers to withhold their labour is universally recognised as fundamental. The ANC is determined to defend the right of South African workers to strike - especially the black workers. Firms which victimise strikers do so at their peril. They must be made aware that they dismiss their workers at the risk of dismissing their profits. The ANC intends to see to it that the workers right to strike is defended.

The objective of our struggle in South Africa, as set out in the Freedom Charter, encompasses economic emancipation. It is inconceivable for liberation to have meaning without a return of the wealth of the country to the people as a whole. To allow the existing economic forces to retain their interests intact is to feed the roots of racial supremacy and exploitation, and does not represent even the shadow of liberation.


-- Oliver Tambo, 1981

The marxist base is pretty clear.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 04:50 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A moderate is someone who recognizes the general validity of arguments from many sources...

Ergo: A moderate is a hodge-podge of disconnected and unfocussed ideas, floating around in the currents of what ever happens to be the fashionable discourse of the day. I am sure there were 'moderates' carefully considering a weighing the relative value of a variety of perspectives and arguments at the Wansee conference.

"Should we gas them, starve them or work them to death? Herr Eichman, what is the most rational course of action, in your opinion?"

And make no mistake, Eichman was a 'moderate' in these circles, as the SS resident Jewish expert he spoke Hebrew and worked for years on the plan to send the Jews to Madagascar, not the gas chambers -- though when that became the fashion he went along with that too. But whatever, as long as one is relevant! This unsuccessful Rhur valley business man went on to be a 'notable leader' in his drive to rescued himself from "terminal irrelevence."

Of course one might consider formulating a political postion based on principals, and in that light I'll ask you: Do you have any? And if you do perhaps you could outline them rather than just slagging everyone else about theirs?

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ice Foot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2531

posted 02 February 2003 09:49 AM      Profile for Ice Foot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Above all, a moderate is someone whose mind can be changed through persuasive rational argument backed up by facts.

Unfortunately, the words 'rational' and 'facts' have themselves become political rhetoric over the years and not as clear as might have been intended here. I am reminded of one of Reagan's many notable quotes during the Oliver North hearings, 'Facts are stupid things...'

At first it seemed to me that Can-Am was simply describing the value of being a moderate lies in being open minded, which I agree with. But I'm beginning to note that the 'arguments from many sources' you referred to don't actually come from that diverse a resource pool, thus there doesn't seem to be much difference in the definition quoted above and 'somone who is susceptible to a well executed PR campaign', or put more bluntly, propaganda.

Just my two cents. My apologies if I'm off base here.


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 02 February 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Out of curiousity, can anyone provide any actual evidence that Mandela was a member of the Communist Party? I've never heard that particular slur before. (Not saying it would be a crime to be part of the SACP, although it seems out of character for a nationalist like Mandela, just that those who reject his arguments by calling him a Communist -- or even communist -- are engaging in a smear campaign.)
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 02 February 2003 12:09 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
can anyone provide any actual evidence that Mandela was a member of the Communist Party? I've never heard that particular slur before. (Not saying it would be a crime to be part of the SACP, although it seems out of character for a nationalist like Mandela, just that those who reject his arguments by calling him a Communist -- or even communist -- are engaging in a smear campaign.)
Slur...? Smear... ? Why should 'Communist' or 'communist' be a derogative appellation? Because of the inevitable associations with Stalin? But Stalin's system was State Capitalism, not Communism, though it was both championed and derided as the latter.

From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 02 February 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is derogatory when it is used to dismiss and smear, like this: "Nelson Mandela? Why should we listen to him?He's just a communist and a terrorist!"
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 02 February 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyway, it wasn't just Stalin.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 02 February 2003 12:39 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well don't blame the victim of the slur for the slur. ;-) Most around here would jump up against any slurs against women, homosexuals, people of colour, etc., but alas the red-baiting of the last 100 years by the right-wing is never seriously challenged and was all too often supported by social democrats.

In my eyes, calling Mandela a "communist" is a compliment, not a slur. However, just calling someone a communist doesn't make him one and Mandela is NOT a communist. He does however show much tolerance for communists, recognizing the valuable contribution and sacrifices made by communists in fighting for justice throughout the 20th century, both in South Africa and elsewhere. Remember that while the "democracies" of the West stood by and supported the racists in SA for decades, it was the "evil empire" of the USSR that gave material and political support for the anti-apartheid movement, as they did for so many liberation movements of the third world.


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 02 February 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is derogatory when it is used to dismiss and smear
People who use the term as a slur aren't worth listening to since they resort to cheap shots and in any case dispay their total ignorance of the term.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Communist is a very broad term, much broader than some would like us to believe.

So, Rbil, I disagree, Mandela had a set of values that I identify as communist. Not holding membership in SACP had its benefits, for instance: being allowed to live.

Also, it afforded as certain amount of flexibility in political positioning, within the left, and distance from Moscow and Peking. While the quote I provided from Tambo (ANC president while Mandela was in jail) is not Mandela, himself, it refers to the 'Freedom Charter,' more or less is mission statement of the ANC. We must assume that mandela agreed with the Freedom Charter, otherwise he would not have been a member of the ANC.

One does not have to be a member of Moscow certified communist organization to be a communist.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 02 February 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So where do we draw the line? My roommate was a communist and I agreed with him more times than naught, but I don't think I am a communist. Was Tommy Douglas a communist? Was Jesus?

I just think ascribing beliefs is a mugs game. Lets just say he has much in common and a long history with the communists in South Africa. Whether he was a friendly traveller or not is really not that important.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 02 February 2003 02:32 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Replying to Moredreads ...

quote:
Communist is a very broad term, much broader than some would like us to believe.

It usually ends up being a waste of time and not very fruitful to get into debates on symantics. Sure, we can all have our invidual definitions of terms, but really the definitions should reflect the differences in political outlooks by the recognized political viewpoints. "Communist" is defined by the communists themselves as a very specific political ideology amongst the rather large continuim of left/socialist outlooks. You can look at Marx's definition, so well defined in the Communist Manifesto. Under this definition, it wasn't and isn't the viewpoint that Mandela has described as his viewpoint. When the socialist movement split at the time of Lenin, the central disagreement was over the question of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It was from that time forward that "communists" were pretty much defined as those whose viewpoint included Scientific Socialism (Marxism) and the belief in the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat (Leninism) to replace the dictatorship of the capitalist class. From my readings of Mandela, he doesn't subscribe to either of these viewpoints.

quote:
Mandela had a set of values that I identify as communist. Not holding membership in SACP had its benefits, for instance: being allowed to live.

"Values" are one thing and many who are not communists may certainly have communist values. Values aren't what distinguish a communist from a non-communist. The distinction is as I suggested above. As to Mandela having not joined the SAPC for tactical reasons, is just not true. In fact, there were communists who along with Mandela went to jail and stayed there with him as long as he did. Being a member of the SACP did not result in an instant death sentence, but did result in being jailed just as Mandela was.

quote:
Also, it afforded as certain amount of flexibility in political positioning, within the left, and distance from Moscow and Peking.

Moredreads, you are sure inferring a tactical reason for Mandela's not having been a Communist. I haven't read anything from Mandela that suggests that at all! As I said in my earlier post, read his biography if you haven't already. No suggestion that he was trying to distance himself from Moscow. In fact, cadres of the ANC went to Moscow on many occasions both for schooling and training.

quote:
One does not have to be a member of Moscow certified communist organization to be a communist.

I don't know what you mean by a "Moscow certified" organization? The Communist parties of the world have defined their own worldview and political ideology that makes them a distinct political grouping on the Left. This is generally and broadly defined as being a Marxist-Leninist party. I'm afraid that you're obviously trying to defend a position here that has no objective basis, but is more of a libertarian view that goes along the lines of "I am what I define myself to be." So ok, go and call yourself a "communist". That doesn't make you one if you are not a member of a recognized Communist Party. The same way that I can go around calling myself an NDPer, but I do not hold membership in that Party.


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 02:43 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ergo: A moderate is a hodge-podge of disconnected and unfocussed ideas, floating around in the currents of what ever happens to be the fashionable discourse of the day. I am sure there were 'moderates' carefully considering a weighing the relative value of a variety of perspectives and arguments at the Wansee conference.

"Should we gas them, starve them or work them to death? Herr Eichman, what is the most rational course of action, in your opinion?"


Moredreads, that's the second time you have tried to link me with Nazism because I claim to be a moderate. The first time I ignored it, but it is obvious now that you mean it.

There is only one possible response:

Fuck you. You are not a person worth debating. The only solace that moderates have in contemplating people like you is that as you sit in your greasy little garret, sexually inadequate, friendless, without lovers and desperate to rekindle the Stalinist/Maoist engine that systematically murdered 100 million people in the last century--given all that we can take solace in the knowledge that scum like you have no power whatsoever in our society. You missed your chance to be a gulag prison guard, Moredreads. Your chance to sneer at your bourgeois prisoner is gone for good. If you ever do act on your impulses (you know, "direct action") you will be hunted down and imprisoned. Who knows, maybe we'll read about you some day if you ever grow a set of balls to go with that miniature penis and actually go to South America and join a revolutionary movement rather than just sitting here in Canada having bowell movements.

There. Now we're even. You insinuate I'm a Nazi, I hold up a mirror to your ignoble face.

* Oh, by the way, lest you think the sexual reference is just hot air, a very close friend of mine is a former Soviet dissident who has told me in painstaking detail about the type of man drawn to the Party. Almost without fail there were severe problems of sexual inadequacy. Other characteristics include a general lack of ability, talent, spirit, imagination, empathy--in short humanity. I'd LOVE to introduce you personally to my friend Anton. I'm sure he'd have a splendid time listening to a Canadian defend communism.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 03:31 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too bad you missed the point.

To say that you are a moderate means nothing. Genghis Khan had 'moderates' among his advisors, JFK was 'moderate' in comparison to RFK, Chou En Lai was a 'moderate' in comparison to Mao, MLK was 'moderate' in comparison to Malcolm X etc.

Moderation is relative to its environment.

Where did I say that you were comparable to an Nazi?

But looking at your post above, even your self confessed 'moderation' is clearly little more than a series of neurotic paranoia’s expressed as
as vituperative outburst against anything that you don't understand.

Ergo you think that 'knowing' a soviet dissident gives you some kind of privileged knowledge, through association and that their bad Freudian psycho-babble can then be translated into the most fascist of all statements: "You've seen one communist, you've seen them all."

At first I thought I was just illustrating a point when I used the Wansee allegory. Now I see that some allegories are true than others.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 February 2003 03:39 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This cartoon is deeply, offensively racist and there is no excuse for it.

The cartoon in question, had you checked the web site, was by a bolack cartoonist for a black web site. And they are racist? Self-haters, I suppose.

How predictable for a white to tell blacks what is acceptable.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 03:39 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
At first I thought I was just illustrating a point when I used the Wansee allegory. Now I see that some allegories are true than others.

That makes THREE times you've implied I'm a Nazi. See the thing is, I'm NOT a Nazi. But you ARE a communist. You said so yourself. And it's not just one Russian, Moredreads. There are millions of Russians who were glad to be rid of the commies. After all, it was the people themselves who overthrew the oppressive communist tyrants, not American bombers.

Anyhow, I'm finished with you. Take your "allegory" and shove it.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 03:43 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The cartoon in question, had you checked the web site, was by a bolack cartoonist for a black web site.

I can direct you to a website run by a group of women who claim that abortion should be illegal even in cases where the mother's life is at stake. That position is odious, depite the fact that it is taken by women.

It makes no difference whatsover who did the cartoon. Furthermore, it is in itself racist to suggest that blacks cannot be themselves racist. People like you are constantly denying "people of colour" their full range of humanity.

The far left's dirty little secrets (crypto-racism, anti-semitism) are no longer secrets.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 February 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It makes no difference whatsover who did the cartoon. Furthermore, it is in itself racist to suggest that blacks cannot be themselves racist. People like you are constantly denying "people of colour" their full range of humanity.

The far left's dirty little secrets (crypto-racism, anti-semitism) are no longer secrets.



You must be reading my mind you psychic little bastard.
Where did I say blacks could not be racist?
The cartoon is racist in your narrow perspective as you want to see it that way.

You and your compatriots are the ones to deny people of color (why the quotes? Are they not really?) their full humanity by arguing againt what you call reverse discrimination while all the while turning a blind eye to racist discrimination.

The far right has no dirty little secrets. Just dirty little minds.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 02 February 2003 04:28 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You must be reading my mind you psychic little bastard.

WingNut, I said above that I am familiar with you from past readings of babble. I was also wrong to engage you when I said I wouldn't.

You are a sociopathic fool. You are one of the bad ones on the left. It comes through, loud and clear. As for your attitudes toward non-whites, I wouldn't trust someone like you as far as I could throw you when it comes to speaking for or about others. The scare quotes around people of colour are intentional. That silly phrase was coined by the white left and has no currency among African-Americans.

There are plenty of rational voices on babble. Yours is absolutely not among them. As I alluded above, there are many, many people who see through you and your ilk. I think Michael Walzer (who is a true progressive) hits the nail on the head with his one-word description of people like you:

Indecent.

If the Right can purge the David Dukes, the KKK and Aryan Nation then surely the Left can purge the foolish haters like you from its midst. Form your own political faction. All you need is a name. Between you and Moredreads I can think of nothing more appropriate than:

Useful Idiots.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 February 2003 04:50 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

WingNut, I said above that I am familiar with you from past readings of babble. I was also wrong to engage you when I said I wouldn't.


Ah, so I said it somewhere before? Maybe you can detail where. Of course you can't because facts are not something you rely on.
quote:

You are a sociopathic fool. You are one of the bad ones on the left. It comes through, loud and clear. As for your attitudes toward non-whites, I wouldn't trust someone like you as far as I could throw you when it comes to speaking for or about others


From a sociopathic clown such as yourself, I will take that as a compliment.
quote:

The scare quotes around people of colour are intentional. That silly phrase was coined by the white left and has no currency among African-Americans.


Then why use it? Oh, because you are qualified to speak for African-Americans? I see. Hypocrite.
quote:

There are plenty of rational voices on babble. Yours is absolutely not among them.


There are? The ones that agree with your ignoarnt views, no doubt.
quote:

As I alluded above, there are many, many people who see through you and your ilk. I think Michael Walzer (who is a true progressive) hits the nail on the head with his one-word description of people like you:

Indecent.



Sometimes a single word is quite adequate. Sometimes you need to face a mirror when you mouth that single, appropriate word.
quote:

If the Right can purge the David Dukes, the KKK and Aryan Nation then surely the Left can purge the foolish haters like you from its midst.


What utter nonsense. The right is a cabal of race haters. They replaced the lynch mob with courts and lethal injections. They no longer speak of segregation but practice it. In the most galling act of double-speak and racism they attack programs to provide an equality of opportunity as racist. Racism itself is provided lip service and nothing more.

Form your own political faction. All you need is a name. Between you and the other extremist neo-fascists I have one phrase:

Useless Idiots.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 February 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record, I emailed the publisher of blackcommentator.com indicating a poster considered the cartoon on his web site racialy offensive. His reply would indicate he would not provide serious consideration to such a claim.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 06:18 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm afraid that you're obviously trying to defend a position here that has no objective basis, but is more of a libertarian view that goes along the lines of "I am what I define myself to be." So ok, go and call yourself a "communist".

Rbil, we could do this forever, in keeping with the now rather long and sordid traditions of the left movements.

However, the point is not merely semantic

I think we agree that communism is a tradition that is firmly fixed in Marx's dialectical materialist critique of capital (not that it is the only reading of it), and has salient features beyond mere membership in parties that allied themselves with the Soviet Union.

quote:
It was from that time forward that "communists" were pretty much defined as those whose viewpoint included Scientific Socialism (Marxism) and the belief in the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat (Leninism) to replace the dictatorship of the capitalist class.

You are right to identify 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as one of those features, but I think wrong to identify it solely as a Leninist idea. The term appears in the Civil War in France, where Engel's simply defined it as a “shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and truly democratic one.”

But what is the functioning nature of that dictatorship?

How is to be organized now that the "former state power" has been "shattered?"

This key question Lenin and the Bolsheviks resolve by devising 'democratic centralism,' as a model for organization. And it is here, in my view, that the seeds of Stalinism found their root.'

In reality Democratic Centralism was not 'democratic' at all and shut down inter-party debate and made all members subject to the collective decisions of the party. In the larger world, a world destined for 'world revolution' based on a system of fraternal parties, (such as the SACP,) this had disastrous results as local parties found their local priorities usurped by Russian (Soviet) priorities, with disastrous results in China (1927), Germany (1936) and Spain (1938.)

Mao in fact (if not in public) was one of the first to reject this model, marching off into Hunan province after the 1927 debacle, in search of a more localized solution to local problems, without people like Borodin breathing down his neck. Not that the Chinese communist don't have their own history of stupid fuck-ups to own up to.

It was 'Democratic Centralism' not Engel’s idea of “shattering of the former state power" and its replacing it "by a new and truly democratic one,” that was rejected by many of the left leaders that emerged world-wide after 1917. But they wanted it on their terms, and sensitive to local interests, not ones beholden to Soviet priorities first.

Also, why associate yourself with a nutcase like Stalin? So why join the International?

I think if we look at the many 'left' movements and leaders that arose during the cold war, we can see a genuine ideological struggle in the minds of people like Mandela, Ernesto Cardinal, Ho Chi Minh and Castro to name a few. Castro as you and I both know at first tried to distance himself from his Marxist thinking in public, while the Sandanista minted a Peso with George Washington's face on it and Ho Chi Minh began the first constitution of Vietnam with the first phrase of the US constitution. Much of this was not merely camouflage for other agendas but a genuine reaching out to other much admired traditions, and an attempt at rejecting some of the serious fucking problems that arose in the past.

I think they were searching for ways to get the democracy back into the dictatorship, as it was conceived by Engel’s, not rejecting the thesis as a whole.

Here again is the quote from Oliver Tambo, the effective leader of the ANC throughout Mandela's prison term:

quote:
The objective of our struggle in South Africa, as set out in the Freedom Charter, encompasses economic emancipation. It is inconceivable for liberation to have meaning without a return of the wealth of the country to the people as a whole. To allow the existing economic forces to retain their interests intact is to feed the roots of racial supremacy and exploitation, and does not represent even the shadow of liberation.

This sounds very much to me like he is saying that the ANC wishes to shatter state power through "struggle" and replace it by a new and truly democratic one, that can't be truly 'liberating' "if the existing economic forces retain their interests intact."

What is ideologically non-communist about that? It is cetainly very marxist.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 02 February 2003 07:28 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I take it that the claim made yesterday that Mandela was a communist party member has now been decisively proved wrong (thanks rbil & others for the info). As to whether he was philosophically a communist/marxist, a quick search turns up this quote from Govan Mbeki:

quote:
At what point did Mandela begin to loom large in your consciousness?

He was already playing a leading role in the Youth League, and he was quite vociferous in the opposition to the Communist Party.


Mbeki interview

This Mandela speech to the SACP may be of some interest

It sounds to me like Mandela was and is a nationalist, a democrat and a leftist, but i don't see much evidence of Communist feeling here. It sounds to me that like most third-world nationalists of his generation, he was neither communist nor anti-communist, but simply non-communist. At any rate, his life is a hell of an inspiration, and despite one questionable statement in his recent comments, he remains an inspiration today.

Almost as inspiring as his wife, Graça Machel


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 February 2003 07:37 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Philosophically?

quote:
He was already playing a leading role in the Youth League, and he was quite vociferous in the opposition to the Communist Party.

I think you miss the point. At what point does the Leninist tradition of Marxism, as claimed by Stalin, take sole legitimate claim to the title communist? Opposition to the Communist Party is not a new thing for communists.

It was for this that Bhukahrin, Kamenev, Rhykov, Zionviev and Trotksy, and many more died for is it not?

This is my point. One can be a communist and oppose the party. This fabrication that one can not IS the Stalanist position.

It is in fact the MAIN reason for opposing a Communist Party (or any organization) that believes such.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 02 February 2003 08:01 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads, I agree with you this statement you made:

quote:
This key question Lenin and the Bolsheviks resolve by devising 'democratic centralism,' as a model for organization. And it is here, in my view, that the seeds of Stalinism found their root.'

I've always had a difficult time with democratic centralism and how it is implemented. A revolutionary party requires the discipline that such a structure creates if it is going to be at all successful in overthrowing such a diabolical institution as capitalism. The hard part is making sure that democratic centralism doesn't get perverted into a top down elitest dictatorship as implemented by Stalin. I am hopeful that revolutionaries have learned very valuable lessons by the whole debacle of Stalinism with the resulting temporary defeat of socialism.


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 04 February 2003 02:20 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can-Am said,
quote:
As for your attitudes toward non-whites...

You say that "people of colour" is the construct of white liberals and then proceed to use the term "non-white". Is that the politically correct moderate phrase to describe anyone who is not European? Us and them? What does that make you? Non-Black? Non-African American? Or just an "American"?

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 February 2003 01:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moving this to the Middle East forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca