Zimbabwe socialists tortured

[the last donut of the night]

ACTIVISTS IN Zimbabwe are facing torture, prison and a possible death sentence for the "crime" of holding a meeting to discuss the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
Forty-five activists, students and trade unionists were arrested in Harare on February 19 during a meeting to discuss events in Egypt and Tunisia, and commemorate the life of HIV activist Navigator Mungoni. (Initial reports put the number of those arrested at 52.) The meeting was called by Munyaradzi Gwisai, a lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe's law school, general coordinator of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) of Zimbabwe, and a former member of Zimbabwe's parliament.
Here's the article. (http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/03/zimbabwe-socialists-tortured)

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Anti-imperialist solidarity with the Honorable Robert Mugabe!

. . .

:rolleyes:

[turquino]

Fears of subversion are hardly unfounded, especially in the light of the wikileaks cables on Zimbabwe confirming that Tsvangirai and the MDC completely backed the sanctions that are hurting so many Zimbabweans in order to discredit President Mugabe. However, we still don't know all the facts about these activists yet. Frankly, if I were in this position, I too would take a dim view of any socialists trying to weaken the nation's independence and install bourgeois democracy.

[redasheville]

Actually, we do know the facts. Activists are facing the death penalty for holding a meeting in solidarity with the Egyptian revolution. Which side are you on?

[Os Cangaceiros]

in order to discredit President Mugabe.

He hardly needs any help in that regard.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So when the Trotskyists are being oppressed will the Stalinists stand up against Mugabe or show any solidarity towards them? Because I'm pretty sure everybody was against what happened when our State(For those of us in the U.S.) cracked down on the Freedom Road organization and other activists. So I'm just curious as to what the response will be from all those who are rabidly anti-Trotskyists when it happens in other countries under supposedly "socialist" people like Mugabe.

Horrible news, shows his true colors when people are trying to struggle for real socialism in his country.

[Savage]

All 45 were obviously CIA agents with shares in Walmart.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Mugabe showed his true colours when he slaughtered Ndebele Communists in the 80s. He's been a wolf in sheep's clothing for years, any leftist who thinks Mugabe is on their side is deluded.

[turquino]

Actually, we do know the facts. Activists are facing the death penalty for holding a meeting in solidarity with the Egyptian revolution. Which side are you on?
If the answer you're looking for is "yes I side with the Trotskyist activists working toward a western-backed regime change," you'll be waiting a long time! At the moment I don't have a sympathetic ear to complaints made by opposition groups, NGOs, or western governments after the recent wikileaks news about their collusion to choke Zimbabwe into submission with sanctions.

[Crux]

"yes I side with the Trotskyist activists working toward a western-backed regime change,"
:laugh:
Yes, yes you go ahead and believe that.

[Tomhet]

Yeah motherfuck Robert Mugabe.. He's an anti-communist, homophobic crackpot dictator who has no benefit to the people of Zimbabwe..

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If the answer you're looking for is "yes I side with the Trotskyist activists working toward a western-backed regime change," you'll be waiting a long time! At the moment I don't have a sympathetic ear to complaints made by opposition groups, NGOs, or western governments after the recent wikileaks news about their collusion to choke Zimbabwe into submission with sanctions.

Yes, those horrible people, who support sanctions against a government that tortures, kills people, rigs elections and steals most of the money made anyways. How could they, it's almost like they want to isolate and weaken the rule of a thug who has spent 30 years brutalizing his people and violently undermining all opposition to his rule.

I mean, it's not like Lenin took advantage of Imperialist Germany to overthrow the Czar or anything. He was a good servitor of the interests of his nationalist bourgeois, just like these MDC activists should be.

[robbo203]

Fears of subversion are hardly unfounded, especially in the light of the wikileaks cables on Zimbabwe confirming that Tsvangirai and the MDC completely backed the sanctions that are hurting so many Zimbabweans in order to discredit President Mugabe. However, we still don't know all the facts about these activists yet. Frankly, if I were in this position, I too would take a dim view of any socialists trying to weaken the nation's independence and install bourgeois democracy.


Bourgeois democracy is at least preferable to a bourgeois dictatorship. That anyone can claim to be a socialist and profess to see some grounds for giving support to this disgusting capitalist regime is simply unbelievable

[black magick hustla]

Fears of subversion are hardly unfounded, especially in the light of the wikileaks cables on Zimbabwe confirming that Tsvangirai and the MDC completely backed the sanctions that are hurting so many Zimbabweans in order to discredit President Mugabe. However, we still don't know all the facts about these activists yet. Frankly, if I were in this position, I too would take a dim view of any socialists trying to weaken the nation's independence and install bourgeois democracy.
blahblahblahblah trotskyist imperialist yankee dogs huyrhuhryhhur

[Mather]

Fears of subversion are hardly unfounded, especially in the light of the wikileaks cables on Zimbabwe confirming that Tsvangirai and the MDC completely backed the sanctions that are hurting so many Zimbabweans in order to discredit President Mugabe.

Nice try, but the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) is not part of the MDC nor does it currently support the MDC, so trying to excuse the barbarity of the Zimbabwean bourgeois state in it's desire to execute socialists is nothing short of disgraceful.

As to the awful state of the Zimbabwean economy which has spent the last decade on the brink of outright collapse, that has much more to do with the policies of Mugabe's regime than sanctions. As an anarchist I oppose all sanctions however it has to be said that most of the sanctions against Zimbabwe are specifically against the regime and Mugabe, such as travel bans for regime officials, freezing the offshore bank accounts of Mugabe and his cronies and diplomatic isolation. The sanctions that are in place against Zimbabwe are not as far reaching or as crippling as the ones against Iran, Cuba or North Korea, so to blame the dire state of Zimbabwe on sanctions is just a cheap ploy to let Mugabe and his ruinous policies off the hook.


Frankly, if I were in this position, I too would take a dim view of any socialists trying to weaken the nation's independence

And I take an even dimmer view of alleged socialists such as yourself who make excuses and support the execution of socialists in the service of a nationalist agenda. The working class have no country and "national independence" is meaningless to any genuine communist.


and install bourgeois democracy.

In case you hadn't noticed, but the bourgeoisie are already firmly in control of Zimbabwe and that Mugabe's regime is a bourgeois dictatorship.


If the answer you're looking for is "yes I side with the Trotskyist activists working toward a western-backed regime change," you'll be waiting a long time!

Do you have even one piece of evidence to prove your claim that the ISO are working with the Western imperialist powers to impose a regime change.

I have my criticisms of Trotskyism and the ISO has in the past made mistakes, but unlike you I am not going to support their murder at the hands of a brutal bourgeois dictatorship out of sectarian spite.


At the moment I don't have a sympathetic ear to complaints made by opposition groups, NGOs, or western governments after the recent wikileaks news about their collusion to choke Zimbabwe into submission with sanctions.

The ISO are not an NGO nor are they working with the Western imperialist powers to "choke Zimbabwe into submission with sanctions", yet this still does not stop you from writing utter crap.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As I said in my other thread, the first I saw of this was on CNN where they said "Terrorists arrested in Zimbabwe for plotting an Egyptian-style Coup". If this was a US plot, I don't think that's what the AP and CNN would be saying.

[turquino]

Bourgeois democracy is at least preferable to a bourgeois dictatorship.I’m not sure it is in every case. How can multiparty elections be fair when the United States is holding a gun (in the form of embargo) to your head to vote the right way?

Nice try, but the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) is not part of the MDC nor does it currently support the MDC, so trying to excuse the barbarity of the Zimbabwean bourgeois state in it's desire to execute socialists is nothing short of disgraceful.It’s not for a lack of trying. In a publication from the 2008 election they say “the ISO, in view of MDC’s massive performance in the March parliamentary and presidential elections and the desire of many Zimbabweans to vote, has now modified its position to call for unconditional but fraternally critical support to Tsvangirai.”(1) They go on to say that yes, the MDC are imperialist dominated and bad news for Zimbabweans, but it doesn’t matter since the main goal is getting rid of Mugabe at all costs. So in their view, between national independence and multiparty democracy, democracy must come first.

1. “Zimbabwe socialists: `No to a government of national unity! Only united mass action will defeat Mugabe!” http://links.org.au/node/489

As to the awful state of the Zimbabwean economy which has spent the last decade on the brink of outright collapse, that has much more to do with the policies of Mugabe's regime than sanctions. As an anarchist I oppose all sanctions however it has to be said that most of the sanctions against Zimbabwe are specifically against the regime and Mugabe, such as travel bans for regime officials, freezing the offshore bank accounts of Mugabe and his cronies and diplomatic isolation. The sanctions that are in place against Zimbabwe are not as far reaching or as crippling as the ones against Iran, Cuba or North Korea, so to blame the dire state of Zimbabwe on sanctions is just a cheap ploy to let Mugabe and his ruinous policies off the hook.In response to the land reform campaign, the US Congress passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 which compelled the IMF and WB to stop balance of payment support for Zimbabwe. The country was effectively locked out of any credit from major international institutions, and thus has a severe foreign currency shortage. Zimbabwe is completely dependent on the importation of fuel and pesticides for its mining and agricultural sectors. Under sanctions, commercial farmers and manufacturers have had to either pay for imports with cash-in-hand, or obtain credit from any third-party institution willing to lend to them for extremely high interest rates. The lending sanctions also put extreme pressure on the currency to meet domestic demand for credit, in turn causing hyperinflation before the economy was finally dollarised 2 years ago. Attributing Zimbabwe’s problems to economic mismanagement, isolated from the effect of sanctions and payment crisis, is a big mistake. It’s characteristic of the western press’s bullshit narrative about land reform and the supposed incapability of Africans to run things on their own.

[Mather]

I’m not sure it is in every case. How can multiparty elections be fair when the United States is holding a gun (in the form of embargo) to your head to vote the right way?

The MDC has nothing to offer to the working class and it's leadership and membership is comprismised, both with Zimbabwe's bourgeois class and with imperialist powers such as the UK and USA. Morgan Tsvangirai has repeatedly shown how incompetent and useless he is and the MDC have split into two groups, they are a movement in decline.

Revolution is what the Zimbabwean people and working class need. The MDC and other political parties cannot do this, only the working class and people themselves.


It’s not for a lack of trying. In a publication from the 2008 election they say “the ISO, in view of MDC’s massive performance in the March parliamentary and presidential elections and the desire of many Zimbabweans to vote, has now modified its position to call for unconditional but fraternally critical support to Tsvangirai.”(1) They go on to say that yes, the MDC are imperialist dominated and bad news for Zimbabweans, but it doesn’t matter since the main goal is getting rid of Mugabe at all costs. So in their view, between national independence and multiparty democracy, democracy must come first.

In my quote I said "nor does it currently support the MDC". I am aware that the ISO supported the MDC (imo a big mistake) in the past but I had read that they now (your article is from 2008) do not support them.

Are there any IST members who could clarify this?


In response to the land reform campaign, the US Congress passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 which compelled the IMF and WB to stop balance of payment support for Zimbabwe. The country was effectively locked out of any credit from major international institutions, and thus has a severe foreign currency shortage. Zimbabwe is completely dependent on the importation of fuel and pesticides for its mining and agricultural sectors. Under sanctions, commercial farmers and manufacturers have had to either pay for imports with cash-in-hand, or obtain credit from any third-party institution willing to lend to them for extremely high interest rates. The lending sanctions also put extreme pressure on the currency to meet domestic demand for credit, in turn causing hyperinflation before the economy was finally dollarised 2 years ago.

This is why national liberation ideology/regimes have failed and have nothing to offer to the working class. Between 1990 and the early 2000s, Mugabe's goverment worked with the WB and IMF to impose austerity programmes, cutting services that were vital to the working class such as education, healthcare, social care, housing support and at the same time removing trade and financial barriers that caused prices to go up. The issue with trade barriers, government cuts to subsidies (under IMF/WB diktat) along with the rising cost of fuel and food also caused harship in the rural areas. By the late 1990s social unrest and mass industrial action took place as the effects of the WB/IMF policies set in. In response to this Mugabe began his 'land reform' campaign. Zimbabwe needs genuine land re-distribution, but Mugabe has not done that and Zimbabwe still has a large problem with the unequal distribution of land (and resources). In order to divert popular anger and resentment towards his IMF/WB sponsored policies, Mugabe promised land to the landless and war veterans for the purpose of gaining support to continue the regime. Unlike his promises of equal land re-distribution, Mugabe made sure only loyal war veterans, favoured tribes, loyal party members, members of his own family and certain foreign capitalists got most of and the best of the land. The vast majority of war veterans were totally abandoned upon been given the left overs of the land (after the Zimbabwean ruling class had their large share). A lot of them complained that they were given unsustainable small plots with poor quality soil, some even complained of been given land that was not even arable. Many war veterans had not worked in agriculture before and none were provided with technical training nor did the state provide any assistance with machinery/farming tools/animal feed/fuel/transportation leaving many farms unworked and many war veterans effectively unemployed and poverty striken. Mugabe never showed any interest in land reform during the 1980s, during the 1990s when he was implementing IMF/WB policies and only after the wave of social unrest and industrial action during the late 1990s did he then begin to talk about land reform, though talking is all he has really done as the majority of the people of Zimbabwe still suffer a massive imbalance in terms of land ownership.


Attributing Zimbabwe’s problems to economic mismanagement, isolated from the effect of sanctions and payment crisis, is a big mistake.

I do factor those in, but it cannot be denied that Mugabe's policies have caused mass unemployment, poverty levels to increase, the question of genuine land redistribution still remaining unresolved and largescale state oppression, violence and brutality toward his own people and towards the working class.


It’s characteristic of the western press’s bullshit narrative about land reform

I support genuine land reform, one that is egalitarian and socialises the onwership of the land, but Mugabe has not done this.


and the supposed incapability of Africans to run things on their own.

Thats not my narrative and lets face it, the Zimbabwean working class (Africans) do not and are not allowed to run their own things under Mugabe's regime. Only when the working class wage revolution can all Zimbabweans truly run things at the political, economic and social level.

[The Red Next Door]

That is disgusting for a so called "marxist nation" to do, but ILO have a history of being a cheerleader on the wrong side. So, i do not know if they are doing that for this reason, but its wrong. Does matter how asine the International socialist organization is.

[Mather]

That is disgusting for a so called "marxist nation"

There is nothing Marxist about Zimbabwe.


but ILO have a history of being a cheerleader on the wrong side.

The Interational Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) are two different organisations with no links (to my knowledge) between them. Why bring the ILO into this?

[The Red Next Door]

There is nothing Marxist about Zimbabwe.



The Interational Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) are two different organisations with no links (to my knowledge) between them. Why bring the ILO into this?

oops, i meant to say international liberal organization, err... socialist.
sorry, comrades :blushing:

[∞]

WARNING: Someone who claims to be the hero of the proletariat yet gives himself such power tends to be worse than even the bourgeois.

[Savage]

WARNING: Someone who claims to be the hero of the proletariat yet gives himself such power tends to be worse than even the bourgeois.
He is bourgeois.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

If he was pro-working class, he would make more of an effort to at least have a few dozen people employed in the entire country :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

WARNING: Someone who claims to be the hero of the proletariat yet gives himself such power tends to be worse than even the bourgeois.

I watched a movie about Mugabe's land redistribution policies about a white farmer's attempts to sue the Zim government. One of the sons of Mugabe's ZANU-PF cabinet ministers got the land, not the poor. If poor peasants were getting the land, that would be one thing, but there's nothing Marxist about changing the skin colour of the bourgeois and hoping people will be too blinded by the history of racism to notice the illusion Mugabe just pulled. They took Capital from a bourgeois that knew what they were doing, and gave it all to a neo-bourgeois that had no skill or knowledge of large-scale farming. That's wrecked the economy just as much as sanctions did, and it gave the people the illusion of economic revolution.

[Derb]

The ISO in Zimbabwe was a founding member of the MDC. They actively, and knowingly, entered into a coalition with Western imperialists. They openly acknowledged what they were doing. They "left" the MDC when it became inconvenient for them to be actively collaborating with imperialist powers.

Munyaradzi Gwisai, as an active collaborator with the MDC and imperialist foreign powers, deserves to be executed. One can only hope the rest of the MDC receives the same treatment.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Wow, deserves to be executed? Yuck... sometimes the "morality" of Leftists astounds me. Mugabe is the bad guy here, not some activists. I'd take them over the guy who has killed thousands of his political enemies, corrupted the state, and used land redistribution to benefit his cronies, even if they are associated with people who took money from the CIA. If the Americans went to the French Communists with guns in 1943, should they have refused out of fear of becoming American puppets? Should Tito and the USSR have refused all American aid during WWII as well? Of course not! Even if they are in the wrong, they certainly don't deserve torture or capital punishment.

[Luís Henrique]

Yuck... sometimes the "morality" of Leftists astounds me.
Except, of course, this guy is no leftist. He's merely a supporter of Gaddafy.

Luís Henrique

[turquino]

The biggest problem facing the Zimbabwean people is not Zimbabwean capitalists, it is imperialist oppression and land hunger. Zimbabwe is an underdeveloped country. The struggle of the workers against the rule of capital should not be the primary struggle at this time. When your nation already faces economy-crippling sanctions and threats of imperialist invasion the prospects for overthrowing the government and successfully building a socialist system in its place are exceptionally remote. In this context, planning anti-government demonstrations and making the issue democracy vs dictatorship, rather than national independence vs imperialism, ultimately plays into the hands of the imperialists. It means buying into the idea that the Zimbabwean people’s quality of life is tied to an individual’s leadership, and not those sanctions intended to rollback the gains of the anticolonial struggle. Instead of staking out a more radical position on the struggle against imperialism that could unite the masses, the ISO have chosen to make it about getting rid of Mugabe.

[Chimurenga.]

I watched a movie about Mugabe's land redistribution policies about a white farmer's attempts to sue the Zim government. One of the sons of Mugabe's ZANU-PF cabinet ministers got the land, not the poor. If poor peasants were getting the land, that would be one thing, but there's nothing Marxist about changing the skin colour of the bourgeois and hoping people will be too blinded by the history of racism to notice the illusion Mugabe just pulled. They took Capital from a bourgeois that knew what they were doing, and gave it all to a neo-bourgeois that had no skill or knowledge of large-scale farming.

Judging by this post alone, its clear as day that you know fuck all about the land reform that took place in Zimbabwe.


By 2002, 70 percent of the richest farmland still remained in the hands of just 4 500 white commercial farmers, focused mainly on producing crops for export. Meanwhile, one million indigenous families eked out a bare existence, crowded into an arid region of limited suitability for agriculture, known as the "communal" areas. Fast-track land reform redistributed much of the commercial farmland to some 170 000 families. Whatever its faults in execution, the process has undeniably created a significantly more equitable distribution of land than what prevailed before. (http://www.africalegalbrief.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=288:zimbabwe-land-reform-debunking-western-distortions-by-gregory-elich)I guess those 170,000 families were all high ranking party bureaucrats? :lol:

Anyways as the BBC pointed out (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11764004), the land reform was 'not a failure' but handed over land to "about a million black Zimbabweans" from the white colonial families in Zimbabwe.


That's wrecked the economy just as much as sanctions did, and it gave the people the illusion of economic revolution.

Actually, you have no idea of the effects that the sanctions have had on Zimbabwe.

A great place to start would be here (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/us-senator-comes-clean-on-zimbabwe-sanctions/).

Inside that article is a bill proposed to the Senate to repeal the sanctions (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3722:). This bill notes the serious economic downturn brought on by the sanctions since 2001.

The article I linked then puts this bill into the correct context,

The title of Inhofe’s bill, the Zimbabwe Sanctions Repeal Act of 2010 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3722:), makes clear that sanctions have indeed been imposed on Zimbabwe and have had deleterious effects. According to the bill, now that the Western-backed Movement for Democratic Change holds senior positions in Zimbabwe’s power-sharing government, US sanctions against Zimbabwe need to be repealed “in order to restore fully the economy of Zimbabwe.” In other words, sanctions are preventing Zimbabwe’s economy from flourishing – the same point Mugabe has been making for years, cynically say his critics.

Yet, while the implication of Inhofe’s bill is that sanctions have undermined Zimbabwe’s economy (otherwise, why would economic recovery require their repeal?) Inhofe tries to disguise the role US sanctions originally played in creating an economic catastrophe in Zimbabwe, arguing that the sanctions were imposed only after Mugabe allegedly turned Zimbabwe into a basket case by democratizing patterns of land ownership. But it makes more sense to say that sanctions ruined the economy. After all, the purpose of economic sanctions is to wreak economic havoc. And what would be the point of trying to devastate Zimbabwe’s economy after Mugabe had allegedly already ruined it? Finally, in pressing for the repeal of sanctions to allow for economic recovery, Inhofe acknowledges that the sanctions do indeed have crippling consequences.

Inhofe may be able to argue (improbably) that the sanctions were imposed to punish Zimbabwe for Harare’s economic mismanagement (which would mean that Washington expected Zimbabweans to suffer an additional blow on top of the one already meted out by Harare’s alleged mismanagement — a pointless cruelty, if true); but he can’t argue that the sanctions didn’t undermine the country’s economy: his bill acknowledges this very point.

Finally, the fact that Inhofe’s legislation seeks repeal of the sanctions because the MDC holds key positions in the Zimbabwean government, reveals that the MDC, as much as sanctions, is an instrument of US foreign policy. Sanctions were rolled out in response to land redistribution with the aim of crippling the economy so that the ensuing economic chaos could be attributed to land reform itself. With MDC members brought into a power-sharing government in key posts, it has become necessary in the view of Inhofe and others that sanctions be lifted to allow an economic recovery. If the bill is ratified and signed into law, the ensuing recovery will be attributed to the efforts of the MDC cabinet members, an attribution that that will be just as misleading as linking the destructive effects of sanctions to Zanu-PF’s efforts to fulfill the land redistribution aspirations of the national liberation struggle. The major part of Zimbabwe’s economic troubles – and a large part of the prospects for economic recovery – are sanctions-related.


Back to the subject at hand, frankly, I'm hesitant to just simply take the ISO's word on this after taking into consideration their positions on Zimbabwe and especially an article like this one (http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/25/murderous-crackdown) which joins wholeheartedly in the Western demonization campaigns against Mugabe while the tones seem to point to Tsvangirai as some rational opposition leader is incredibly revealing (along with the fact that not one critical word is found by the US-ISO on the MDC).

Not to mention, the actual idea of Egypt-like protests in Zimbabwe is insanely opportunistic. We can see by the demonization of the bourgeois press in the West (particularly in the UK) during the last elections and/or of the land reform that the West would very much like those protests to occur. Also, the mere fact that Zimbabwe has a vast diamond wealth that could yield in up to "$1 billion to $1.7 billion a year (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/world/africa/22zimbabwe.html)". If you don't think the West is eager to take control of Zimbabwe and plunder that land, labor, and resources, I implore you wake up and see the reality of this.

Zimbabwe is the last bastion of the anti-colonial struggles of Africa in the 20th century. Details are still murky on the arrests and supposed torturing, however, these points need to be addressed again and again. They are not addressed in the Socialist Worker or any other publication that the ISO is involved in. To risk those gains of the anti-Colonial struggle and the seizure of land that I've explained was given back to poor and working families is (to repeat myself) insanely opportunistic and plays directly in the hands of the West.

What we should be doing as supposed "revolutionary Leftists" (for those of us who are actually involved) is vigorously opposing the sanctions on Zimbabwe and telling the West to back off.

[Chimurenga.]

The ISO in Zimbabwe was a founding member of the MDC. They actively, and knowingly, entered into a coalition with Western imperialists. They openly acknowledged what they were doing. They "left" the MDC when it became inconvenient for them to be actively collaborating with imperialist powers.

Munyaradzi Gwisai, as an active collaborator with the MDC and imperialist foreign powers, deserves to be executed. One can only hope the rest of the MDC receives the same treatment.

I'm not sure this is exactly true. He appears to have been kicked out of the MDC back in 2002. However, his remaining connections to the MDC are uncertain. I know they had publicly expressed outrage at his arrest and demanded his release.

If you have more information on this, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

[DaringMehring]

What we should be doing as supposed "revolutionary Leftists" (for those of us who are actually involved) is vigorously opposing the sanctions on Zimbabwe and telling the West to back off.

Really?

I thought as revolutionary leftists, we oppose all forms of exploitation and domination. Both imperialist intervention and state repression, both predation by foreign and domestic bourgeoisie.

Zimbabwe is nothing like a socialist country.

To defend that regime, is to practice some kind of lesser evil-ism. You decide that Mugabe is better than a Western-connected democratic regime (which is debatable), so you support Mugabe.

Might as well vote for the Democrats. Hey, they're better than the Republicans. Or maybe the Democrats are actually worse, so we should vote for the Republicans. Perhaps we should have supported the Allies in World War One because the Kaiser's regime was closer to feudal roots. Better figure out whether Coke or Pepsi is more evil.

This is just another negative heritage of Stalinism.

Mugabe and the Zanu-PF practice the worst kind of repression against political rivals. Where do the trade unions stand? Behind the opposition. Mugabe's thugs brutalize them. Here we have a meeting of "HIV activists and socialists to discuss Egypt" and they're arrested and facing the death penalty.

And you side with Mugabe?

The trade union backed MDC would be worse than rape gangs and thugs?

This line is exactly what gives communists a bad name, because it is bad. You set up a false dichotomy, where their only options are continued slavery to Mugabe, or domination by foreign imperialism. Then you choose to support Mugabe the dictator.

That is the bottom line.

You support the activist-murdering dictator of a non-socialist state.

Just like Gowans et al support Ahmadinejad, the activist-murdering dictator of another non-socialist state.

I stand with all the socialists who have been intimidated, harassed, and murdered by the Mugabes and Ahmadinejads of the world. Like these people in Zimbabwe.

[Chimurenga.]

I thought as revolutionary leftists, we oppose all forms of exploitation and domination. Both imperialist intervention and state repression, both predation by foreign and domestic bourgeoisie.

As I've shown in my post, the crux of the problems in Zimbabwe come from sanctions by IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES. I'm talking about the US and the EU countries. C'mon now, this is the real issue here at the moment.


Zimbabwe is nothing like a socialist country.

....No one said that they were.


To defend that regime, is to practice some kind of lesser evil-ism. You decide that Mugabe is better than a Western-connected democratic regime (which is debatable), so you support Mugabe.

The "lesser evil" argument is simplistic and displays your ignorance pertaining to the situation at hand.


This is just another negative heritage of Stalinism.

More hollow rhetoric that means nothing.


Mugabe and the Zanu-PF practice the worst kind of repression against political rivals. Where do the trade unions stand? Behind the opposition. Mugabe's thugs brutalize them. Here we have a meeting of "HIV activists and socialists to discuss Egypt" and they're arrested and facing the death penalty.

And you side with Mugabe?

I stand on the side of the Zimbabwean people who suffer the most from Western sanctions and would bear the worst brunt of an MDC/US puppet regime in Zimbabwe. This is what you don't understand.


The trade union backed MDC would be worse than rape gangs and thugs?

The "trade union backed MDC" is supported and funded by the West. I can guess that you probably would've supported Solidarity in Poland over those baby-eating Stalinists, am I right? :lol:

From the 2008 party program:

"The MDC does not believe that government should be involved in running businesses and it will restore title in full to all companies; Private enterprise in general, and industry in particular, will be the engine of economic growth in a new Zimbabwe; The MDC government will remove price controls and reverse the coercive indigenization proposals recently adopted; (An MDC government will show) an unwavering commitment to:
* The safety and security of individual and corporate property rights.
* Opening industry to foreign direct investment and the unfettered repatriation of dividends.
* The repeal of all statutes that inhibit the establishment and maintenance of a socio-economic environment conducive to the sustained growth and development of the industrial sector.
The MDC will…(open)…up private sector participation in postal and telecommunication services; (The MDC believes) the private sector is in a better position to finance new development and respond to customer needs (in telecommunications); (An MDC government will) look into…the full privatization of the electronic media." (http://www.kubatana.net/docs/polpar/mdc_policies_manufacturing_0802.pdf)(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11548)


This line is exactly what gives communists a bad name, because it is bad. You set up a false dichotomy, where their only options are continued slavery to Mugabe, or domination by foreign imperialism. Then you choose to support Mugabe the dictator.

Does history not teach you anything? Your inability to understand the role of Imperialism in the world and pretending to care about the people of a country that you know nothing about is much more damaging than my so-called "false dichotomy".


You support the activist-murdering dictator of a non-socialist state.

I knew I'd get some ultra-moralistic comments from dorks like yourself.


Just like Gowans et al support Ahmadinejad, the activist-murdering dictator of another non-socialist state.

Where does he explicitly support Ahmadinejad? Show me where. Otherwise, you're making yourself look like a bigger fool.

[Blackscare]

Honestly, this whole spate of events lately, and the debates you see on here, are making me rethink my potential involvement with "anti-imperialists". I am, of course, against imperialism, but I'm also against historical revisionism. The problem is, people who call themselves "anti-imperialists", just like "anti-revisionists", really have an entire set of pre-defined stances. It's not about using an element of analytical nuance to enhance your world view, it seems, unless someone more reasonable explains this to me, to amount to basically paralyzing positions that offer no real potential for the working class beyond shouting about how much worse "imperialism" (never, lately, in countries that I've seen that didn't directly collude with imperialism already) would be.

Well, where does that leave the working class? They are supposed to accept a regime that, setting aside the argument about basic "human rights", actually brutally prevents them from organizing the working class into a powerful force that could ever pose the question of seizing the state apparatus? It seems like such a terrible dead end to me. Obviously bourgeois "democracy" is not something we should support as it's own end, but I think it would be absolute foolishness to side with a system that clearly presents a bigger strategic obstacle to working class organization instead.



This, ironic given the rhetoric, strikes me as much more blatantly supporting the bourgeois world system than those who (regretfully) call for US intervention! You're essentially demanding that the working class and it's various organizations be repressed for an undefined, presumably indefinite period (I presume that it is indefinite because I've yet to hear a cogent argument for the progress of proletarian politics in such a scenario).


Are we so foolish and un-materialist to support dictatorship over bourgeois democracy out of spite? Isn't one, simply from the perspective of organization and resistance, obviously preferable?

I've had these nagging thoughts lately, but to actually see supposed leftists attempting to justify the murder of ISO members by siting analytical mistakes in their press from the past, or even cheering the execution of socialists, is nothing short of disgusting.

I think it's probably overwhelmingly Americans and other "westerners" living in countries with absolutely no threat of state political violence (comparatively, don't give me an article about an anarchist having his balls cupped by a cop somewhere as a counter-argument) who act like this. Given that here, we're all but irrelevant and haven't faced serious repression in years, some of us must actually believe that the gossip, train spotting, and hopelessly pathetic self-referential infighting that we engage in here can justify the murder of socialists in other countries.

Is this not pathetic? I also wonder how many people who take this line do it because it's somehow more acceptable than calling for the murder of members of sister organizations in this country that we don't like. I don't think anyone here would ever dream of calling for the US state to murder ISO members in the united states, because we know that this would open up us all to such attack. But if it's in some far off land where black people live it's now acceptable, even progressive.





I'm seeing a really ugly side of the communist movement these days, and right now it's too early to tell just how much of my current world view I'll have to rethink taking this new experience in mind. I don't see myself joining the ISO any time soon, and I'll still come around to PSL meetings to gauge how much more reasonable they are, on a cadre-level, than either their own leadership or overzealous internet communists.

[robbo203]

The biggest problem facing the Zimbabwean people is not Zimbabwean capitalists, it is imperialist oppression and land hunger. Zimbabwe is an underdeveloped country. The struggle of the workers against the rule of capital should not be the primary struggle at this time. When your nation already faces economy-crippling sanctions and threats of imperialist invasion the prospects for overthrowing the government and successfully building a socialist system in its place are exceptionally remote. In this context, planning anti-government demonstrations and making the issue democracy vs dictatorship, rather than national independence vs imperialism, ultimately plays into the hands of the imperialists. It means buying into the idea that the Zimbabwean people’s quality of life is tied to an individual’s leadership, and not those sanctions intended to rollback the gains of the anticolonial struggle. Instead of staking out a more radical position on the struggle against imperialism that could unite the masses, the ISO have chosen to make it about getting rid of Mugabe.


Yeah, lets all join hands with comrade Nicholas van Hoogstraten in declaring our undying support for that great bastion of anti-imperialist freedom-loving struggle that is the our Beloved Leader and Invincible Scientific Socialist (Marxist-Leninist), Comrade Robert Mugabe (may the sun never set on his glorious government)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/van-hoogstraten-to-take-over-top-bank-and-colliery-in-zimbabwe-498738.html


Any western imperialist liberal lackey who has the gall to declare that our Beloved Leader is not totally committed to the fine principles of democracy should be shot on the spot or, at the very least, have his nails extracted in the most agonising manner imaginable and then promptly kneecapped. No excuses, Comrades! No excuses!

[DaringMehring]

As I've shown in my post, the crux of the problems in Zimbabwe come from sanctions by IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES. I'm talking about the US and the EU countries. C'mon now, this is the real issue here at the moment.


Mugabe came into power 1980. The sanctions started in late 2001.

He's been running the country into the ground for longer than there have been sanctions.

Oh I forgot, Zimbabwe in 2000 was totally on the right track. You got me.




I stand on the side of the Zimbabwean people who suffer the most from Western sanctions and would bear the worst brunt of an MDC/US puppet regime in Zimbabwe. This is what you don't understand.
You claim to stand on the side of the Zimbabwean people but you support their tormentor Mugabe and the Zanu-PF.

Let's be clear who you are with (from Wiki):

After the Zanu+PF took 2nd in the election: "senior military officers "supervising a military-style campaign against the opposition".[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#cite_note-crackdown-72) The first phase of the plan started a week later, involving the building of 2,000 party compounds across Zimbabwe, to serve as bases for the party militias.[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#cite_note-crackdown-72) On an 8 April 2008 meeting, the military plan was given the code name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name) of "CIBD", which stood for: "Coercion. Intimidation. Beating. Displacement."

This great man is clearly a bastion of anti-imperialism: "Mugabe was blamed for Zimbabwe's participation in the Second Congo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War#Factions_in_the_Congo_conflict) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo). At a time when the Zimbabwean economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe) was struggling, Zimbabwe responded to a call by the Southern African Development Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Development_Community) to help the struggling regime in Kinshasa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinshasa). The Democratic Republic of the Congo had been invaded by Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda) and Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda), both of which claimed that their civilians, and regional stability, were under constant threat of attack by Rwandan Hutu militiamen based in the Congo.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#cite_note-ICG_Nov98-39)However, the Congolese government, as well as international commentators, charged that the motive for the invasion was to grab the rich mineral resources of eastern Congo.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#cite_note-40)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#cite_note-41) The war raised accusations of corruption, with officials alleged to be plundering the Congo's mineral reserves. Mugabe's defence minister Moven Mahachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moven_Mahachi) said, "Instead of our army in the DRC burdening the treasury for more resources, which are not available, it embarks on viable projects for the sake of generating the necessary revenue".[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#cite_note-42)

A champion of all people: "Mugabe has been uncompromising in his opposition to homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality). In September 1995, Zimbabwe's parliament introduced legislation banning homosexual acts.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#cite_note-ZIB-37)"


An an unwavering opponent of markets: "Unsuccessful market reform attempts were started in the 1990s"



The "trade union backed MDC" is supported and funded by the West. I can guess that you probably would've supported Solidarity in Poland over those baby-eating Stalinists, am I right?
Never studied the question.

But just because something is "funded by the West" doesn't make it the worst option, or bad. The Japanese democracy funded by the west was superior to the "indigenous" Imperial regime.




Does history not teach you anything? Your inability to understand the role of Imperialism in the world and pretending to care about the people of a country that you know nothing about is much more damaging than my so-called "false dichotomy".
Ah right, if only I understood the catch-all boogeyman of imperialism, I'd see the light and learn not to oppose capitalist dictators.



I knew I'd get some ultra-moralistic comments from dorks like yourself.
Yeah its just ultra-moralistic to oppose the death penalty for HIV activists and socialists.

Socialism, that's just ultra-moralistic too right?



Where does he explicitly support Ahmadinejad? Show me where. Otherwise, you're making yourself look like a bigger fool.Here's one in a line of him and his and your ilks unending string of lowlights -- http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/01/gowans-stephen-zunes-and-struggle-overseas-profits -- where you've got a pop for Zimbabwe, Iran, and Belarus all in one. You can find more if you research.

Luckily, this orientation is an increasingly irrelevant and dying breed. It is going to the dustbin of history and will only be remembered as another type of apology for exploitation and thuggery.

[Blackscare]

Also, where does this world view put Lenin's weak link theory? If the weak links (third world and/or imperialized) are supposed to rally behind anti-communist thugs to spite the west, how are they ever supposed to carry out their true anti-imperialist function of fundamentally disrupting the world economic system by adopting a marxist framework of coherent resistance on an international scale? Now it's progressive to simply engage in the world capitalism with stipulations and some sort of feeble reform while retaining a dictatorship that kills (literally) political development?

This isn't anti-imperialism in any sort of meaningful way, in terms of creating alternative socialist economic networks between countries that can actually, united, begin to undermine imperialist hegemony. Latin America is a good example of this, isolated and divided tinpot dictators with no economic/political vision who even flip-flop constantly on their orientation to the west (which is the only selling point they had in the first place!) are not an example of this. They are not an example of any kind of meaningful, proletarian anti-imperialism that systemically across various countries combats hegemony not only economically, but by fostering the political development of it's people.


"Anti-imperialists" such as Mugabe will never meaningfully strike a blow to imperialism at large, not in anyone's wildest dreams. Hell, often they can't even cooperate with each other, and never with any coherent political strategy aside from turning to fellow pariah states as a necessity imposed by trade barriers.

[Wanted Man]

I don't see how they deserve torture and execution for this particular "crime". Where is the proof that the Zimbabwean ISO colluded with imperialists? What they did is that they co-founded the MDC 12 years ago, completely mistakenly, and apparently they were expelled from it later on. But that is not the reason they are being tortured; the reason is that they held a meeting to discuss solidarity with Egypt. A terrible crime indeed...

Surely Zimbabwe is on the same level as Libya here, in that it has past "anti-imperialist" credentials, we strongly oppose all forms of imperialist intervention and liberal "opposition" politicians, but that doesn't mean that the people should have to live under the current regime for all eternity, or that this regime is somehow right to torture socialist oppositionists, not even the likes of the ISO. I would consider it close to racism to suggest that the current regime is as good as it gets for the Zimbabweans.

The one who colluded with the imperialists to support sanctions is Tsvangirai of the MDC. So why isn't he in prison being tortured? Oh right, because he's Prime Minister in the "unity government" that was brokered with diplomatic and economic intervention by the imperialist nations, to which Mugabe acquiesced. The torture and killing of competing opposition groups is as much in his interest. If they decided to release the ISO people and put Tsvangirai in their place, good, but that's not what this is about at all.

So anyway, all that aside, let's see. Socialist (even if they're completely mistaken ones) unionists versus torturing and murdering cops. Hmm, tough decision...


Honestly, this whole spate of events lately, and the debates you see on here, are making me rethink my potential involvement with "anti-imperialists".

(...)

I'm seeing a really ugly side of the communist movement these days, and right now it's too early to tell just how much of my current world view I'll have to rethink taking this new experience in mind. I don't see myself joining the ISO any time soon, and I'll still come around to PSL meetings to gauge how much more reasonable they are, on a cadre-level, than either their own leadership or overzealous internet communists.

I would indeed check that out first. It's a bit silly to change your politics every time someone says something dumb on the internet. If we all did that, we'd never be doing anything.

[Blackscare]

I would indeed check that out first. It's a bit silly to change your politics every time someone says something dumb on the internet. If we all did that, we'd never be doing anything.

To clarify, I didn't say that I am necessarily changing my personal politics, or that I've ever referred to myself as "anti-imperialist" in the sense of it's own distinct political tendency. I will, however, be looking at who it is I choose to work with and associate myself with. I like the PSL more for structural and organizational reasons than their international politics. I need to see just how far those positions go in the day to day work they do and if there is actually a reasonable assumption that such a matter could be resolved with a vote later on, or if it is solidified. In terms of me adjusting my world view regarding this, that again mostly pertains to my own orientation towards other leftists, what is acceptable and what is opportunism, and when exactly it is acceptable for me to break with what is for me a fundamental principle, the avoidance of disunity on the radical left in terms of practical common struggle.


It takes a lot for me to think that an individual group, which quite frankly is only important so far as it is a vessel for proletarian politics right now (it would be laughable to consider any organization currently existing "revolutionary", and it's particular political take all the relevant versus general proletarian consciousness, to be honest), would actually hold political lines so damaging as to cause me to want to distance myself from them. I draw a distinction between an abstract position/historical opinion and ground-level work, but if you're advocating for states such as Mugabe's, cheering the deaths of socialists, or whatever, you're probably only going to turn people off. Certainly communists are bound by principle to defend unpopular positions when there is a firm basis to do so, but I'm not seeing anything coherent in this case.

Now, what I make of this and how much it effects my desire to work with such people is the problem, not my own political stance. I don't tend to assign myself dogmatic positions and I try to remain hands off on certain issues until more can be learned (case in point, Libya, it's absolutely foolish to take too specific a stance on any side at this time, IMO).

Also, as I said before, I'm going to see for myself what it's like at the PSL because the people I've talked to have never come off as rabid and opportunistic as certain people on the internet. And not just 10 post havin', trollin' lovin' noobs, either. I have to explore the anti-imperialist position more, as it exists in the real world. I still love the PSL, the local chapter, and the experiences I've had so far. Don't take this as a break with the PSL because I'm fairly certain that the people I interact with are sane. I am on alert, however. ;)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

PR-I've read the article from the BBC you posted, and it raised the issue I made. Yes, most land went to poor black peasants, however the best land and the commercially most profitable were given to the cronies. The article you posted itself suggests that much. I myself never said the poor didn't get most of the land, just that it didn't get the best and most productive land. Lastly, the redistribution was naked race baiting ... how many rich blacks lost their land? Obviously it was a racial injustice that the whites owned the best land in Zimbabwe, and that had to change, but the way Mugabe did it was morally, theoretically, and practically wrong.

Nor should you commit to land reform without offering material means of production and training, and follow through with serious programs to ensure continued productivity. A subsistence agriculture economy is not proletarian at all.

As for sanctions ... I didn't deny anywhere that sanctions harmed the economy, just that the methods of Mugabe's reforms also had a negative impact.

Anyways, the whole argument against the ISO there is bunk. Tito took guns from the British, French Communist Guerillas worked with America and England at the behest of Stalin ... the world's not some black and white place were taking money from the bourgeois is some kind of metaphysical taint. Working with bourgeois, national or international, for short term political gain, is more than justified in a tyrannical state. Nobody who takes Marx seriously and who is in their right mind could think Mugabe is revolutionary; this is the man who drove half a million people out of a slum by force, killed many Matabele to secure a power monopoly for his ethnicity, and who used brutality and violence to terrify farmers during the redistribution process.

[Chimurenga.]

I've had these nagging thoughts lately, but to actually see supposed leftists attempting to justify the murder of ISO members by siting analytical mistakes in their press from the past, or even cheering the execution of socialists, is nothing short of disgusting.

The only person justifying the murder (if any of them actually get the death penalty) of the ISO member(s) is Derb who probably won't substantiate his/her claims. I'm simply saying that the details are still sketchy and given that the ISO has engaged in sensationalistic demonizing of Mugabe and the ZANU-PF in the past, it's a little hard for me to automatically assume that that's whats going on. Especially when bourgeois media outlets like Al Jazeera, for example, have been saying "alleged torturing".


I don't think anyone here would ever dream of calling for the US state to murder ISO members in the united states, because we know that this would open up us all to such attack. But if it's in some far off land where black people live it's now acceptable, even progressive.

I would encourage you to read again my points on this issue. I really don't think you understand.


He's been running the country into the ground for longer than there have been sanctions.

Not according to the Congress bill that proposed the appeal and acknowledged that the sanctions have been absolutely disastrous. I repeat..


Zimbabwe has gone from being the `bread basket' of Africa to the world's fastest shrinking economy.Here's another quote:

Under Mugabe, Zimbabwe fed itself and became a major exporter of food as well as of tobacco and minerals. Literacy and longevity rates shot up. Today, a third of the population is starving and the country has the lowest life expectancy in the world — just 34 years for women.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25432146/ns/world_news-africa/

The logical explanation points to the sanctions imposed by the West as the core problem of Zimbabwe. So until you can find me sufficient information that coincides with your claim that, since 1980, ZANU rule has put Zimbabwe on a consistent decline, your claim here is ridiculous.


An an unwavering opponent of markets: "Unsuccessful market reform attempts were started in the 1990s"

It is well known that during the 90's, Zimbabwe began to introduce neo-liberal reforms into Zimbabwe. However, a short time later (I think a year or two if I remember correctly), those reforms were rolled back and the plans were squashed. So what?


But just because something is "funded by the West" doesn't make it the worst option, or bad. The Japanese democracy funded by the west was superior to the "indigenous" Imperial regime.

Ignoring the obvious and ludicrous point you just raised here, I'm just going
to point out that I've already provided some information relating to the MDC's eagerness to privatize and open up to foreign investors but you still don't get it. That or you're just not reading what I'm posting here.


Here's one in a line of him and his and your ilks unending string of lowlights -- http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/01/gowans-stephen-zunes-and-struggle-overseas-profits -- where you've got a pop for Zimbabwe, Iran, and Belarus all in one. You can find more if you research.

Go back and read my post once more because you clearly can't get this through your head. Find me a post by Gowans explicitly supporting Ahmadinejad. Otherwise you're just diverting from a claim that you cannot substantiate.


The one who colluded with the imperialists to support sanctions is Tsvangirai of the MDC. So why isn't he in prison being tortured?

Hah. You act it's as simple as that. Why would ZANU-PF risk an international "human rights" campaign that glorifies Tsvangirai and would further demonize Mugabe and risk support?

Also, Tsvagnirai isn't the only one who works with the west and support sanctions (http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/cable-reveals-bitis-hand-in-zimbabwe-sanctions-cms-1147).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, as I said before, I'm going to see for myself what it's like at the PSL because the people I've talked to have never come off as rabid and opportunistic as certain people on the internet. And not just 10 post havin', trollin' lovin' noobs, either. I have to explore the anti-imperialist position more, as it exists in the real world. I still love the PSL, the local chapter, and the experiences I've had so far. Don't take this as a break with the PSL because I'm fairly certain that the people I interact with are sane. I am on alert, however. ;)

The internet just makes everyone seem crazy. Even though I have some fundamental disagreements with the PSL people I've met from PSL generally seem sincere and dedicated, it really has to come down to politics and if you mostly agree or not. If you generally agree, it's best to join - they're not a cult, it's voluntary and you can always leave if it's not the right fit.

But on the broader issue, personally I hope a lot of the left changes some of their stances left-over from cold-war "anti-imperialist" politics in the face of the upheavals going on. I think there's a chance to really have a new kind of realignment on the left if we are entering into a era of more struggle domestically and revolutions internationally. Specifically, it will harm the ability to rebuild an anti-war movement (not to mention probably stifle and disorient ANSWER) if groups like the PSL don't change course in the face of uphevals and repression like this IMO.

I mean seriously, excusing the repression of socialists because they were playing footage of the Egyptian uprising?


I'm simply saying that the details are still sketchy and given that the ISO has engaged in sensationalistic demonizing of Mugabe and the ZANU-PF in the past,Oh, shit what did they demonize him with - did they make sensational claims about repressing activists talking about Egypt or showing news-footage in a meeting?!
it's a little hard for me to automatically assume that that's whats going on. Especially when bourgeois media outlets like Al Jazeera, for example, have been saying "alleged torturing".Yup, the bourgois media are so on board with headlines like:
CNN: 46 arrested for plotting Egyptian-style coup in Zimbabwe (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-21/world/zimbabwe.unrest.arrests_1_troubled-unity-government-harare-central-police-station-zimbabwean-president-robert-mugabe?_s=PM:WORLD)

[Chimurenga.]

Yup, the bourgois media are so on board with headlines like:
CNN: 46 arrested for plotting Egyptian-style coup in Zimbabwe (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-21/world/zimbabwe.unrest.arrests_1_troubled-unity-government-harare-central-police-station-zimbabwean-president-robert-mugabe?_s=PM:WORLD)

This actually proves my point because not once does CNN jump to the conclusion that those arrested were tortured. Meanwhile, the ISO goes all out with hysteria.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

This actually proves my point because not once does CNN jump to the conclusion that those arrested were tortured. Meanwhile, the ISO goes all out with hysteria.

Meanwhile, the ISO knows what it means to be arrested for political activity in a police-state. We're Trotskyists, it's a shared memory of what all "anti-imperialists" and "marxist revolutionaries" have ever done to us for arguing for worker's power and worker's control.

[Chimurenga.]

Meanwhile, the ISO knows what it means to be arrested for political activity in a police-state. We're Trotskyists, it's a shared memory of what all "anti-imperialists" and "marxist revolutionaries" have ever done to us for arguing for worker's power and worker's control.

Yep, Trotskyist leaders have been quite Custeristic. What a proud tradition!

:laugh:

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Yep, Trotskyist leaders have been quite Custeristic. What a proud tradition!

:laugh:

Uhmm, excuse me, but leading people in a fight for worker's power and worker's control in countries already undergoing revolution and then being killed off by people who claim to be fighting for the same things for pointing out that they are creating a new bureaucratic elite is not custeristic. It's more like ideological genocide perpetrated by every "Marxist-Leninist" or "Maoist" group that has ever taken power. So sure, cheer the deaths of people fighting for real workers power at the hands of the new elite, but that just means that you have THEIR blood on your hands and that YOU would do EXACTLY the same in a revolutionary situation. Are you a mass murderer? Can we put you in the same group as the SS guards who enabled the Holocaust? Will you command the firing squads which murder revolutionaries fighting for socialism from below? Will you enable the creation of a new bureacratic elite? Shit, how you can sleep at night is beyond me.

Also, it is not custerisitic merely to speak.

EDIT: God you remind me of many a fash.

[Chimurenga.]

Uhmm, excuse me, but leading people in a fight for worker's power and worker's control in countries already undergoing revolution and then being killed off by people who claim to be fighting for the same things for pointing out that they are creating a new bureaucratic elite is not custeristic.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night, bro. Your organization sure didn't give two shits about worker's power and/or worker's control when they cheered on the capitalist restoration (headed by at least one crypto-Fascist, mind you) in Russia and Poland. Keep telling yourself that your organization actually cares about Socialism.


It's more like ideological genocide perpetrated by every "Marxist-Leninist" or "Maoist" group that has ever taken power. So sure, cheer the deaths of people fighting for real workers power at the hands of the new elite, but that just means that you have THEIR blood on your hands and that YOU would do EXACTLY the same in a revolutionary situation. Are you a mass murderer? Can we put you in the same group as the SS guards who enabled the Holocaust? Will you command the firing squads which murder revolutionaries fighting for socialism from below? Will you enable the creation of a new bureacratic elite? Shit, how you can sleep at night is beyond me.

Ah, yes. The ultra-Liberal moralism that I explained a few posts ago. I knew that this wasn't too far behind.


EDIT: God you remind me of many a fash.

Welp, I'm not so...

[Jose Gracchus]

What about Stalinists handing over opposition to actual Nazis during the occupation of Poland? I suppose that never happened. See the difference is instead of purportedly assisting a "quasi-fascist" with words, the NKVD in 1939 assisted the Gestapo with deeds.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So when the Trotskyists are being oppressed will the Stalinists stand up against Mugabe or show any solidarity towards them? Because I'm pretty sure everybody was against what happened when our State(For those of us in the U.S.) cracked down on the Freedom Road organization and other activists. So I'm just curious as to what the response will be from all those who are rabidly anti-Trotskyists when it happens in other countries under supposedly "socialist" people like Mugabe.


It's already happened in the U.S., years ago. The CPUSA supported the state's use of the Smith Act against the SWP. Of course the results were (predictably) that the state turned around and used the Smith Act against the CPUSA shortly afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's more like ideological genocide perpetrated by every "Marxist-Leninist" or "Maoist" group that has ever taken power.As opposed to what happened when the Mullahs the Cliffites backed in Iran took power.. or what happened when the "freedom fighters" the Cliffites backed in Afghanistan took power.. or what will happen when/if Hezbollah takes power.

So, yeah:

http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pot-kettle-black.jpg

Neither one of your trends has anything to do with working class liberation.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

As opposed to what happened when the Mullahs the Cliffites backed in Iran took power.. or what happened when the "freedom fighters" the Cliffites backed in Afghanistan took power.. or what will happen when/if Hezbollah takes power.

So, yeah:

-snip-

Neither one of your trends has anything to do with working class liberation.

Permiso, but me thinks you be misrepresentin'. The ISO didn't support the Mullahs or the Taliban. It DID support revolutionary groups which took part in the same vast and multi-faceted struggles but which never came to power and which were eventually eliminated by the groups they thought could be allies in the struggle. Those alliances which were made for the sake of expedience were not right and should be denounced, however, the ISO supported revolutionary socialist groups and not the groups which eventually came to power.

[Derb]

I'm not sure this is exactly true. He appears to have been kicked out of the MDC back in 2002. However, his remaining connections to the MDC are uncertain. I know they had publicly expressed outrage at his arrest and demanded his release.

If you have more information on this, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

First, like their White Marxist counterparts, the ISO underwent a split in 2009. This was based primarily on the majority completely opposed to "entryism" into an openly imperialist outfit like the MDC. Gwisai and his gang were expelled from the leadership, and have since formed their own faction.

The majority of the Zimbabwe ISO are completely against working with imperialist powers to re-establish colonialism in Zimbabwe, and to give the land back to the white people, which is why they expelled Gwisai from the leadership.

And Zimbabwe is a free society. Everyone in Zimbabwe already knows about the events in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc. Anyone who can read the newspapers can read about it, anyone with a TV can watch the news about it, and anyone with a satellite can watch the imperialist press if they want. There is no crime in this.

So pro-imperialist ISO split faction leader and his gang to claim they were arrested for simply watching videos is an outlandish lie. They were doing actually what the government says they were: plotting a way to spread unrest against the democratically elected government. They want to see what is happening in Libya happen to Zimbabwe.

For this they deserve death. The Chimurenga will not be stopped by phony communists under the spell of American and British White Marxism. Mugabe is a great leader, and a great communist. He lead the people of Zimbabwe into a victorious struggle against Ian Smith and white apartheid. He united the ZANU and the ZAPU. He eventually made good on the promise to give the land back to the people, which the West has never forgiven him for, and to which the White Marxists on this forum won't either.

DEATH TO TRAITORS! Death to Gwisai! Death to those who would sell out their people to American and Britain! Death to all phony-communists in the pay of Western imperialism!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Permiso, but me thinks you be misrepresentin'. The ISO didn't support the Mullahs or the Taliban. It DID support revolutionary groups which took part in the same vast and multi-faceted struggles but which never came to power and which were eventually eliminated by the groups they thought could be allies in the struggle. Those alliances which were made for the sake of expedience were not right and should be denounced, however, the ISO supported revolutionary socialist groups and not the groups which eventually came to power.

Re: The seizure of power by the mullahs in Iran

“The Form, Religious—The Spirit, Revolution!” (Socialist Worker, January 1979).

http://www.internationalist.org/isogodssocialists_large.jpg

Re: Afghanistan

“We welcome the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan. It will give heart to all those inside the USSR and in Eastern Europe who want to break the rule of Stalin’s heirs” (Socialist Worker, May 1988).

“Islamists have now replaced socialists and the left in terms of being in the frontline against the state in many countries” (Socialist Worker , 20 August 1994).

[B]Re: Hezbollah

"The SWP is one of the main elements in the Stop The War Campaign. Yet far from wanting to stop wars it finds a side to support in every conflict... During Israel's battles with Hezbollah in the Lebanon in 2006 it handed out placards proclaiming ‘we are all Hezbollah'."

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Re: The seizure of power by the mullahs in Iran

“The Form, Religious—The Spirit, Revolution!” (Socialist Worker, January 1979).

-snip-

That's some fucked up shit and definitely the wrong line.


Re: Afghanistan

“We welcome the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan. It will give heart to all those inside the USSR and in Eastern Europe who want to break the rule of Stalin’s heirs” (Socialist Worker, May 1988).

“Islamists have now replaced socialists and the left in terms of being in the frontline against the state in many countries” (Socialist Worker , 20 August 1994).

The first line doesn't proclaim support for the Taliban or any such thing. The second (from Britain) is reprehensible if it was actually their line to support them, however, I have a feeling that it was merely an analysis of the situation and not an endorsement of Islamists as revolutionary leaders.


[B]Re: Hezbollah

"The SWP is one of the main elements in the Stop The War Campaign. Yet far from wanting to stop wars it finds a side to support in every conflict... During Israel's battles with Hezbollah in the Lebanon in 2006 it handed out placards proclaiming ‘we are all Hezbollah'."

The SWP hasn't been linked to the ISO for some time now. Though I do think it is important to support Palestinians and Arabs against Israeli imperialism, it is clearly wrong to support one organization as if they are the best last hope.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Who defeated "the Russians" (really soldiers of many nationalities in the USSR, and Afghanis)? The US-Pakistan-Saudi backed mujahideen "freedom fighters."

You'll notice in my original post that I said the Cliffites supported the "freedom fighters," not "the Taliban" which is what the ruling clique that came out of the mujahideen called itself later on.


The SWP hasn't been linked to the ISO for some time now. Though I do think it is important to support Palestinians and Arabs against Israeli imperialism, it is clearly wrong to support one organization as if they are the best last hope.

Notice here that I was talking about Cliffites as a whole. Both the ISO and British SWP belong to that tendency.

[The Red Next Door]

Uhmm, excuse me, but leading people in a fight for worker's power and worker's control in countries already undergoing revolution and then being killed off by people who claim to be fighting for the same things for pointing out that they are creating a new bureaucratic elite is not custeristic. It's more like ideological genocide perpetrated by every "Marxist-Leninist" or "Maoist" group that has ever taken power. So sure, cheer the deaths of people fighting for real workers power at the hands of the new elite, but that just means that you have THEIR blood on your hands and that YOU would do EXACTLY the same in a revolutionary situation. Are you a mass murderer? Can we put you in the same group as the SS guards who enabled the Holocaust? Will you command the firing squads which murder revolutionaries fighting for socialism from below? Will you enable the creation of a new bureacratic elite? Shit, how you can sleep at night is beyond me.

Also, it is not custerisitic merely to speak.

EDIT: God you remind me of many a fash.

If he was you would been the oven by now. so don't even go there calling us nazi. ILO.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

If he was you would been the oven by now. so don't even go there calling us nazi. ILO.

If he was what? Ready to become a mass murderer on behalf of the "revolutionary bureaucratic elite"? By the way, you're aware that ILO is possibly the least creative disparaging nickname you could come up with for the ISO?

All I see you "Marxist-Leninists" doing is defending the mass murder of trotskyists and anarchists across the world, while anarchists and trotskyists defend "Marxist-Leninists" who have found the ire of a judicial system or a police force or a military group. See, I like to think that when the revolution comes, everyone on here will be at the barricades side-by-side fighting for workers power, but I can't help but feel that many an M-L would turn their guns on revolutionary comrades the moment the bourgeoisie stopped fighting, and I don't see how that is the foundation for workers democracy.

[turquino]

The arrests took place at a meeting where they watched television footage of the protests in Egypt. Though this is about Zimbabwe, this fact is relevant. The question I have is, do the ISO activists see the end of Egyptian president Mubarak as a model for Zimbabwe? If they do, then that points to some problems. First, the protests in Egypt were not a revolution. The protesters were not calling for more than what should be expected in any bourgeois democracy. Their demands were for the removal of top government individuals, the end of police repression and some reforms to living standards. Remove these demands from their context and they could have been from Eastern Europe in the 1980s. As I see it, there was nothing particularly socialist, or even progressive about these Egyptian demands, or what has been accomplished since. I even heard one western commentator enthusiastically praise the protesters for making their grievances about Egypt's lack of democracy instead of Israel or American imperialism for a change. What good is this sort of rhetoric for Gazans or Zimbabweans who have to deal with deadly sanctions imposed by the imperialists every day?

The ISO have stated that their primary goal is to get rid of Mugabe. They promote 'critically and unconditionally supporting' the opposition MDC to this end. Instead of pointing to the punishing imperialist sanctions, the ISO isolate the lack of multiparty democracy as the number one problem facing Zimbabweans. Look at it this way: if the imperialists believed regime change and multiparty democracy in Zimbabwe stood to advance the cause of socialism and anti-imperialism, THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT.

[Crux]

I'm simply saying that the details are still sketchy and given that the ISO has engaged in sensationalistic demonizing of Mugabe and the ZANU-PF in the past, it's a little hard for me to automatically assume that that's whats going on. Especially when bourgeois media outlets like Al Jazeera, for example, have been saying "alleged torturing".

It's a little hard to not vomit in my mouth a little. So is this "shit as soon as the issue concern something beyond the borders of U.S" constant in all PSL politics or just in the case of Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Libya, DPRK?

[Kassad]

It's a little hard to not vomit in my mouth a little. So is this "shit as soon as the issue concern something beyond the borders of U.S" constant in all PSL politics or just in the case of Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Libya, DPRK?

We do apologize for not siding with the interests of imperialism.

[Crux]

We do apologize for not siding with the interests of imperialism.
No need, your stance on the emerging imperialist power of China rectifyes that good and well. You should aplogize for not siding with the interests of the working class, unless it's american, I suppose.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You should aplogize for not siding with the interests of the working class, unless it's american, I suppose.

And even then, no.

[Kassad]

And even then, no.

Keep talking, NHIA. We're all listening and awaiting your glorious wisdom as to how we should lead the proletariat towards socialist revolution.

[black magick hustla]

Keep talking, NHIA. We're all listening and awaiting your glorious wisdom as to how we should lead the proletariat towards socialist revolution.
i think the point is that he "can't lead." nor you can for the matter

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The arrests took place at a meeting where they watched television footage of the protests in Egypt. Though this is about Zimbabwe, this fact is relevant. The question I have is, do the ISO activists see the end of Egyptian president Mubarak as a model for Zimbabwe? If they do, then that points to some problems. First, the protests in Egypt were not a revolution. The protesters were not calling for more than what should be expected in any bourgeois democracy. Their demands were for the removal of top government individuals, the end of police repression and some reforms to living standards. Remove these demands from their context and they could have been from Eastern Europe in the 1980s. As I see it, there was nothing particularly socialist, or even progressive about these Egyptian demands, or what has been accomplished since. I even heard one western commentator enthusiastically praise the protesters for making their grievances about Egypt's lack of democracy instead of Israel or American imperialism for a change. What good is this sort of rhetoric for Gazans or Zimbabweans who have to deal with deadly sanctions imposed by the imperialists every day?

The ISO have stated that their primary goal is to get rid of Mugabe. They promote 'critically and unconditionally supporting' the opposition MDC to this end. Instead of pointing to the punishing imperialist sanctions, the ISO isolate the lack of multiparty democracy as the number one problem facing Zimbabweans. Look at it this way: if the imperialists believed regime change and multiparty democracy in Zimbabwe stood to advance the cause of socialism and anti-imperialism, THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT.

In other words:

"They watched a movie about the Egyptian, a revolution which hasn't produced a socialist utopia an entire 2 months from its beginning, and which was led by a plurality of movements and not socialists only. Therefore, these people must be bourgeois democrats like the Egyptian protests."

Nice, back one bad generalization up with another bad generalization.

[gorillafuck]

ILO.More like international socialist house of pancakes!

[robbo203]

Interesting peice on the land grab by Mugabe and his cronies...

http://newsdzezimbabwe.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/mugabe-now-owns-14-commercial-farms-in-zimbabwe/

MUGABE NOW OWNS 14 COMMERCIAL FARMS IN ZIMBABWE

November 30, 2010 by newsdzezimbabwe (http://newsdzezimbabwe.wordpress.com/author/newsdzezimbabwe/)

HARARE — President Robert Mugabe, his loyalists in ZANU-PF, cabinet ministers, senior army and government officials and judges now own nearly 5 million hectares of agricultural land, including wildlife conservancies and plantation land, seized from white commercial farmers since 2000, investigations by ZimOnline have revealed.
This means that a new well-connected black elite of about 2 200 people now control close to half of the most profitable land seized from about 4 100 commercial farmers.
Even though Mugabe has consistently maintained that his land reform programme is meant to benefit the poor black masses, it is him and his cronies who have got the most out of it, according to our three month long investigations.
ZimOnline can conclusively state that Mugabe and his second wife Grace, now own 14 farms, worth at least 16 000 hectares in size.
All ministers from Mugabe’s ZANU PF in Zimbabwe’s coalition government and ZANU PF deputy ministers are multiple farm owners. That probably explains why Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s determined push to have a new land audit done to uncover multiple farm owners has persistently hit a brickwall.
Mugabe’s deputy Joyce Mujuru, alongside his influential husband, former army general Solomon Mujuru, and their relatives, own at least 25 farms with a combined hectarage of more than 105 000.
Critics who have consistently dismissed Zimbabwe’s emotional land reforms as a political patronage programme by the octogenarian Mugabe to reward supporters who have kept him in power are right after all.
But the veteran leader insists the programme is meant to redress colonial imbalances and benefited the povo. Mugabe, whose agrarian reforms have been criticised by the West, says some 300,000 people have benefitted from the programme.
However, investigations by ZimOnline have shown that while at least 150,000 ordinary people may have had access to farms, the majority own between 10 and 50 hectares each after some of the huge farms were subdivided into small plots. But these ordinary people only accessed land on the strengths of their ZANU PF party membership cards.
With the notable exception of Welshman Ncube, the secretary-general of a small splinter faction of the MDC, no high profile civil society and MDC officials have benefited from the land seizures.
But some 2,200 well connected people – Mugabe, his wife Grace, their top allies, friends and relatives — have parcelled among themselves choice farms spanning from 250 hectares to as much as 4,000 hectares in the most fertile farming regions in the country, in clear violation of the government’s own policy of capping farm sizes.
Land the size of Slovakia
Government documents and investigations show that Mugabe and his top allies control nearly 40 percent of the 14 million hectares of land seized from white-owned farms, which if put together are the size of Slovakia, with a population of 5.4 million people.
Before 2000, the 4,500 members of the largely white Commercial Farmers’ Union and another 1,500 unaffiliated white farmers owned close to 15 million hectares of Zimbabwe’s most arable land and wildlife conservancies.
A decade later, less than 400 white farmers remain on the land, with the rest expelled and their properties handed over to politically correct blacks.
And research, including examination of various government documents and audit reports show that the biggest beneficiaries of the land reform programme remain ZANU-PF members and supporters, security service chiefs and officers and traditional chiefs who have openly sided with Mugabe and senior government officials and judges.
Some top government officials have been fingered in three official audits as multiple farm owners, clearly thumping their noses at the government’s own failed policy of “one man one farm”.
The 86-year-old Mugabe and his young second wife, Grace, are the chief multiple farm owners, with 14 farms in total, including seven in his home province of Mashonaland West and in the agriculture rich district of Mazowe in Mashonaland Central.
The farms measure over 16,000 hectares – enough to build 160,000 medium density houses – and include a five-in-one 4,046-hectare property named Gushungo Estate in Darwendale near Mugabe’s rural Zvimba home.
“This is a political programme camouflaged as land reform because it is clear that land has been transferred to high profile people and not the landless,” John Worsley-Worswick from the vocal Justice For Agriculture (JAG) farmers pressure group said.
Another of Mugabe’s deputies, John Nkomo is also a multiple farm owner. He now controls the lucrative Jijima wildlife sanctuary in north-west Zimbabwe after he muscled out a fellow black farmer.
Nkomo, who already owned another farm in Matabeleland, seized the Jijima lodge wildlife conservancy (size unkonwn) in north western Zimbabwe in defiance of a High Court order against him.
Asset stripping
Mugabe has not acted on the multiple farm owners, despite three government land audits which fingered top ZANU-PF officials and recommended that they return the farms.
Investigations show that for example Edna Madzongwe, Senate Speaker and a Mugabe relative has since 2000 seized six productive commercial farms in Chegutu district, Mashonaland West province, farms which she has all but run down.
These are Aitape, Cobun Estates, Bourne, Mpofu Farm, Reyden and Stockdale Farm, which she seized from an elderly white couple last year. The farms, which span 5,200 hectares in total, are all in Chegutu, some 100 kilometres west of capital Harare.
“Some of this can only be described as asset stripping because if you look at the farms now they are now in a derelict state and Madzongwe keeps hoping from one farm to another,” said a white commercial farmer who lost his farm but declined to be named fearing victimisation.
Investigations also showed that top politicians have in the past years moved from one farm to another, stripping them of equipment and selling off the produce, which has seen some of them rich overnight.
But Madzongwe is only one of several high-ranking ZANU-PF officials who have more than one farm.
Governor’s five farms
The president of the Chiefs’ Council Fortune Charumbira has seized more than four farms in Masvingo measuring 6,600 hectares in total and Information Minister Webster Shamu owns Lambourne farm and Selous Tobacco Estates in Mashonaland West measuring 1,660 hectares.
A government audit carried in 2002 showed that former Mashonaland West provincial governor Peter Chanetsa at one point had five farms spanning 4,000 hectares, former Mines Minister and legislator Chindori Chininga, Local Government Minister Ignatius Chombo, former Information Minister Jonathan Moyo own or have owned multiple farms at some point.
“It is incumbent on the government and … ZANU-PF to quickly re-align the land reform programme implementation to the national land policy in order to reassert its credibility as a just and democratic programme to equitably redistribute the land in Zimbabwe and empower the indigenous people through land ownership,” the audit report said.
Agriculture remains the mainstay of Zimbabwe’s economy but production in the sector has plunged by 60 percent since 2000 when government-backed land invasions started.
Exports from the sector have fallen from $1.4 billion – 41percent of exports – in 2000 to nearly $700 million last year, after falling below $500 million in 2007, blamed largely on poorly equipped new black farmers and lack of farming inputs like seed and fertiliser.
But the downfall in agricultural output is also attributed in part to the fact that a huge chunk of some of the most productive and largest former white-owned commercial farms hoarded by senior Mugabe political allies are lying fallow either because the new owners are not that keen on farming or they simply abandoned the properties for new farms.
Gov’t to seize excess land
Lands and Rural Resettlement Minister Hebert Murerwa said while there were some people with multiple farms, these were very few and would be forced to give them up.
“The fact that a handful of people may have more than one farm does not detract from the overwhelming success of the land reform where the government has created 300,000 new farmers over the last ten years” Murerwa said.
While much has been said bout the failure of black villagers resettled on former white farms to feed Zimbabwe chiefly because they lack financial resources, little is said about the fact that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe went to great lengths — including employing rather questionable methods such as printing money — to try to fund the new farmers.
The central bank had between 2003 and 2008 pumped in $3 billion in the agriculture sector alone by printing money and raiding accounts of NGOs and exporters, to buy subsidised farming equipment, fuel, seed and fertiliser. But this has mostly benefitted influential Mugabe allies, some who are accused of selling inputs on the black market.
Malawi in comparison, which spend half the amount to support its farmers has grown to become a net food exporter, while Zimbabwe continues to plug a food deficit.
Political analysts say Mugabe has managed to ensure support from the key security service, including the army, police and central intelligence, by dishing out prime farms to commanders and senior officers.
The security forces
Of the nearly 200 officers from the rank of Major to the Lieutenant General in the Zimbabwe National Army, 90 percent have farms in the most fertile parts of the country. This is replicated in the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Zimbabwe Prisons Service, Air Force of Zimbabwe and CIO.
In total there are 400 officers in the security services alone who are known to have farms above 250 hectares, often seized at gun point from the previous white owners while several lower ranking officers and war veterans also have smaller holdings.
Constantine Chiwenga, the Zimbabwe Defence Forces Commander, who is among a cabal of Defence Forces chiefs who have publicly declared that they will only serve Mugabe, has two farms near Harare, including the 1,200 hectare Chakoma Estates, which his wife seized at gunpoint, telling a terrified white farmer that she lusted for white blood and sought the slightest excuse to kill him.
Perence Shiri, a veteran of the liberation struggle whose record was soiled during his command of an army crack unit in an insurgency crackdown in Matabeleland in early 1980s, has two farms, the 1,460 hectare Eirin farm in Marondera, which he seized after evicting 96 landless families and the 1,950 hectare banana producing Bamboo Creek in Shamva.
Augustine Chihuri, Mugabe’s loyal Police Commissioner General owns Woodlands Farm (size unknown) in Shamva.
In the past year more than a dozen senior army and air force officers with have used armed soldiers to evict white commercial farmers.
In August last year Brigadier General Justin Mujaji evicted white farmer Charles Lock from his 376 hectare Karori farm in Headlands district east of Harare and defied several High Court orders, including one meant to allow Lock to take his tobacco and maize crop and equipment.
“Clearly there is a common thread here, where the military which is supposed to defend its citizens brazenly terrorises them in the name of land reform,” said John Makumbe, a University of Zimbabwe political lecturer and Mugabe critic.
Politburo and judges
All of ZANU-PF’s 56 politburo members, 98 Members of Parliament and 35 elected and unelected Senators were allocated former white farms, all 10 provincial governors have seized farms, with four being multiple owners, while 65 percent of the country’s more than 200 mostly partisan traditional chiefs have also benefited from the land reforms.
Sixteen Supreme Court and High Court Judges, including Chief Justice Chidyausiku, who owns the 1 000 hectare Estes Park farm in Mazowe/Concession district, also own large farms ranging between 540 to 1380 hectares.
Forty serving and former ambassadors have been allocated farms, with 70 percent of Parastatals bosses also owning large tracts of land.
Investigations have also revealed that Mugabe’s personal banker and Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe governor Gideon Gono surprisingly does not own a farm given to him by government but has managed to buy four farms, including the prime 4,000 hectare Donnington farm in Norton he purchased in 2001.
Sources said Gono, who at the time was CBZ Holdings chief executive who personally authorised loans for senior government officials, bought the farms at knockdown prices from farmers who were under pressure from invaders to leave their properties.
“The white farmers have simply been replaced by a new black elite,” said a source. But while the old white farmers regarded farming as a profession and most worked their land full time maintaining Zimbabwe as the bread basket of Africa , the Mugabe cronies who have replaced them largely fit the mould of what Mugabe himself has described as “mobile phone farmers”.
They are largely responsible for converting Zimbabwe into a basket case as they have used their land more for weekend recreation.
Minister of State in Vice President Joyce Mujuru’s office, Sylvester Nguni, himself a huge land owner, once accused his fellow ZANU PF officials of only acquiring vast swathes of land “for pride” as they had dismally failed to use their land many years after they seized it.
While most of the seized land controlled by these top Mugabe cronies continue to lie fallow, most of the poor peasants and small holder farmers in communal and other better areas account for most of the improvements in agricultural output last year.
In fact, the peasant farmers accounted for more than half of Zimbabwe’s total maize production even before the mass evictions of white landowners who mostly focused on cash crops.
Sources say if the land reforms had been based on a transparent poverty alleviation thresholds and properly implemented with the right beneficiaries being selected and empowered without Mugabe’s patronage considerations, the white farmers would largely have not been missed.
But even the 350 000 black farm workers, who many had thought would be among the initial targets or beneficiaries of land reforms were largely ignored.
Unconfirmed reports say many of the former farm labourers have died due to poverty after they were evicted alongside their former white employers. The few who remained on the farms have to content with the new black landowners who don’t invest on the properties and pay them starvation wages. — ZimOnline

[The Red Next Door]

If he was what? Ready to become a mass murderer on behalf of the "revolutionary bureaucratic elite"? By the way, you're aware that ILO is possibly the least creative disparaging nickname you could come up with for the ISO?

All I see you "Marxist-Leninists" doing is defending the mass murder of trotskyists and anarchists across the world, while anarchists and trotskyists defend "Marxist-Leninists" who have found the ire of a judicial system or a police force or a military group. See, I like to think that when the revolution comes, everyone on here will be at the barricades side-by-side fighting for workers power, but I can't help but feel that many an M-L would turn their guns on revolutionary comrades the moment the bourgeoisie stopped fighting, and I don't see how that is the foundation for workers democracy.

i think it the other away around.

[Toppler]

Mugabe is an asshole.

Also, the reasons for the revolutions of 1989 were not the same as in Egypt today. The living standards were good, the goverment was not nearly as corrupt as the Egyptian one etc.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Toppler-my understanding is that living standards had basically stagnated during much of the 70s and 80s, which sort of broke the promise of the USSR of continued economic and technological bounty for its citizens.

Anyway, your from the area (right?) so I suppose you'd know, but I don't think the '89 protests came out of a vacuum.

[redasheville]

For the members of Revleft with principles:
Solidarity needed for Zimbabwe socialists.
(http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/09/free-all-zimbabwe-activists)

[bricolage]

Re: The seizure of power by the mullahs in Iran

“The Form, Religious—The Spirit, Revolution!” (Socialist Worker, January 1979).
Was this from the British SWP or the American SWP... or the American ISO? Actually was the British SWP even called the SWP in 1979?
I'm so confused.

[Per Levy]

i think it the other away around.

oh yeah, history is so rich of examples of trotzkyists murdering stalinists:rolleyes:.
but im curious, what makes you think that trotzkyists would do such a thing?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And this thread shows why many on the left - i'm thinking of 'anti-imperialists' - will never, ever, have the support of more than a tiny, tiny minority.

You do not create Socialism, peace, equality and plenty through supporting dictatorship, torture and execution.

I'm not saying that from a liberal or pacifist or trot point of view, but in this particular instance, it is so, so regrettable that anybody could actually support Robert Mugabe.

He is not Socialist. He is bourgeois. He is a dictator. That is all you need to know.

[Nolan]

Imperialist propaganda. Mugabe is glorious socialist leader.

[The Red Next Door]

oh yeah, history is so rich of examples of trotzkyists murdering stalinists:rolleyes:.
but im curious, what makes you think that trotzkyists would do such a thing?

People can be murdering backstabbers, does not matter what their tendency is.

It kind of like saying that the police haven't murder protesters, but protesters murder police officers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Was this from the British SWP or the American SWP... or the American ISO? Actually was the British SWP even called the SWP in 1979?
I'm so confused.


The articles in the picture are from the ISO. The quote from the British Socialist Worker is labeled as such.

[Sam_b]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24139

Zimbabwe: most arrested socialists freed - but the rest need support


A court in Zimbabwe has freed 39 of 45 activists who were arrested after they met and watched a video about the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
This is an enormous relief, but six are still being held and charged with treason—and conviction can carry a death sentence.
Rehad Desai, convenor of the South African based Defend The Zimbabwean Treason Trialists campaign, told Socialist Worker, “Campaigners created enough political pressure to force the ruling Zanu-PF party to drop charges against 39 of the defendants.
“But Zanu-PF is intent on punishing the more high-profile socialist activists. We have to increase the momentum of the campaign if the remaining treason charges are to be dropped.
“The continuing clampdown on all oppositional formations shows how seriously president Robert Mugabe is trying to cripple his opponents.”
The six are being held without bail and are due in court again on 21 March. The magistrate said that they tried to “incite the others to revolt against the present government”.
The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) organised the meeting in solidarity with Egyptian and Tunisian workers.
A police spy reported that, as well as discussing North Africa, speakers said there was a long-ruling authoritarian leadership in Zimbabwe.
They described hunger, poverty and unemployment while a few individuals enjoyed wealth.
About 100 police charged in and arrested everybody. Many were badly beaten and several were tortured.
Their supporters had to get a court order before they received any medical treatment. It was several days before even HIV positive people were allowed their anti-retroviral drugs.
Those still held are ISO general coordinator Munyaradzi Gwisai, anti-debt campaigner Hopewell Gumbo, gender activist Antonater Choto, Zimbabwe National Students Union leaders Welcome Zimuto and Eddson Chakuma, and labour activist Tatenda Mombeyarara.
On the evening of the hearing one of their supporters said, “Munya and three others are back in central prison in solitary confinement. We went to give them food. After a day in court they had not had anything. The prison would not let us come to bring food as it was late.”
Rehad said, “Our campaign is working with the detainees’ families and supporters.
“We need money urgently for legal fees and to make sure detainees’ families don’t get evicted and their children can eat. We also need funds to keep spreading information.”
Donations: CDL– MINE-LINE Worker Solidarity Fund,
Deposit reference “Zimbabwe Treason Trialists Solidarity Fund”,
NEDBANK, Killarney Branch, Johannesburg.
Branch code: 191 60535,
Current Account number: 100 185 3784,
SWIFT CODE NEDSZAJJ
When you make a donation please email us at [email protected] to tell us who it is from and how much it is

[Sam_b]

For anyone in and around London, there is a protest outside the Zimbabwean embassy tomorrow. Noon-1:30, 429 Strand.

http://www.freethemnow.com/

[turquino]

And this thread shows why many on the left - i'm thinking of 'anti-imperialists' - will never, ever, have the support of more than a tiny, tiny minority.

You do not create Socialism, peace, equality and plenty through supporting dictatorship, torture and execution.

I'm not saying that from a liberal or pacifist or trot point of view, but in this particular instance, it is so, so regrettable that anybody could actually support Robert Mugabe.

He is not Socialist. He is bourgeois. He is a dictator. That is all you need to know.
It's a good thing the social fascist left is honest about its indifference toward anti-imperialist struggle here. Palestinians would probably be better off if trotskyists abandoned any pretense to solidarity. They shouldn't get the impression that there are many westerners sincerely supporting Palestinian national liberation, and that winning over western public opinion is key to their success. It's a fake, reactionary internationalism that equates the colonising power with the nationalist or religious resistance.

[Princess Luna]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=333 has some serious explaining do it

[Toppler]

Toppler-my understanding is that living standards had basically stagnated during much of the 70s and 80s, which sort of broke the promise of the USSR of continued economic and technological bounty for its citizens.

Anyway, your from the area (right?) so I suppose you'd know, but I don't think the '89 protests came out of a vacuum.

Yes, they stagnated, but still, they were nothing like Egypt even in the 1960s. There weren't people living like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flickr_-_Daveness_98_-_Cityscape_in_Cairo.jpg .
And it is not like the living standards actually increased in most post-USSR countries after the fall, quite the opposite.

There is a difference between "my living standards are staying the same for years" (most of the Eastern Bloc) and "my living standards are absolute shit right now and were absolute shit before" (Egypt).

[Toppler]

Mugabe made his country the most backward and poor on earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Low_h uman_development_.28developing_countries.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita .

The GDP per capita is literally one fourth of the subsistence one. In other words, the economy is not able to provide for even the most basic human needs. It is about 10x as poor as Medieval China. There is nothing "new democratic" about Zimbabwe under Mugabe. Comparing him with Lukashenko is like comparing Pol Pot with Janos Kadar.

Here is some footage about how the people live there: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/11/zimbabwe-secret-film

I personally wouldn't mind if Mugabe was thrown to hungry wolves. And that would be worse. Considering how he made his country the poorest in human history (the poorest ancient societies had around 4x the GDP PPP per capita normally), he is literally worse than Hitler and Roman von Ustrenberg multiplied by a billion.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Toppler-the problem is, as far as consciousness is concerned, living standards aren't held against an absolute standard, but a relative one. IE, am i living better now relative to when I was a kid.

Also, i wasn't defending the subsequent fall in living standards. If anything, the real shocker is that Communists haven't been able to exploit the fall in living standards to bring about a restoration.

[Chimurenga.]

Mugabe made his country the most backward and poor on earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Low_h uman_development_.28developing_countries.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita).

Except I have already pointed out that Zimbabwe was nowhere near the shape that it is in now before the sanctions.


he is literally worse than Hitler and Roman von Ustrenberg multiplied by a billion.

Congrats. You just lost any credibility you might've had.

[gorillafuck]

Mugabe made his country the most backward and poor on earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Low_h uman_development_.28developing_countries.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita .He did not make it worse than before he took power. It's ridiculous to say that Zimbabwe is as bad to live in as Rhodesia was. He is a capitalist leader of an always poor nation though so obviously Zimbabwe is going to have a bad living standard for the working class.


I personally wouldn't mind if Mugabe was thrown to hungry wolves. And that would be worse. Considering how he made his country the poorest in human history (the poorest ancient societies had around 4x the GDP PPP per capita normally), he is literally worse than Hitler and Roman von Ustrenberg multiplied by a billion.Alright what the hell is this?

[Toppler]

Zimbabwe had the GDP PPP per capita of 744 and the life expectancy of 62 years in 1988. It was really poor, but its life expectancy was close to that of modern day Russia. From 1990, the economy and life expectancy declined worse than that of Europe in WW 2, it is not a coincidence that 1990 was the year Mugabe took power.

Now its GDP PPP per capita is estimated to be around 100 (the highest estimate is 395, which is already below the subsistence level, which is 400), and the life expectancy is 44 years. There is widespread hunger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Food_insecurity_in_Zimbabwe.svg and epidemics of cholera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_cholera_outbreak and people have to mine gold from river sand to survive.

Just watch the video.

The stats for Rhodesia in 1979, when it had ended, are: GDP PPP per capita of 680 USD and life expectancy of 58 years. The stats for Rhodesia in 1965, when it was estabilished, are; GDP PPP per capita of 552 dollars and the life expectancy was 53 years. Yes, Mugabe is so bad that under Rhodesia Zimbabwe was better off than now. Fake "anti-imperialism" = supporting any murderous thug regimes who use primitive "marxist" or "socialist" rhetoric. Seriously, fuck it..

Also;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/ios-christmas-appeal-in-zimbabwe-porridge-once-a-day-makes-you-a-lucky-girl-1206406.html

I dare any spoiled fucking Western "anti-imperialism" to go spend at least 2 weeks in Zimbabwe. Do it. It is easy to support henious goverments when you are living under the "evil, decadent imperialists" in Europe, America or well off Asian regions. Or actual well off anti-imperialist countries like Venezuela or Belarus.

Lukashenko is another matter entirely. I support him because he offers the best living standards in the entire CIS (with the exception of some rich parts of Russia), not because he is an "anti-imperialist". If "anti-imperialism" is being against imperialism as the extraction of superprofits from the proletariat in poor countries, then I am an anti-imperialist, if it is a codeword for supporting every murderous thug who vomits anti-Western rhetoric, then fuck no, I am not an "anti-imperialist".

Also, there is no "working class" anymore in Zimbabwe now. The unemployment is 95 percent. There are only two classes now - Mugabe's cronies and survivors of their rampage.

Compare this to Belarus. Gini index of 27.9, GDP PPP per capita of 13 864 USD (which is the highest in the CIS, only Russia's is higher, but Russia has extreme inequality with Gini at 42.3), HDI of 0.732 (according to the new 2010 methodology, that means it falls into the high category), unemployment rate of 0.7 percents (the third/fourth lowest in the world), the highest life expectancy in the CIS (70.63 years) etc... And as manic expression says, it is not actually a grey, depressing hellhole. It is much better than the 70s USSR, and 70s USSR was already a trillion times better than Zimbabwe under Mugabe.

Mugabe's Zimbabwe is more like "anti-Belarus". Belarus is the best country in the CIS, Zimbabwe is the worst country in Africa. Belarus has almost full employment, Zimbabwe has almost no employment at all. Belarus's goverment maintains stability, security, and rule of law, Zimbabwe's uses criminal elements and wanton barbarity as "law enforcement". Belarus has the highest life expectancy in the CIS (cca 71 years), Zimbabwe's life expectancy is a medieval 43.5 years. Et cetera...

[robbo203]

Now its GDP PPP per capita is estimated to be around 100 (the highest estimate is 395, which is already below the subsistence level, which is 400), and the life expectancy is 44 years.
...


While not wishing to deny that fact of great poverty in places like Zimbabwe or in any way to give succour to the appalling regime in power there, I think one needs to be careful here about citing figures about GDP which really relate only to monetised activities and so disregard non-monetised subsistence production. This is a point made by Boserup many years ago in her classic work, Woman's Role in Economic Development

The present system of under-reporting subsistence activities not only makes the underdeveloped countries seem poorer than they really are in comparison with the more developed countries, but it also makes their rate of economic growth appear in a more favorable light than the facts warrant, since economic development entails a gradual replacement of the omitted subsistence activities by the creation of income in the non-subsistence sector which is recorded more correctly (Boserup E. 1970, Woman's Role in Economic Development p. 163)

Needless to say, this is particularly important in sub-Saharan Africa where subsistence production still plays an important role in food provision.

GDP , that conventional capitalist indicator of economic growth, is not a particularly useful analytical tool and we should treat it with extreme caution. Digging a big hole in the ground and filling it in again - so long as all this activity was paid for - would count as contributing towards GDP growth but what in real terms would have been achieved?