Is Mandela a communist?

[scarletghoul]

Ive looked through the internet but can't find an answer to this question. Sometimes it seems he is and sometimes not.

[brigadista]

don't think so but possibly Winnie was...

[Madvillainy]

He wasn't a communist, he was a rich prince. He was also a capitalist and for all the praise people give him, if you look at south africa not much has fucking changed for the majority of people there.

[bellyscratch]

Think I read in the shock doctrine by Naomi Klein that South Africa is worse now for the poorest people in the country than it was under apartheid. Stuff like less people with access to clean water, electricity, wider gap between rich and poor etc.

Nelson Mandella is now also a spokesperson for Coca Cola

[Charles Xavier]

No Mandella wasn't a communist, but he was definitely a progressive.

[FreeFocus]

He's more of a social democrat.

[Tatarin]

Maybe when he was young? Ideologically?

[Black Dagger]

He wasn't a communist, he was a rich prince. He was also a capitalist and for all the praise people give him, if you look at south africa not much has fucking changed for the majority of people there.


Think I read in the shock doctrine by Naomi Klein that South Africa is worse now for the poorest people in the country than it was under apartheid. Stuff like less people with access to clean water, electricity, wider gap between rich and poor etc.

Nelson Mandella is now also a spokesperson for Coca Cola

Whilst you're both right about Mandela - in that he was not a communist but a revolutionary democrat - it's totally bogus to declare 'nothing much has changed in south africa'.

In fact on revleft it's a classic contender in 'cliched understatement of the 21st century'!

Yall know what Apartheid is right?

Saying 'nothing much has changed for most people' in SA ignores the fact that prior to 1994 south africa was a racially segregated society ruled by a murderous police state. That meant for africans - living under the strict control of a minority government. All your movement was controlled by a pass system, your labour - your day-to-day life. Residential areas were racially divided - if you were indian, african etc. you could be forcibly removed from your home and relocated (many were). You faced legalised discrimination in every sphere of life (known in SA as the 'petty apartheid' system) and there was no recourse - it was how things ran. 'Race mixing' was illegal, marriage, sexual relations - all of it. Not to forget events like Sharpeville - horrible killings.

Honestly, it really boggles the mind - though to be sure this isn't the first time a view like this on SA has come up on this site. It just makes me think - do people even know anything about SA history? It just seems trendy in some circles to bash Mandela, the ANC (both of which DO have massive flaws) and present this insulting view of SA - like now 'the blacks' run it and guess what? 'It's gotten worse!' No. A great many south africans have always been poor and living in poverty (since white rule) - the ANC have failed to lift people out of this situation but they did not create it - it is the legacy of centuries of violent racist domination.

[RedSonRising]

He seems to be more of a progressive, but supports leftist opposition.

Communists have always played an active role in the fight by colonial countries for their freedom, because the short-term objects of Communism would always correspond with the long-term objects of freedom movements. - Nelson Mandela

[Invincible Summer]

Since when is Communism "short term?"

[Madvillainy]

Yall know what Apartheid is right?



Of course I know what Apartheid was and yes your right South Africans have a lot of freedoms know that they didn't have before, but what good is that when your living in shit.

White people still own the mop and black people still work for them. Oh but I guess they have a black president now, woo hoo.

[ZeroNowhere]

Mandela's a reformist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQzY0ZoclRI) (of the 'really, really fucking annoying wing'), certainly not a socialist. This is merely an attack on the MPH bollocks that he supports, rather than the man himself.
He's not a progressive, he's perched quite firmly on the left arm of capital.

Also, from the site socialist linked:

And isn’t it time South Africa adopted a truly multi-party democratic system of government to be in line with its capitalistic economy?
What.

[Black Dagger]

Of course I know what Apartheid was and yes your right South Africans have a lot of freedoms know that they didn't have before, but what good is that when your living in shit.

White people still own the mop and black people still work for them. Oh but I guess they have a black president now, woo hoo.

No you're still missing the point.

Why do you think people vote for the ANC? Apartheid was like a holocaust that lasted 50 years. Honestly it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. 'What good is that when your living in shit'? Are you kidding? I don't think you realise just how little freedom existed for africans under apartheid. Post-1994 SA hasn't turned into a socialist paradise - black workers are still getting a bum deal (like all workers) it's just now the government won't lock them away for nothing or throw them out of windows :rolleyes:

Have you ever studied apartheid south african history?

Being able to support yourself, have food to eat - shelter and all that is very important - vital. Under apartheid - like now - those things were still possible to get. The point is not that people are poor or were poorer before or whatever. It's that now africans are treated as human beings. If society treated you as subhuman your whole life - beating you was nothing, killing you was nothing - if you were treated like a slave...emancipation would be something you'd never forget. However according to you without socialism or some kind of perfect equality in 15 years - 'what good is that'? Being treated like a human being for the first time in your life - and by society - that is a life-changing event. The abolition of legalised racial discrimination, the abolition of racial zoning in housing, work - the desegregation of life itself is an immeasurable step forward for the lives of africans in the country. That has nothing to do with how good your job is - the jobs are always around. The social overhaul that took place is much more significant than that. For you to shit on that is to ignore the horrible daily experience that apartheid was for millions of people; and not just africans, SA's large indian community were also subject to the segregation policies.

[Black Dagger]

Mandela's a reformist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQzY0ZoclRI) (of the 'really, really fucking annoying wing'), certainly not a socialist. This is merely an attack on the MPH bollocks that he supports, rather than the man himself.
He's not a progressive, he's perched quite firmly on the left arm of capital.

Also, from the site socialist linked:

What.

He's a reformist now - but he was not always so. As i said he was a revolutionary democrat, he launched with the support of the SA communist party a guerrilla war against the apartheid government. His goal was to see a democratic SA based on social-democratic principals, such as race equality, redistribution of wealth etc. Now that the apartheid government is dead he obviously sees no further utility in revolutionary struggle. I would imagine 40 years of prison might have weakened his resolve a touch, and with his advancing age he will have no doubt grown more conservative.

[ZeroNowhere]

He's a reformist now - but he was not always so. As i said he was a revolutionary democrat, he launched with the support of the SA communist party a guerrilla war against the apartheid government. His goal was to see a democratic SA based on social-democratic principals, such as race equality, redistribution of wealth etc.
The question was asked in the present tense, I don't know too much about Mandela's politics during the resistance to apartheid. Still, isn't that... Reformism?

[Black Dagger]

True. And to answer your question - no? Generally reformists don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government.

[ZeroNowhere]

Generally reformists don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government.
Well, yes, but it doesn't matter if what they want is a reformed capitalism. Whether through violence or tapdancing, it's still reformism.

[bellyscratch]

Whilst you're both right about Mandela - in that he was not a communist but a revolutionary democrat - it's totally bogus to declare 'nothing much has changed in south africa'.

In fact on revleft it's a classic contender in 'cliched understatement of the 21st century'!

Yall know what Apartheid is right?

Saying 'nothing much has changed for most people' in SA ignores the fact that prior to 1994 south africa was a racially segregated society ruled by a murderous police state. That meant for africans - living under the strict control of a minority government. All your movement was controlled by a pass system, your labour - your day-to-day life. Residential areas were racially divided - if you were indian, african etc. you could be forcibly removed from your home and relocated (many were). You faced legalised discrimination in every sphere of life (known in SA as the 'petty apartheid' system) and there was no recourse - it was how things ran. 'Race mixing' was illegal, marriage, sexual relations - all of it. Not to forget events like Sharpeville - horrible killings.

Honestly, it really boggles the mind - though to be sure this isn't the first time a view like this on SA has come up on this site. It just makes me think - do people even know anything about SA history? It just seems trendy in some circles to bash Mandela, the ANC (both of which DO have massive flaws) and present this insulting view of SA - like now 'the blacks' run it and guess what? 'It's gotten worse!' No. A great many south africans have always been poor and living in poverty (since white rule) - the ANC have failed to lift people out of this situation but they did not create it - it is the legacy of centuries of violent racist domination.

I'm not saying it would be better for them to live in Apartheid rule, just since SA have turned to neoliberalism, economically, things have got worse for the poor.

[Black Dagger]

I'm not saying it would be better for them to live in Apartheid rule, just since SA have turned to neoliberalism, economically, things have got worse for the poor.

Economically - sure, perhaps. But someones life is more than just the job they have or the food on their table. People struggle with that now like they struggled with it under apartheid. Maybe more struggle with it now - but regardless, no one lives in a police state anymore. No one is being beaten up and murdered by the pigs for the colour of their skin. At least now the question of whether an african life matters is actually considered important, under apartheid poor africans were worth less than nothing to the government. Police brutality, murders - thousands of poor folks thrown in jail on bullshit charges - it used to be all legal. These are very important differences that move beyond simply the state of the poor from an economic viewpoint.


Well, yes, but it doesn't matter if what they want is a reformed capitalism. Whether through violence or tapdancing, it's still reformism.

I understand what you're saying and you're right about the result being the same but it's not actually 'reformism' in a classical sense. The difference is Mandela didn't just want to 'fix' or reform the apartheid state he and SACP wanted to smash it. To do this they formed a clandestine guerilla organisation Umkhonto we Sizwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe). The group was short-lived and Mandela and his co-conspirators were arrrested and charged but their goal was nevertheless to destroy the state. For decades previously the ANC had been pursuing a reformist strategy - engaging in non-violent resistance whilst appealing to liberal elements of white society. After the Sharpeville massacre and the state crackdown that followed they shifted to a revolutionary ideology. This actually something very significant in ANC history and the history of non-violent resistance as a strategy- the ANC adopted a revolutionary approach after the bloodly failure of non-violence.

[Black Dagger]

If anyone is interested in learning more about the ANC's shift from non-violence to revolution I've just posted an essay in the articles (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=104633) section which I wrote a few years ago on the subject.

[ZeroNowhere]

The difference is Mandela didn't just want to 'fix' or reform the apartheid state he and SACP wanted to smash it.
Generally, I use reformism to refer to wanting a reformed capitalism, regardless of the means used to this end. That is, "Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution." Mandela would not replace capitalism, just reform it, therefore he was a reformist, albeit less useless and pointless than the MPHers that he likes nowadays.

[Black Dagger]

Generally, I use reformism to refer to wanting a reformed capitalism, regardless of the means used to this end. That is, "Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution." Mandela would not replace capitalism, just reform it, therefore he was a reformist, albeit less useless and pointless than the MPHers that he likes nowadays.

Fair enough you can define terms as you wish, but IMO your definition of 'reformism' is incorrect. You're giving emphasis only to the result - which was far from predetermined (given the ANC was bursting with communists and had a close relationship with the SACP). This is whilst ignoring the actual process of events - the strategy and tactics employed by the so-called 'reformists'. It is totally inconcrugous with an orthodox use of the term 'reformist' for such a person to advocate the whole-sale destruction of the existing state of affairs - reformists seek change from within the system - they do not act from outside of the system or advocate the abolition of the system itself. Apartheid south africa was not a liberal democratic capitalist society - it couldn't be and never was 'reformed'. Apartheid was abolished, there's nothing fundamentally reformist about that change.

[redSHARP]

i always assumed he was a social democrat and only used the communist for the short term alliance against apartheid. once the common foe was gone, they would shake hands and make their separate ways.

[Black Dagger]

I'd hardly call the alliance of the ANC and SACP 'short term'. Besides the fact that membership of the ANC was compulsory for SACPers, smashing white supremacy in south africa was never going to be a 'short' struggle. Moreover, 15 years after the end of apartheid the SACP still supports the ANC almost uncritically.

[Jack]

The Communist Part of South Africa has many seats in parlaiment (it's part of the ANC).

Just wanted to throw that out there.

[Jack]

Oh, someone beat be too it, nevermind.

[Devrim]

I don't believe that Mandela was a member of the SACP. I have never seen any documentation that he was, and at least one famous quote seems to suggest that he wasn't:


There will always be those who say that the Communists were using us. But who is to say that we were not using them?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Saying 'nothing much has changed for most people' in SA ignores the fact that prior to 1994 south africa was a racially segregated society ruled by a murderous police state. That meant for africans - living under the strict control of a minority government. All your movement was controlled by a pass system, your labour - your day-to-day life. Residential areas were racially divided - if you were indian, african etc. you could be forcibly removed from your home and relocated (many were). You faced legalised discrimination in every sphere of life (known in SA as the 'petty apartheid' system) and there was no recourse - it was how things ran. 'Race mixing' was illegal, marriage, sexual relations - all of it. Not to forget events like Sharpeville - horrible killings.

But please tells us what has actually changed. Let's look at some statistics:


With regard to education, 22.3% of Black aged 20 and over have received no schooling, 18.5% have had some primary school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_school), 6.9% have completed only primary school, 30.4% have had some high school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school) education, 16.8% have finished only high school, and 5.2% have an education higher than the high school level. Overall, 22.0% of Black Africans have completed high school.
The percentage of Black South African housing units having a telephone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone) and/or mobile phone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone) in the dwelling is 31.1%. The percentage having access to a nearby phone is 57.2%, and 11.7% do not have nearby access or any access. The percentage of Black African households that have a flush or chemical toilet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet) is 41.9%. Refuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuse) is removed from 45.3% of Black African households by the municipality at least once a week, and 11.0% have no rubbish disposal. Some 17.9% of Black Africans have running water inside their dwelling, 51.7% have running water on their property, and 80.2% have access to running water. The percentage of Black African households using electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity) for cooking is 39.3%, for heating, 37.2%, and for lighting, 62.0%. Radios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio) are owned by 68.7% of Black African households while 44.2% have a television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television), 1.8% own a computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer), 40.0% have a refrigerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator), and 24.6% have a mobile phone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone).
The unemployment rate of the Black population aged 15-65 is 28.1%.
The median annual income of Black working adults aged 15-65 is ZAR 12,073. Black African males have a median annual income of ZAR 14,162 versus ZAR 8,903 for Black African females.


With regard to education, 1.4% of Whites aged 20 and over have received no schooling, 1.2% have had some primary school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_school), 0.8% have completed only primary school, 25.9% have had some high school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school) education, 40.9% have finished only high school, and 29.8% have an education higher than the high school level. Overall, 70.7% of Whites have completed high school.
The percentage of White housing units having a telephone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone) and/or mobile phone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone) in the dwelling is 95.4%. The percentage having access to a nearby phone is 4.4%, and 0.2% do not have nearby access or any access. The percentage of White households that have a flush or chemical toilet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet) is 98.7%. Refuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuse) is removed from 90.8% of White households by the municipality at least once a week, and 0.5% have no rubbish disposal. Some 87.2% of White have running water inside their dwelling, 95.6% have running water on their property, and 99.4% have access to running water. The percentage of White households using electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity) for cooking is 96.6%, for heating, 93.2%, and for lighting, 99.2%. Radios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio) are owned by 94.7% of White households while 92.6% have a television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television), 46.0% own a computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer), 97.6% have a refrigerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator), and 74.6% have a mobile phone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone).
The unemployment rate of the White population aged 15-65 is 4.1%.
The median annual income of White working adults aged 15-65 is ZAR 65,405. White males have a median annual income of ZAR 81,701 versus ZAR 52,392 for White females. The annual income distribution of Whites in South Africa is 79.


To me that shows that there is still as massive gap between the economic conditions of blacks and whites in South Africa. If you compared it with similar statistics from before the fall of apartheid, and there was shown to be a significant difference in the relationships between the figures, then you could claim there was a difference.

One of the things that you state is that 'Residential areas were racially divided'. Now , I would imagine that residential areas are still racially divided now. I would imagine that for the working class, and I am not really at all concerned about the new members of the black bourgeoisie managing to be socially mobile, there has been very little change. In which case I would imagine that on the housing issue as Klien said 'nothing much has changed for most people'.

The liberalism that you are putting forward comes through in some of your following points:


It just seems trendy in some circles to bash Mandela, the ANC (both of which DO have massive flaws) and present this insulting view of SA - like now 'the blacks' run it and guess what? 'It's gotten worse!'

The problem for revolutionaries is not that Mandela and the ANC 'have flaws', but that the ANC is a bourgeois party. If life has got economically worse for the working class and though I haven't read Klein's work it isn't something that would surprise me. It hasn't got worse because 'now the blacks run it'. It has got worse because the crisis is deepening and capitalism is unable to deal with it.


A great many south africans have always been poor and living in poverty (since white rule) - the ANC have failed to lift people out of this situation but they did not create it - it is the legacy of centuries of violent racist domination.

Well no, it is not the legacy of 'violent racist domination'. It is the legacy of capitalism. You view suggests that you think it is the goal of the ANC to 'lift people out of this situation[of poverty]. Communists believe that their goal is to run the economy and the state just like the Democratic Party in the US.


Apartheid was like a holocaust that lasted 50 years.

This is the typical liberal habit of comparing everything to the Nazi's.


The point is not that people are poor or were poorer before or whatever. It's that now africans are treated as human beings.

Communists believe that workers are treated as commodities not human beings.


That has nothing to do with how good your job is - the jobs are always around.

Unfortunately for many workers today they are not. How many South African workers does this apply to?


He's a reformist now - but he was not always so. As i said he was a revolutionary democrat,

Is it possible to be a 'revoultionary democrat' in today's period? To me it seems like an idea from a different historical period. Is it impossible for reformists to use armed struggle? The catorgries you are using seem very confused.


Economically - sure, perhaps. But someones life is more than just the job they have or the food on their table. People struggle with that now like they struggled with it under apartheid. Maybe more struggle with it now - but regardless, no one lives in a police state anymore.

What does the term 'police state' mean? It is part of the vocabulary of liberalism. Ultimately ,all states are prepared to defend themselves with armed force. To that extent all states are 'police states'. Let's look at the South African one:


Use of excessive force by police

Police responded to a number of public protests over socio-economic grievances with excessive force and arbitrary arrests.


In September, unarmed demonstrators in the Durban area protested at the lack of adequate housing. The rally organizers, the Shackdwellers Association, had complied with the requirements of the Gatherings Act. Participants were peacefully waiting to present a petition when the police dispersed them without warning, using water cannon, stun grenades, baton charges and rubber bullets. They pursued fleeing marchers, beating them indiscriminately. Fourteen activists were arrested, including one of the organizers, Mnikelo Ndabankulu, who had gone to the police station to check on the welfare of others. They were charged with public violence. Court proceedings were postponed in November until 2008. Some of those arrested suffered injuries from beatings and rubber bullets, including Mariet Nkikine, who was shot five times in the back at close range.
In Limpopo province, villagers denied access to their lands, subjected to the effects of mine blasting and facing large-scale relocations protested against Anglo-Platinum and other mining companies.
In January, 15 protesters, mainly women from Ga-Puka village who were trying to stop the mining company from fencing off their fields, were punched, pushed and kicked by police officers. One physically disabled woman said that she was beaten by police and had pepper spray sprayed into her eyes at close range, although she was already in their custody. The protesters were all subsequently released uncharged.
In May, in Maandagshoek, police arrested 18 protesters, including a pregnant woman and a woman with a breastfeeding baby, and detained them unlawfully for 12 days. They were released on bail after being charged with public violence. Earlier, in March, the regional magistrate’s court dismissed charges against other residents of Maandagshoek whose demonstration in June 2006 had been dispersed by police using excessive force.


Torture and other ill-treatment

Torture and other ill-treatment by police as part of criminal investigations continued to be reported. Corroborated cases included the use of police dogs to attack shackled crime suspects, suffocation torture, hitting with gun butts, and kicking and beating of suspects all over the body. The assaults took place in a variety of locations including in or near the suspects’ homes. In some cases injured detainees were denied urgently needed medical care.


Z. S. was attacked by police dogs while handcuffed and held prone on the ground by police in September. His wounds turned septic before he received any medical care while detained at a Durban area police station.
The police oversight body, the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD), reported that between April 2006 and March 2007, it received 23 complaints of torture and 530 complaints of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In the same 12-month period it received 279 new reports of deaths in custody and 419 deaths as a result of police action, including 141 suspects fatally shot during arrest. Nearly 50 per cent of these 698 deaths occurred in two provinces, Gauteng and KwaZulu Natal.



So that means in one year that there were 698 people murdered by the police. Unfortunately they are dead, and can no longer be happy that 'no one lives in a police state anymore'.


No one is being beaten up and murdered by the pigs for the colour of their skin.

Would you imagine that the reason for it not being their colour of skin gives them and their families a great deal of comfort. I would also like to see an ethnic breakdown of those deaths. I am pretty sure what it would show us.


Police brutality, murders - thousands of poor folks thrown in jail on bullshit charges - it used to be all legal

Now, its illegal, so what. Does that mean that police brutality, torture and murder, no longer occur.


I understand what you're saying and you're right about the result being the same but it's not actually 'reformism' in a classical sense. The difference is Mandela didn't just want to 'fix' or reform the apartheid state he and SACP wanted to smash it. To do this they formed a clandestine guerilla organisation Umkhonto we Sizwe (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe). The group was short-lived and Mandela and his co-conspirators were arrrested and charged but their goal was nevertheless to destroy the state. For decades previously the ANC had been pursuing a reformist strategy - engaging in non-violent resistance whilst appealing to liberal elements of white society. After the Sharpeville massacre and the state crackdown that followed they shifted to a revolutionary ideology. This actually something very significant in ANC history and the history of non-violent resistance as a strategy- the ANC adopted a revolutionary approach after the bloodly failure of non-violence.

Do you actually remember that the change from aparthied was a negotiated change? Umkhonto we Sizwe never had aspirations to smash the state. It was always intended as a negoitiating tool.


Fair enough you can define terms as you wish, but IMO your definition of 'reformism' is incorrect. You're giving emphasis only to the result - which was far from predetermined (given the ANC was bursting with communists and had a close relationship with the SACP).

Do you really think that there was anything communist at all about the SACP?


Apartheid south africa was not a liberal democratic capitalist society - it couldn't be and never was 'reformed'. Apartheid was abolished, there's nothing fundamentally reformist about that change.

It was absolutely reformist in that the management of the capitalist state has been reformed.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

I don't believe that Mandela was a member of the SACP.

Yes that's correct.


But please tells us what has actually changed.As far as i can tell you're just repeating an argument i have already replied to in this thread. I.E. A strictly economic view of peoples lives - which says 'well people were poor then and they're still poor' (this is true) - or maybe even 'the poor are getting poorer!' (Possible, i don't know).

But nowhere have i defended the ANC as an organisation - it's politics or it's state. I'm well aware of the horrible neo-liberalisation that has taken place in the country, where even the water supply has been privatised.

I've made it clear that i'm talking about changes in society rather than in the economics of the country:


'What good is that when your living in shit'? Are you kidding? I don't think you realise just how little freedom existed for africans under apartheid. Post-1994 SA hasn't turned into a socialist paradise - black workers are still getting a bum deal (like all workers) it's just now the government won't lock them away for nothing or throw them out of windows

Being able to support yourself, have food to eat - shelter and all that is very important - vital. Under apartheid - like now - those things were still possible to get. The point is not that people are poor or were poorer before or whatever. It's that now africans are treated as human beings. If society treated you as subhuman your whole life - beating you was nothing, killing you was nothing - if you were treated like a slave...emancipation would be something you'd never forget.
However according to you without socialism or some kind of perfect equality in 15 years - 'what good is that'? Being treated like a human being for the first time in your life - and by society - that is a life-changing event. The abolition of legalised racial discrimination, the abolition of racial zoning in housing, work - the desegregation of life itself is an immeasurable step forward for the lives of africans in the country.That has nothing to do with how good your job is - the jobs are always around.
The social overhaul that took place is much more significant than that. For you to shit on that is to ignore the horrible daily experience that apartheid was for millions of people; and not just africans, SA's large indian community were also subject to the segregation policies.


Saying 'nothing much has changed for most people' in SA ignores the fact that prior to 1994 south africa was a racially segregated society ruled by a murderous police state. That meant for africans - living under the strict control of a minority government. All your movement was controlled by a pass system, your labour - your day-to-day life. Residential areas were racially divided - if you were indian, african etc. you could be forcibly removed from your home and relocated (many were). You faced legalised discrimination in every sphere of life (known in SA as the 'petty apartheid' system) and there was no recourse - it was how things ran. 'Race mixing' was illegal, marriage, sexual relations - all of it. Not to forget events like Sharpeville - horrible killings.

-------------------------



To me that shows that there is still as massive gap between the economic conditions of blacks and whites in South Africa. If you compared it with similar statistics from before the fall of apartheid, and there was shown to be a significant difference in the relationships between the figures, then you could claim there was a difference.I never suggested otherwise.

Though considering you read my posts before replying you must be aware of this? Honestly devrim this whole post is filled with silly jabs at me that don't stand up to a nanosecond of examination. Yes, there is an incredibly unequal distribution of wealth in south africa - what is your point? I'm not disputing that.



One of the things that you state is that 'Residential areas were racially divided'. Now , I would imagine that residential areas are still racially divided now. I would imagine that for the working class, and I am not really at all concerned about the new members of the black bourgeoisie managing to be socially mobile, there has been very little change. In which case I would imagine that on the housing issue as Klien said 'nothing much has changed for most people'.Yes i understand your point, discrimination still exists and it down to class - of course it is and does - but that doesn't mean 'nothing has changed'.

Yes, residential areas may still be divided unofficially on 'racial' grounds because of the class/race axis - the point is now black people have freedom of movement - just a slight improvement don't you think?

Now the government won't kick you out of your home because it's gotta make way for white people houses, or because some new race laws have passed and you've been reclassified as 'coloured' - and 'coloured' people aren't allowed to live in your area etc.

Social disadvantage stemming from class existed under apartheid too, but now none of the above does - that's the point - some things have changed and for the better.



The liberalism that you are putting forward comes through in some of your following points:Way to abuse the term 'liberalism' as an insult in the course of a political discussion. Though perhaps i should take a page out of your book eh? 'Condesencion' I believe is the title. Do you know what 'liberalism' means Devrim? I mean really? It's quite clear you don't. If i was a 'liberal' i would not advocate communism blah blah etc. You're just a red fascist!

Oh look i did it too!

Name-calling is fun, though usually only for children. I thought you more mature than this Dev.


The problem for revolutionaries is not that Mandela and the ANC 'have flaws', but that the ANC is a bourgeois party.What a delightful barb!

The insinuation of course being that you are a revolutionary and i am liberal (unsubstantiated of course, like all good political pejoratives).

No really? A bourgeois party you say? Well i never! I always thought the ANC was REVOLUTIONARY! :rolleyes:

Please.

Yes the ANC is a bourgeois party, tell me something i don't know.



If life has got economically worse for the working class and though I haven't read Klein's work it isn't something that would surprise me.From what i have read and heard about the ANC government it wouldn't suprise me either. The former president was an AIDS sceptic ffs.


It has got worse because the crisis is deepening and capitalism is unable to deal with it.
Well recently - yes i suppose, less recently i would suggest it's because the ANC government embraced neo-liberal 'development' philosophy.


Well no, it is not the legacy of 'violent racist domination'. It is the legacy of capitalism.

No Dev, you're wrong. It's the legacy of violent racist capitalist domination. Ignoring the violent racist character of south african capitalism under apartheid is silly beyond words. I know you eschew talking about social politics, racism etc. generally - but this is a really a bit of a stinker on your part.



You view suggests that you think it is the goal of the ANC to 'lift people out of this situation[of poverty]. Communists believe that their goal is to run the economy and the state just like the Democratic Party in the USI'm sorry, what? My view is what?

In future Devrim, if you would like to know my view it is best either that you ask me directly or that you lift it directly from my statements... preferably ones prefaced with 'my view is that'.

K?

And now for a little treat my view as stated by me (rather than someone taking an extremely adversarial position to me)...

I think the goal of the ANC - at least based on the writings of Mandela - was to establish a 'multi-racial democracy' - basically to transform south africa into a liberal democratic state, like the UK (whose government system Mandela admired).


This is the typical liberal habit of comparing everything to the Nazi's.
:rolleyes:

Let's be precise here, i didn't compare 'everything' to the nazis - slight hyperbole on your part - in fact i never actually mentioned the nazis. I compared the suffering of africans under 50 years of apartheid to be something akin to an ongoing holocaust. I.E. Suffering = a lot.

But yes, even if i was talking about the nazis my anaology would have some merit.

The whole racist state ideology, anti-communism, race-based pass system, secret police, race-based residential zoning, removal and ghettos (known as 'homelands' in SA) all that racially motivated violence - yup, none of that apartheid stuff existed in nazi germany at all.

Indeed, the only reason i brought it up was because i'm a liberal (capitalism wooo! democracy woo!) who worships the holocaust :bored: Or thinks everyone is a nazi, i'm not sure why... but i'm just a confused liberal so cut me so slack eh?

What are you even talking about? What a totally irrelevant point to make/nitpick.


Communists believe that workers are treated as commodities not human beings.I agree that capitalism is dehumanising and treats people like commodities - - but not only were africans subjected to this treatment as workers through labour exploitation - but for an african factory worker outside of work - their lives were worth less than the machines they worked with. Obviously under ANC rule people are still treated like commodities, wage labour is king - but the whole of society is no longer premised on the villification of africans as some kind of subhuman species. I.E. In the past - things for a little worse than just the dehumanising effects of wage labour.


Unfortunately for many workers today they are not. How many South African workers does this apply to?I don't know? And i'm not going to look up the figures because you're nitpicking unimportant shit. I said 'jobs are always around' - and you're saying 'is that really true BD? ARE THEY?' As if i haven't heard of unemployment. Stop exaggerating every little thing.


Is it possible to be a 'revoultionary democrat' in today's period? When i said 'revolutionary democrat' i meant this literally - i.e. Mandela participated in a revolutionary struggle to smash the apartheid system and erect in its place 'multiracial democracy'.


. Is it impossible for reformists to use armed struggle? I don't understand the point of your question, it just seems like you're trying to make a point but instead you're disguising it as a question?

But to answer your question, no.


The catorgries you are using seem very confused.Really? I'm very much not confused about what i said. If you have any further loaded questions please ask (i know you've asked a lot, but it's only fair i give you a chance) - perhaps they will help clarify things.


What does the term 'police state' mean? It is part of the vocabulary of liberalism. Ultimately ,all states are prepared to defend themselves with armed force. To that extent all states are 'police states'It's just non-stop reductionism with you devrim.

Everything is equivalent - 'oh but they have police now, so it's still a police state of sorts!'

No.

'To that extent' you're talking out of your arse.

Yes, if you break it down into such a horribly simplistic picture every state is a police state, but then it would be impossible to understand any kind of difference between two states. Your approach reduces everything down to its most basic elements destroying any kind of depth to the argument.

If you think the police force that exists in SA today is the same functionally as it was under apartheid south africa (not to even mention the secret police) then i suggest you read a little bit more about south african history.


Unfortunately they are dead, and can no longer be happy that 'no one lives in a police state anymore'.
Would you imagine that the reason for it not being their colour of skin gives them and their families a great deal of comfort. I would also like to see an ethnic breakdown of those deaths. I am pretty sure what it would show us.This is a very poor natured, insensitive jab.

I'm well aware the the police in SA today still kill people - of course police brutality still exists - there are cops after all! I never suggested otherwise. Enough with this strawman shit.


Now, its illegal, so what. Does that mean that police brutality, torture and murder, no longer occur.No of course not, stop talking to me like i'm a fucking idiot.


Do you actually remember that the change from aparthied was a negotiated change? Umkhonto we Sizwe never had aspirations to smash the state. It was always intended as a negoitiating tool.Yes i actually remember that!!! But no, you're totally wrong.

Did you 'actually' read Umkhonto we Sizwe's communiques etc? They are quite explicit in this regard. The ultimate goal was the destruction of 'white supremacy' AKA the apartheid system. This is inseparable from the state. Whether this was just rhetoric, and their real goal was just to negotiate is a matter of conjecture - i was talking about their publically stated purpose.


Do you really think that there was anything communist at all about the SACP?

At some point maybe, but not for a very long time.


It was absolutely reformist in that the management of the capitalist state has been reformed.

I understand what you're saying - and you're right for the most part - but that's only because of historical hindsight. It's like saying that the bolsheviks were reformists because russia is now a neo-liberal paradise. When i said Mandela was a revolutionary democrat (say in 1960), it was only because the change that was to take place required structural change to society (apartheid was a huge complex system of laws that thoroughly consumed SA society - and this was all to be torn up) - it was meant to displace the white ruling class. It didn't - it ended up being precisely what you have described.

[Devrim]

What a delightful barb!

The insinuation of course being that you are a revolutionary and i am liberal (unsubstantiated of course, like all good political pejoratives).

No really? A bourgeois party you say? Well i never! I always thought the ANC was REVOLUTIONARY! :rolleyes:

What a delightful barb!

The insinuation of course being that you are a revolutionary and i am liberal (unsubstantiated of course, like all good political pejoratives).

I presume that this is supposed to be sarcasm. It does contradict these statements though:


As i said he was a revolutionary democrat, he launched with the support of the SA communist party a guerrilla war against the apartheid government. His goal was to see a democratic SA based on social-democratic principals, such as race equality, redistribution of wealth etc. Now that the apartheid government is dead he obviously sees no further utility in revolutionary struggle.

After the Sharpeville massacre and the state crackdown that followed they shifted to a revolutionary ideology. This actually something very significant in ANC history and the history of non-violent resistance as a strategy- the ANC adopted a revolutionary approach after the bloodly failure of non-violence.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the ANC's shift from non-violence to revolution I've just posted an essay in the articles (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=104633) section which I wrote a few years ago on the subject.

It is hardly surprising that people pick up the idea that you think that the ANC was revolutionary.

On the idea that I am misquoting you:



You view suggests that you think it is the goal of the ANC to 'lift people out of this situation[of poverty]. Communists believe that their goal is to run the economy and the state just like the Democratic Party in the US I'm sorry, what? My view is what?

In future Devrim, if you would like to know my view it is best either that you ask me directly or that you lift it directly from my statements... preferably ones prefaced with 'my view is that'.

What you originally said was:


the ANC have failed to lift people out of this situationTo me that sort of more than implies that you believe that this was the ANC's goal. After all, you don't fail to do things that you don't try to do.


Let's be precise here, i didn't compare 'everything' to the nazis - slight hyperbole on your part - in fact i never actually mentioned the nazis. I compared the suffering of africans under 50 years of apartheid to be something akin to an ongoing holocaust. I.E. Suffering = a lot.

But yes, even if i was talking about the nazis my anaology would have some merit.

Of course the holocaust analogy is drawing a comparison with fascism. What other holocaust do you expect people to think you are referring to? Of course calling people fascists is a common liberal substitute for an argument as you demonstrate in you reply:


You're just a red fascist!

But when we get past the false allegations of distorting what was said, and the absolute outrage at being called a liberal what do we find:


Yes i understand your point, discrimination still exists and it down to class - of course it is and does - but that doesn't mean 'nothing has changed'.

Yes, residential areas may still be divided unofficially on 'racial' grounds because of the class/race axis - the point is now black people have freedom of movement - just a slight improvement don't you think?

Now the government won't kick you out of your home because it's gotta make way for white people houses,

Well when we ignore the absolute distortion of Klien's statement 'Nothing much has changed for most people' to 'Nothing has changed'. There isn't much of an argument here at all.

The point isn't that black people now have freedom of movement. The point is that freedom of movement is pretty meaningless when you have nowhere to go, and no way to gat there, and no money to do it with.

In our country they have recently brought in Kurdish language TV. People may be aware that Kurdish was completely illegal in our country for many years, and is still not acceptable in public. What change has this brought about for Kurdish villagers? Well just to take one small example, the last time we visited family in a Kurdish village they didn't have TV.

BD tries to make out that the argument is somewhere above economics:


As far as i can tell you're just repeating an argument i have already replied to in this thread. I.E. A strictly economic view of peoples lives - which says 'well people were poor then and they're still poor' (this is true) - or maybe even 'the poor are getting poorer!' (Possible, i don't know).

But nowhere have i defended the ANC as an organisation - it's politics or it's state. I'm well aware of the horrible neo-liberalisation that has taken place in the country, where even the water supply has been privatised.

I've made it clear that i'm talking about changes in society rather than in the economics of the country:

For communists the economic changes are paramount.

I was in South Africa just after the abolition of the group areas act, but before the abolition of aparthied. A NUM shop steward explained to me what the changes meant in reality, "Before there were divisions on public transport. Now the white still drive because they have cars, and the poorest black kids still walk because they don't have change".

And the causes of this poverty? BD put it down to 'violent racist domination'. I put it down to capitalism. BD then argued:


No Dev, you're wrong. It's the legacy of violent racist capitalist domination. Ignoring the violent racist character of south african capitalism under apartheid is silly beyond words. I know you eschew talking about social politics, racism etc. generally - but this is a really a bit of a stinker on your part.At least the economic system has crept in now. However capitalism itself is violent and racist. It doesn't make violence and racism a mode of production. It is capital which impoverished people not its specific forms.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

It does contradict these statements though:No it doesn't. There's a difference between saying someone adopts a revolutionary approach or tactics - which is what the ANC did after it became a banned organisation under the 'Suppression of Communism' Act - and saying that same someone is a 'revolutionary' - in the communist sense. It was a decription of their actions, i could have just as easily said 'guerrilla democrat' (less precise), 'they shifted to a guerrilla ideology.' 'the ANC adopted a guerrilla approach' the ANC's shift from non-violence to guerrilla war. It's meant to describe their approach to the apartheid government (i.e. they wanted to overthrow it) and their rhetoric, not an assesment of their creditionals as 'revolutionaries'

This is just more nitpicking.


the ANC have failed to lift people out of this situation To me that sort of more than implies that you believe that this was the ANC's goal. After all, you don't fail to do things that you don't try to do.I'm sorry you were wrong, but instead of just admitting it you'll just repeat the same (wrong) accusation again? Wow.

Here's further clarification for you...

When i said, "the ANC have failed to lift people out of this situation" - what i meant was the ANC have failed to lift people out of this situation. I.E. Under ANC leadership the distribution of wealth has not improved significantly. Perhaps if you did not read secret code messages in everything i write and instead read the words i actually typed you would not be confused all the time.

You're being incredibly paranoid, like you have to prove this conspiracy that i secretly love the ANC and worship them as revolutionaries. I fucking hate the ANC - they played a reactionary role in SA for their entire existance. Up until the 1960s they played the role trade unions do today - claiming to fight for the workers but ultimately just acted to keep them in line, keep them disciplined. After they were banned however they were forced to take a different approach, but it was just the aloof vanguardist non-sense of the SACP mixed with a little maoism.


f course the holocaust analogy is drawing a comparison with fascism. What other holocaust do you expect people to think you are referring to?I've explained this already, i also love how you completely ignored the legit similarities between apartheid SA and nazi germany i mentioned.


Of course calling people fascists is a common liberal substitute for an argument as you demonstrate in you reply:

red fascist!That was a joke! Geeze louise :rolleyes:

Unlike you i try to avoid steeping to the level of using political pejoratives.


and the absolute outrage at being called a liberal what do we find:How else do you expect a communist to react to a charge like that? I hate liberalism, being called a liberal is an insult. Forgive me for being pissed off after being insulted like five times in one post, honestly.


Well when we ignore the absolute distortion of Klien's statement 'Nothing much has changed for most people' to 'Nothing has changed'Ummm, i was never talking to or about anything that Klien said. My replies have all been strictly to the comments of posters in this thread, i haven't read Kliens piece and thus have not commented on it.


The point is that freedom of movement is pretty meaningless when you have nowhere to go, and no way to gat there, and no money to do it with.No, i'm pretty sure the pass system and the petty apartheid system was thoroughly detested by all africans. I understand what you're saying, I agree that the 'freedoms' won since the end of apartheid ring a little hollow - the only difference is i don't think this makes them irrelevant or meaningless. If that was true then the death of apartheid would be equally meaningless to most africans - i really doubt that is the case.


BD tries to make out that the argument is somewhere above economics:No, BD wasn't. He said firstly (by which i mean maybe three times already), the economic argument has merit - but also, secondly - that from a social rather than economic POV there are still very significant differences between apartheid south africa and ANC south africa and that these differences matter to africans. Didn't expect that to be so controversial, really doubt it would be to most south africans.



And the causes of this poverty? BD put it down to 'violent racist domination'. I put it down to capitalism.Lol, i did no such thing.

I thought you would have run out of straw by now?

The poverty that exists is because of the apartheid system that existed before and the policies undertaken since by the ANC. The former problems flowed straight into the latter.


However capitalism itself is violent and racist. It doesn't make violence and racism a mode of production. It is capital which impoverished people not its specific forms.Yes devrim you are correct, i wasn't suggesting anything otherwise.

[scarletghoul]

Ah, thanks for the responses...