Robert Mugabe election victory could force west to lift Zimbabwe sanctions

[KurtFF8]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/robert-mugabe-election-zimbabwe-sanctions




News (http://www.theguardian.com/us)
World news (http://www.theguardian.com/world)
Zimbabwe (http://www.theguardian.com/world/zimbabwe)


Robert Mugabe election victory could force west to lift Zimbabwe sanctions

African monitors seem likely to rubber-stamp result, which would present western governments with a dilemma


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/2/1375459350011/Robert-Mugabe-008.jpg Robert Mugabe talks to the media after casting his ballot in Zimbabwe's elections. Photograph: Meng Chenguang/Rex Features

There was a time when he was welcomed to a state banquet at Buckingham Palace and knighted by the Queen. Now that Zimbabwe (http://www.theguardian.com/world/zimbabwe)'s president, Robert Mugabe (http://www.theguardian.com/world/robert-mugabe), has all but claimed another election win (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/zimbabwe-elections-robert-mugabe-claims-landslide), the quandary for western governments is whether the time has come to roll out the red carpet and end his international isolation.
Mugabe is seen by many respected observers as a ruthless autocrat responsible for thousands of deaths during his 33-year rule who has yet again rigged his way to victory. But despite deep misgivings about the fairness of the poll, it is conceivable that realpolitik will pressure Britain and its allies to lift the last remaining sanctions (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/10/robert-mugabe-liberation-hero-villain-redeem-father) against Mugabe and his inner circle.
On Friday his Zanu-PF party summoned journalists to a rare press conference at its headquarters in the capital, Harare, predicting that a record turnout of 3.95 million voters would give it a two-thirds parliamentary majority. An exultant Patrick Chinamasa (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rp3x4/HARDtalk_Patrick_Chinamasa_Justice_Minister_of_Zim babwe), the justice minister, suggested that the result was a historic vindication of Mugabe and defeat of the west, proof that Zanu-PF was right about everything from human rights to seizures of white-owned farms.
Throwing down the gauntlet to Britain, he said: "As far as Zanu-PF is concerned, we have never refused to talk to them. It was Blair and Brown who refused to talk to our president over a decolonisation issue to do with the land question."
Chinamasa visited the UK this year and said the Africa (http://www.theguardian.com/world/africa) minister, Mark Simmonds, indicated that the government wanted to re-engage. "So I said to Mr Simmons, when you are ready, if you are able to deal with your British public opinion which you poisoned through demonisation of our president for no basis through lying that we were in violation of human rights, if you are able to think that politically you are now ready to engage us, you will find our doors open. Basically, you know where to find us."
Chinamasa denounced the travel bans and asset freezes imposed by the European Union and US, which Zanu-PF has blamed for Zimbabwe's economic crisis. "These are not from the UN, they are just from a club of white people who just don't like the fact that we are repossessing our land … The sanctions are illegal and they should be lifted yesterday, not tomorrow."
Asked whether Mugabe could one day set foot in Britain again, Chinamasa expressed hope that relations would be restored, but complained: "I was the first minister of Zanu-PF to visit London in 15 years. They lied to the public that they'd lifted sanctions against me, only to find when I got there that they were giving me a licence to buy in British shops. I never understood that British people can be so petty that I can't buy in a restaurant until I produce a licence when in fact I have been given a visa."
The Zanu-PF philosophy is fervently historical and anti-colonialist, questioning why Africa's wealth of natural resources have not alleviated poverty and insistent that land and businesses must be returned to Zimbabwean hands. Chinamasa accused western powers of funding non-government organisations in the country to the tune of $2.6bn (£1.7bn) and sponsoring pirate radio stations to effect regime change.
"We have said to Europe that they should change their mindset: we are no longer their colony," he said. "Each time they speak, they speak down on us as an enslaved people. They speak down on us as a colonised people. We want them to change that mindset. They should not continue the mindset of their grandfathers who colonised us which is what they continue doing.
"We thought that the new generation of Europeans and Americans – especially after they speak about human rights and so forth – would have a different mindset, but when you interact with them it's the same mindset that existed 500 years ago. It's like father like son, like a goat can only give birth to a kid goat, it's the same. But we are not goats, we are not animals."
He added: "We want Europe and America, white Commonwealth countries, to accept us as an equal sovereign country. If they do, they will find themselves welcome, we will receive them with open arms. That is the relationship we want to nurture between ourselves."
Mugabe banned the EU and groups including the US-based Carter Centre from monitoring the election, claiming that countries that imposed sanctions were biased in favour of the rival Movement for Democratic Change, which has called the poll "null and void". Official verdicts have therefore been left to two African observer missions - a critical test for democratic accountability on the continent.
On Friday the African Union released a preliminary report (http://pa.au.int/en/content/african-union-election-observation-mission-harmonised-elections-31-july-2013-republic-zimbabwe) expressing concerns about the non-availability of the electoral roll and the "high incidence" of voters who were turned away at polling stations. But its head of mission, Olusegun Obasanjo, said the apparent irregularities did not constitute evidence of systematic tampering. "Yes, the election is free," Obasanjo said. "Fair? Fairly. I have never seen an election that is perfect."
Bernard Membe, head of the observer mission for the Southern African Development Community, described the election as "very free" and "very peaceful" but noted that there were some violations, and a full analysis was still under way (http://www.sadc.int/news-events/news/sadc-elepreliminary-statement). "The question of fairness is broad and you cannot answer it within one day," he said.
The tone of the assessments implied that both organisations would ultimately rubber-stamp the result, especially given Zanu-PF's big margin of victory. That will put western governments in a dilemma, since to directly contradict African observers would play into the hands of Zanu-PF's anti-colonialist ideology and risk causing alienation on a continent where China is making friends. Some in the EU, such as Belgium, are said to be eager for a share of Zimbabwe's diamond trade.
But one Harare-based ambassador has stuck his head above the parapet. Australia's Matthew Neuhaus sent a diplomatic cable to Canberra titled "A farcical election", and called for a rerun. "It wasn't credible, it wasn't fair," he explained later, adding that he had personally witnessed a woman being turned away and told to vote 200 miles away, manipulation of voting slips, the exclusion of young people, and a woman who found nine dead relatives on the electoral roll.
Neuhaus said he was in touch with his American and Canadian counterparts and they broadly agreed with the Zimbabwean opposition MDC's critique of the way the election was conducted. "It does make a farce of the election process and it doesn't pass the test of credibility. There's no intention to remove the remaining targeted sanctions given that the nature of this election is obvious," he said.
A spokeswoman for the US embassy in Harare said it was not yet ready to comment. The UK's ambassador, Deborah Bronnert, declined to be interviewed.
It remains to be seen whether these governments will heed their ambassadors' cables. Petina Gappah, a Zimbabwean writer and political commentator, said: "I think the process of re-engagement should continue. We live in a world where Britain does business with nasty people such as Saudi Arabia. The Foreign Office will have to accept that Zanu-PF is going to be in government for a very long time."



Thoughts?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Any Communist worth there muster would support the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe, as Mugabe's social democratic programme represents a working class gain, while supporting the working class forces which aim to overthrow him.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It's a difficult question. All I know is that the third world will continue being underdeveloped countries if western imperialist Policies are not overthrown by western proletarian politics.

[Tim Cornelis]

Any Communist worth there muster would support the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe, as Mugabe's social democratic programme represents a working class gain, while supporting the working class forces which aim to overthrow him.

Any communist should support the immediate overthrow of Mugabe. There is no gain in his so-called "social democratic programme". In 1985 and 1990 the HDI of Zimbabwe paralleled that of Mongolia and the Philippines. Had these trends not reversed the HDI of Zimbabwe would have been similar to those countries and China and Thailand. Zimbabwe could have been the wealthiest sub-Saharan country, above Botswana and Gabon (without the natural resources these two countries have). Instead Mugabe chose to initiate an imperialist endeavor in Congo which caused to the economic collapse (alongside the land reform).

Tsvangirai is a social-democrat, supports gay rights to some extend, and is less likely to kill anarchists and Trotskyists as Mugabe has done — and less likely to repress the working class in general. A Zimbabwean attendee of the International Anarchist Conference in Switzerland a few years back told how his comrades had been arrested, detained, tortured, and if I remember my friend correctly (I wasn't there), killed. It's also no secret Mugabe's regime has killed at least one Trotskyist and subjected their movement to fierce repression.

Mugabe is an enemy of the working class, there is no gain for them. He's an imperialistic, oppressive bonapartist. Under no condition should a communist back his regime or Mugabe.

[Comrade Jacob]

This is difficult for me to answer but did he really need to cheat? It appeared that he would've won anyway. Mugabe wasn't a true fighter for the working class since the 80s, he has become a tyrant although he has done a lot of good for the people of Zimbabwe compared to it's neighbours, but his homophobia and racism is bang out of order.

[Zutroy]

Any Communist worth there muster would support the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe, as Mugabe's social democratic programme represents a working class gain, while supporting the working class forces which aim to overthrow him.

If Mugabe had built a command economy from the outset, there never would have been hyperinflation. He was always infatuated with China, so he tried to mimic the "market socialism" there, but seems to have no clue how it actually works. In the end he did part of one thing you do under a command economy (nationalization---just of some property, though), without doing the other things you do to ensure things remain stable (nationalization of, you know, everything else, especially banks; and tight currency control).

I interpret it all as a clueless attempt to create a mixed economy (like Mugabe's favorite country; China) by undertaking a populist program while simply not doing anything with the rest of the economy. Unsurprisingly, it's been a colossal failure. To be clear, it's a failure of capitalism, because capitalist laws have wrecked Zimbabwe. I feel sorry for Zimbabweans, but Mugabe should receive the blame for thinking he could receive the guerdons of capitalism and socialism at the same time, without any of the consequences. It's hardly social democracy, because social democrats are usually bright enough to be mindful of the capitalist laws that still apply to their policies.

[Teacher]

Glad Mugabe won

[piet11111]

I do not know enough to make anything resembling an informed opinion.

But what little i do know does not make me like mugabe.

[TheEmancipator]

Glad Mugabe won

Why?

Any part with "Patriotic Front" speaks for itself. It's the equivalent of Baathism in the ME and Arab countries.

[Ace High]

So, for those who support Mugabe, I have a question.

Was he justified in seeking out and slaughtering white farmers when he came to power?

Was he justified in hoarding resources for himself while the rest of his country starves to death?

Is he justified in his obvious homophobia?

Some of you really have your heads up your asses. You think that just because the US doesn't like someone, that they automatically should get our support. Why don't you actually research everything he's done and become more informed on the subject. You people are just contrarians who will support anything that defies the West. Just because they defy the West doesn't mean they are on our side. You people can't seem to understand that simple concept for some reason.

[Fakeblock]

The massacring of the Ndebele during Gukurahundi should be taken into consideration before calling Mugabe an ally of the working class.

[Redmau5]

Glad Mugabe won

Why?

[Brutus]

Why?

The anti-imperialists tend to support Mugabe, and Khomeini, and the Kim's

[Ace High]

The anti-imperialists tend to support Mugabe, and Khomeini, and the Kim's

I've noticed this, and it's weird. I am an anti-imperialist but I hate those regimes. Why is it that you have to support their oppressive regimes just because they are anti-imperialist?

[Redmau5]

The anti-imperialists tend to support Mugabe, and Khomeini, and the Kim's

Indeed. I was hoping that he/she would put some meat on the bones of their argument though.

Maybe a little too much to ask for.

[Zutroy]

I've noticed this, and it's weird. I am an anti-imperialist but I hate those regimes. Why is it that you have to support their oppressive regimes just because they are anti-imperialist?

You don't. It's simply an acknowledgement that they're outside of the imperialist order, which is remarkable in this day and age. I don't think supporting their anti-imperialism means supporting every jot and tittle of their political programs.

[Ace High]

You don't. It's simply an acknowledgement that they're outside of the imperialist order, which is remarkable in this day and age. I don't think supporting their anti-imperialism means supporting every jot and tittle of their political programs.

True but.... these leaders are literally doing to their people EXACTLY what imperialists would do to their people. So their people are no better off. So it really doesn't make a difference right? We are only against imperialism because it is oppressive to those it affects. But what's the difference between say, Kim Jong Un starving his people and imperialists starving his people?

[Sasha]

It's the peoples stick! Though its not, its the nationalist stick!

[Zutroy]

True but.... these leaders are literally doing to their people EXACTLY what imperialists would do to their people. So their people are no better off. So it really doesn't make a difference right? We are only against imperialism because it is oppressive to those it affects. But what's the difference between say, Kim Jong Un starving his people and imperialists starving his people?

They're not doing exactly what imperialists would do. That's an absurd level of sectarianism. We're against imperialism because it's a function of capitalism, not simply because it oppresses people. Any oppression anywhere, no matter what the context, doesn't automatically fall under the category of imperialism; nor does it automatically outweigh any anti-imperialism. In fact, it's a separate category altogether.

The fact that people in the DPRK experience food problems, for example, is separate from the fact that the DPRK faces imperialist harassment. As such, I can support the DPRK in the latter without endorsing the former. It's not like signing up for the "This Third-World Bonaparte Is Right About Everything" religion. Painting all of these leaders with the same brushstroke belies that distinction.

[Ace High]

They're not doing exactly what imperialists would do. That's an absurd level of sectarianism. We're against imperialism because it's a function of capitalism, not simply because it oppresses people. Any oppression anywhere, no matter what the context, doesn't automatically fall under the category of imperialism; nor does it automatically outweigh any anti-imperialism. In fact, it's a separate category altogether.

The fact that people in the DPRK experience food problems, for example, is separate from the fact that the DPRK faces imperialist harassment. As such, I can support the DPRK in the latter without endorsing the former. It's not like signing up for the "This Third-World Bonaparte Is Right About Everything" religion. Painting all of these leaders with the same brushstroke belies that distinction.

Ok, well, you explained the rationale pretty well. I suppose I am just a bit more critical of the regimes because they could do so much good for their people, and they've already taken the correct step in standing up to imperialism. Then, they take what could have been a good thing, and they ruin it by imposing homophobic/sexist/racist policies and then take everything from their people. So perhaps it is more of an emotional response for my intense criticism. But when people say "oh good, Mugabe got elected", instead they should be saying "it's unfortunate the people didn't behead Mugabe and take charge of their government and institute non-oppressive policies." You know? But I understand what you mean where I don't have to accept the whole "They're right about everything" religion. I suppose I felt that people WERE accepting such ideas.

[adipocere]

Cold War black/white logic doesn't work in most of Africa. Yes, Mugabe leans a bit more to the left and has some genuine Marxist roots, but it's mostly rhetoric these days. He's an opportunistic warlord autocrat - It's the best way I can describe him.

Zimbabwe was one of the few (if not only) countries in the region that had no reason to involve itself in the latest Congo war...but Mugabe pointlessly sent Zim troops into that atrocious morass due to some vague twice removed political interest. To his credit, they were at least decently equipped and he did pull them back fairly quickly. Furthermore, his attempt at agrarian reform was irresponsible and badly implemented to say the least. There is no reason to number his crimes, they are many more than his accomplishments.

On the other hand, while Mugabe is no champion of the people, he's a swell guy compared to counterparts like Paul Kagame, for instance. But we are still talking about a bar that is almost inconceivably low. I support the people of Zimbabwe and Africa, not whatever bullshit passes for "elections" there. Just look at the death of MKO Abiola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshood_Kashimawo_Olawale_Abiola) if you need a reminder.
(Hint: He was poisoned by Susan Rice and Gen. Pickering with the tea in the hotel room.)

And by the way, the only thing that Zimbabwe, N. Korea and Iran have in common are the lazy comparisons drawn by revleft posters who throw out random examples of "scary sounding" names to prop up grade-school impressions.

[G4b3n]

True but.... these leaders are literally doing to their people EXACTLY what imperialists would do to their people. So their people are no better off. So it really doesn't make a difference right? We are only against imperialism because it is oppressive to those it affects. But what's the difference between say, Kim Jong Un starving his people and imperialists starving his people?

Well, when it comes to famines one must ask whether it is a political famine or a natural famine, so that is something that must be debated in great detail. Bourgeois historians tend to shift details around or only focus on numbers, most notably in Maoist China. Take the famine of 1958 during the "three bad years" for example, Mao's regime brilliantly prevented the deaths of millions of peasants with a rather clever distribution system. However, millions of people did die, but not nearly as many that would have had the regime not took action.
Personally I have an extreme distaste for North Korea and all authoritarian regimes though I will openly applaud their anti-imperialism.

[Ace High]

Well, when it comes to famines one must ask whether it is a political famine or a natural famine, so that is something that must be debated in great detail. Bourgeois historians tend to shift details around or only focus on numbers, most notably in Maoist China. Take the famine of 1958 during the "three bad years" for example, Mao's regime brilliantly prevented the deaths of millions of peasants with a rather clever distribution system. However, millions of people did die, but not nearly as many that would have had the regime not took action.
Personally I have an extreme distaste for North Korea and all authoritarian regimes though I will openly applaud their anti-imperialism.

True about the famines, BUT if there is a famine, and your leader is drinking Hennessy and chilling in a mansion, one must question their motives. Now your last sentence basically sums up how I feel.

[Fakeblock]

Why? By the "anti-imperialist" logic we should support failing small businesses in their "anti-monopolism". It really makes no sense for communists to support capitalist states in any circumstances. These states are "anti-imperialist" because they need to be, not because of they have some moral high ground and least of all because of working class politics.

edit: directed at g4b3n

[Zutroy]

Why? By the "anti-imperialist" logic we should support failing small businesses in their "anti-monopolism". It really makes no sense for communists to support capitalist states in any circumstances. These states are "anti-imperialist" because they need to be, not because of they have some moral high ground and least of all because of working class politics.

edit: directed at g4b3n

First of all, that logic doesn't follow, because supporting anti-monopolism in spite of capitalism isn't the same as supporting anti-imperialism in spite of capitalism.

Second of all, nobody claimed anti-imperialist states have the moral high ground or even that they're automatically on the side of the working class. Endorsing the anti-imperialism of a capitalist state doesn't mean one is endorsing the capitalism as well; and to make no distinction between any state that isn't socialist is a ridiculous level of sectarianism.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Glad Mugabe won

Are you just supportive of anyone who's remotely anti American interests? Even if they have the blood of innocents on their hands from the gratuitous amount of ethnic cleansing, homosexual-hunting and murder of political dissidents of which they were responsible?

"Glad Putin won! Hell yeah 14/88 long live Eurasia!"

"Glad Khamenei's in power. Those stupid Kurds and Commies are just Zionist lackeys anyway! Hang them all and La Ilaha Ilallah!!"


Fucking cultist.

[Agathor]

what a guy

[Fakeblock]

First of all, that logic doesn't follow, because supporting anti-monopolism in spite of capitalism isn't the same as supporting anti-imperialism in spite of capitalism.

Why not? It seems quite similar to me.


Second of all, nobody claimed anti-imperialist states have the moral high ground or even that they're automatically on the side of the working class. Endorsing the anti-imperialism of a capitalist state doesn't mean one is endorsing the capitalism as well; and to make no distinction between any state that isn't socialist is a ridiculous level of sectarianism.

"Applauding a state's anti-imperialism" is implying that they have chosen to be anti-imperialist in spite of the interests of the national ruling class. Otherwise he would perhaps say "I stand in solidarity with the workers, who are victims of imperialism" or something, which is a much more sensible line for a communist to take.

And of course I make distinctions between capitalist states, but this is merely analytical. I don't support any capitalist states, despite their differences.

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm still not sure how to feel about his re-election, mainly to do with my ignorance of his opponent. However it would be good if their sanctions be lifted.

[Ace High]

Are you just supportive of anyone who's remotely anti American interests? Even if they have the blood of innocents on their hands from the gratuitous amount of ethnic cleansing, homosexual-hunting and murder of political dissidents of which they were responsible?

"Glad Putin won! Hell yeah 14/88 long live Eurasia!"

"Glad Khamenei's in power. Those stupid Kurds and Commies are just Zionist lackeys anyway! Hang them all and La Ilaha Ilallah!!"


Fucking cultist.

I have to just personally thank you for that post. Seriously, I hate to target specific users, but Teacher specifically does go out of his or her way to show admiration for despicable leaders. It's like they think anti-American must mean socialist hero of the working class. They think that anti-American leaders never ever institute homophobic, racist, theocratic, and misogynistic policies. Absolutely ridiculous, and it makes me think people such as Teacher are just on this site to be "go against the mainstream" and be a hipster. There is no excuse for grouping all anti-West leaders as on our side. Khamenei would have us all executed if we lived in Iran. Ridiculous.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Actually if I recall correctly, one of the opposition leaders had been found to have had numerous conferences with NATO and US members of parliament about getting military and financial aid for a rise to power, courtesy of Wikileaks, but that still doesn't excuse the fucking Mugabe ass-kissing on this board by stalinoid romanticists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Can't decide how I feel about Mugabe's re-electoin.

I mean, on the one hand, it must be good that a bourgeois dictator won an election that was at least slightly rigged towards him, on a platform of anti-white racism, rampant homophobia, torture and rampant corruption.

But on the other hand...oh, I seem to have reached the end of my argument. :rolleyes:

No self-described leftist should support a dictatorial, corrupt homophobe under whose stewardship the economy of Zimbabwe has endured hyper-inflation, and whose political structures have been wholly subsumed to dictatorship, and whose party in government has used torture to entrench its own power.

It's just a joke, and if you support this guy and still claim to be for the emancipation of the poor all over the planet, you really need to take the blinkers off.

[LovingEmbrace]

reluctantly throwing me support behind mugabe...

he's been boring since he became friends with morgan tsangivirai... zimbabwe used to be on a good path towards becoming fun! when inflation busted away the monetary illusion, half the country was homeless and the economy was about to collapse!

boom!

and then it stabilised!!? :crying:

can you imagine how hard it is to create chaos! it should be easy, abolish the state and people will go apeshit... but oh no, people just go apathetic and it stabilises instead...

:(

[The Intransigent Faction]

Hmm. From what little I know, there are some things I like about Mugabe, and some things I hate.

I'm gonna have to stand with YAbM on this one, though. Yeah, the workers should be supported, not the Mugabe regime, but Western intervention is NOT the way to go.

Opposing the West doesn't automatically make you some hero of the revolutionary left, but that doesn't mean that opposing sanctions or a Western-backed 'alternative' is a bad thing.

These Western diplomats questioning the results of Zimbabwe's election are in no position to be doing so, though.

That said, his homophobia and (if what I've read is true) "market-socialist" approach deserve condemnation, and of course as ever those who really deserve support are the working class.

One more thing...I have to say, I never thought I'd see the day when anyone on RevLeft outside of maybe OI talked about anti-colonialism as "anti-white racism". That's a little disconcerting.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm disappointed, but frankly not entirely surprised, at the number of people who have any support for Mugabe.

Mugabe is a capitalist figurehead of a capitalist state that has shown consistently how unwilling he is to depart from the capitalist mode of production.

No serious leftist can support Mugabe any more than they support the victory of Hollande or Obama for that matter. At best, these people are pathetic reformists who have sold out. There is no question that Mugabe has abandoned the struggle for several decades now.

At least I can somewhat sympathize with people who supported Chavez, because the bolivarian movement really sought to make a concrete difference for the lives of people in Venezuela and by large measure succeeded on traditional indicators (life expectancy, employment, etc...). These accomplishments have yet to be surrendered, but the situation is quite the opposite in Zimbabwe. Even the vaunted education achievements post majority rule are under assault under Mugabe. One upon a time Zimbabwe did well under these markers, but the fact that they have stagnated indicates how far the Zanu-PF has fallen just as much as analogous indicators who how little difference there are between the pro-austerity Spanish "Socialist Worker's Party" and the right wing neoliberals. '

[Marx-Lenin-Mao-Stalin]

Zimbabwe and Mugabe defy the west again. He is a hero to the revolutionary spirit of Africa!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Zimbabwe and Mugabe defy the west again. He is a hero to the revolutionary spirit of Africa!

This is so moronic that I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I really don't understand the point of supporting Mugabe and other "anti-imperialist" figureheads. To me it really looks like supporting capitalism in a different country because they don't like how the world market is set up so they try to make their own capitalistic blocs to compete with the U.S./European dominated world market. In other words they're just trying to carve out their own piece of the market to fit into that puts them more in our position in the world and people support those efforts based on anti-imperialist, communistic ideology.

Like when people support Ahmadinejad, people from the PSL sat down at a meal with him for heavens sake, the guy is socially backwards, cracks down on communists, is firmly a capitalist(even though once in a while his rhetoric sometimes wasn't), yet people support him for standing up to U.S. imperialism. Why? Because its a competing capitalist faction? If only that faction becomes stronger in the world we'll have socialist revolution? U.S./European capitalism will fail?

The national capitalists in this or that country have power and want to create their own paths of capitalist destruction, I don't support them just because it spits in the face of America or Europe.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Like when people support Ahmadinejad, people from the PSL sat down at a meal with him for heavens sake

Is this true!?

Why then are members of the PSL not restricted on this forum? Ahmadinnejad is a supremacist right-wing monster. He has made it his sole agenda to crush leftist and feminist groups wherever they spring from in Iran, and has implemented rabid anti working-class policies. For what it's worth, these PSL folks sound like Orientalist freaks.

How can anyone here even support collaboratory pigs like them?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Is this true!?

Why then are members of the PSL not restricted on this forum? Ahmadinnejad is a supremacist right-wing monster. He has made it his sole agenda to crush leftist and feminist groups wherever they spring from in Iran, and has implemented rabid anti working-class policies. For what it's worth, these PSL folks sound like Orientalist freaks.

How can anyone here even support collaboratory pigs like them?

Brian Becker, a leader in the PSL and ANSWER, was there along with some other communists from different organizations:
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Is this true!?

Why then are members of the PSL not restricted on this forum? Ahmadinnejad is a supremacist right-wing monster. He has made it his sole agenda to crush leftist and feminist groups wherever they spring from in Iran, and has implemented rabid anti working-class policies. For what it's worth, these PSL folks sound like Orientalist freaks.

That they did indeed, it was quite the argument about it on the forum when that happened (2011 I think, sometime?) I'm not sure if any actual dinner was ever had though... Maybe Ahmadinejad shrugged them off.


How can anyone here even support collaboratory pigs like them?

Now that is indeed a mystery that is wanting a solution. I think it is the logical conclusion of their preposterous interpretation of anti-imperialism. Marcyites are not mindful of who the non-U.S. groups are, they are all saints because they are not the U.S.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I wonder what Mugabe's leftwing supporters will make of his "blacks only" stock exchange? Capitalism with a black mask is still capitalism. All it means of course is that now a few black assholes in Zimbabwe have the right to join a bunch of white assholes in other countries in owning the major economic resources of our globe, leaving the workers of Zimbabwe, black and white alike, just as powerless as before. Mugabe is a far less competent incarnation of Deng Xiaoping.

http://www.zimeye.org/?p=87355


As Zimbabwe’s liquidity declines and its stock market slumps, President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party says it will soon launch a racially exclusive stock exchange in which only black people will be able to trade shares in foreign-owned companies it plans to seize.
The plan to grab mining companies – and the major ones are South African-owned – without compensation follows Mugabe’s landslide victory in elections last week which the opposition Movement for Democratic Change party and many civil rights groups say were rigged.
Saviour Kasukuwere, Zanu-PF’s Indigenisation Minister in the former government, announced the party’s plan on Tuesday.
He said the incoming Zanu-PF government or black Zimbabweans would seize a majority stake in all major foreign-owned companies, estimated to be worth a total of about R100 billion, without compensation.
Zanu-PF especially wants to grab mining companies and in particular Zimplats (Pvt) Ltd, a major platinum producer largely owned by South Africa’s Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd.
Other firms operating in the country include Anglo American Platinum (Amplats) and banks include Standard Chartered and Barclays.
On Tuesday on the JSE, Implats fell 2.65 percent and Amplats lost 1.1 percent. Barclays Bank of Zimbabwe lost 20 percent on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, whose industrial index dipped 2.2 percent after plunging 11 percent on Monday.
Kasukuwere said mining companies that did not “cede” 51 percent shares to black Zimbabweans or the government would lose their operating licences.
He said the natural resources or underground metals were sufficient to pay for majority shareholdings in mining companies.
“When it comes to natural resources, Zimbabwe will not pay for her resources,” Kasukuwere said in an interview with Bloomberg.
Zanu-PF spokesman, Psychology Maziwisa, confirmed that Kasukuwere’s remarks about seizing mining companies and creating a blacks-only Harare Stock Exchange before year end were Zanu-PF policy.
“All of this is correct. It’s what we told voters we will do,” he said.
The legislation allowing indigenisation of all companies valued at more than R5 million says shares should be sold, not ceded, but Mugabe mocked this regularly in the last few years.
Zimplats does not have a refinery and it sends its ore to South Africa for refining and export. It would take a few years and about R1bn to build a refinery in Zimbabwe.
Zimplats imports its electricity directly from Mozambique because it cannot rely on Zimbabwe’s faltering power output.
Economist John Robertson said there was no logic to Zanu-PF’s plan.
“He (Kasukuwere) is in danger of introducing economic apartheid, which is absurd. The assets he says he wants do not add up to cash and the value of those assets will obviously decline.
“I think this is only politicking and there is no substance to this.”
He said there is little money in the banks and the outflow will get worse over the next few days.
“It could become an avalanche,” he said.
Metals and minerals, including platinum and gold, accounted for 71 percent, or $791 million of Zimbabwe’s exports last year.
South Africa has a bilateral trade and protection agreement with Zimbabwe which seized mining companies could use to secure compensation or return of assets via international courts.When the elections were held in 2008 all schools and hospitals were shut and supermarkets were empty.
That situation improved significantly when the MDC entered government in an uneasy power-sharing arrangement, with the MDC finance and education ministers doing a sterling job to rebuild the economy and education.
Meanwhile, the MDC says it is focusing on 100 constituencies in its bid to turn around election results, and will lodge its appeals in court on Friday.
“As we speak, we are compiling the dossier on the irregularities…,” said spokesman Douglas Mwonzora.
Since Sunday, the party has been compiling reports from its losing candidates across the country on alleged poll irregularities, including voter intimidation, manipulation of voters’ roll, use of fake voter registration slips and double voting.
A week after the polls, the MDC still does not have an electronic version of the voters’ roll and most of its candidates did not even get a hard copy version ahead of voting. Geoff Feltoe, one of the new commssioners of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission resigned on Monday, the second to do so since the July 31 elections.

Brian Becker, a leader in the PSL and ANSWER, was there along with some other communists from different organizations:
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

That shows just how shallow the PSL's and FRSO's support for rights for gays, religious minorities and, for that matter, communists and labor activists is. I guess anyone with missiles who doesn't like the USA gives them a raging hardon it seems, even if the government in question imprisons or executes sexual deviants. And unlike leftist leaders running countries in Latin America, the PSL folks don't have the excuse of being lonely governments in a world without allies, they're just assholes from the US who have twisted political priorities.

For that matter, Mugabe's views on homosexuality are almost as retrogressive as that of the Iranian government. I'm sure anti imperialists will find some convenient excuse to ignore that fact too.

[Hivemind]

No self-described leftist should support a dictatorial, corrupt homophobe under whose stewardship the economy of Zimbabwe has endured hyper-inflation, and whose political structures have been wholly subsumed to dictatorship, and whose party in government has used torture to entrench its own power.

It's just a joke, and if you support this guy and still claim to be for the emancipation of the poor all over the planet, you really need to take the blinkers off.

This seems like it can't be stressed enough, as there are too many people who support bourgeois leaders or movements under the guise of being "anti-imperialist". To shorten down your quote:


No self-described leftist should support a dictatorial joke and still claim to be for the emancipation of the poor all over the planet, you really need to take the blinkers off.

:D

[GerrardWinstanley]

I wonder what Mugabe's leftwing supporters will make of his "blacks only" stock exchange? Capitalism with a black mask is still capitalism. All it means of course is that now a few black assholes in Zimbabwe have the right to join a bunch of white assholes in other countries in owning the major economic resources of our globe, leaving the workers of Zimbabwe, black and white alike, just as powerless as before. Mugabe is a far less competent incarnation of Deng Xiaoping.

http://www.zimeye.org/?p=87355So leftwingers should not support the victory of ZANU-PF over the MDC or question the motivations of the USAID & NDI-funded body that disputed Zimbabwe's election results, because Zimbabwe under ZANU... has a stock market? So what exactly are you expecting from the proudly ultraliberal MDC? Imminent socialism?
That shows just how shallow the PSL's and FRSO's support for rights for gays, religious minorities and, for that matter, communists and labor activists is. I guess anyone with missiles who doesn't like the USA gives them a raging hardon it seems, even if the government in question imprisons or executes sexual deviants. And unlike leftist leaders running countries in Latin America, the PSL folks don't have the excuse of being lonely governments in a world without allies, they're just assholes from the US who have twisted political priorities.

For that matter, Mugabe's views on homosexuality are almost as retrogressive as that of the Iranian government. I'm sure anti imperialists will find some convenient excuse to ignore that fact too.In actual fact, both ZANU-PF and the MDC have employed homophobic rhetoric in their campaigns. You can read GALZ (http://www.galz.co.zw/)'s statement on the 2013 election here (http://www.galz.co.zw/?p=984) where they call out Tsvangirai for hate speech (an apparent reversal on his previous posture on gay rights). Westerners ignoring these points of view and using negative information about Mugabe alone (usually gleaned from the mainstream media) to make a partisan political point in favour MDC helps nobody. Certainly not the activists you claim to care about.

If Mugabe is as reactionary as the Iranian mullahs for his stance on gay rights, then the same might be said of the majority of actually existing socialist leaders in 20th century history (complete rubbish, you might as well compare a fish tank with a waterfall).

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So leftwingers should not support the victory of ZANU-PF over the MDC or question the motivations of the USAID & NDI-funded body that disputed Zimbabwe's election results, because Zimbabwe under ZANU has a stock market? So what exactly are you expecting from the proudly ultraliberal MDC? Imminent socialism?In actual fact, both ZANU-PF and the MDC have employed homophobic rhetoric in their campaigns. You can read GALZ (http://www.galz.co.zw/)'s statement on the 2013 election here (http://www.galz.co.zw/?p=984) where they call out Tsvangirai for hate speech (an apparent reversal on his previous posture on gay rights). Westerners ignoring these points of view and using negative information about Mugabe alone (usually gleaned from the mainstream media) to make a partisan political point in favour MDC helps nobody. Certainly not the activists you claim to care about.
That's a really nice strawman you've got there.

[GerrardWinstanley]

That's a really nice strawman you've got there.Okay. It might just be the user doesn't buy the sour grapes view of the election results and thinks the majority of Zimbabweans who voted (at a huge turnout) were wrong (in which case, hooray for solidarity/internationalism). I just went with what was implied. All my points still stand either way.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Okay. It might just be the user doesn't buy the sour grapes view of the election results and thinks the majority of Zimbabweans who voted (at a huge turnout) were wrong (in which case, hooray for solidarity/internationalism). I just went with what was implied. All my points still stand either way.

No I think you're creating a false dichotomy. If he doesn't support ZANU and thinks its just capitalism with anti-imperialist black nationalist mask, why would you think he supports MDC? And really you're going to gauge how wrong this or that is by who won an election. Where's your solidarity with Obama?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What I was saying has nothing to do with the MDC and everything to do with the class composition of ZANU PF and why people on the Left should have no illusions about the intentions of that party and its leader.