Robert Mugabe.

[Sons_of_Eureka]

What are your opinions on him?

Personaly I don't know enough about Zimbawe's politics,so i'll stay in the neutral corner.

[RedAnarchist]

I dont know much about Zimbabwean politics either, but in my opinion he is a dictator who wishes to keep power for as long as possible, whilst getting richer and richer.

The only good thing he ever did was to take the land of rich white landowners, and even then he mucked it up by murdering farmworkers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The only good thing he ever did was to take the land of rich white landowners, and even then he mucked it up by murdering farmworkers.

Those rich white landowners fed the fucking country! Mugabe was wrong to take their land away and giving it to people who didn't give a shit about growing food.

So what if they are white? Are you saying that people should be punished for the actions of their forebears?

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 12:09 PM
Are you saying that people should be punished for the actions of their forebears?
Black Zimbabweans or whatever you'd call them have been suffering the actions of the white forebears for years, fuck those farmers - they're whole existance is based upon the suffering of the indigenous people.

[redstar2000]

The reactionary Mugabe regime needs to be overthrown...from within!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4598645.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4586559.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4605935.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4072978.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3017678.stm

Where are the Maoists when you need them?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Bugalu Shrimp+Jun 14 2005, 12:30 PM--> (Bugalu Shrimp @ Jun 14 2005, 12:30 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 12:09 PM
Are you saying that people should be punished for the actions of their forebears?
Black Zimbabweans or whatever you'd call them have been suffering the actions of the white forebears for years, fuck those farmers - they're whole existance is based upon the suffering of the indigenous people. [/b]
But kicking out the white farmers has caused more trouble than letting them stay - suffice to say that ordinary people in Zimbabwe are suffering because of this.

I agree, this would be the perfect job for Maoists.

[RedAnarchist]

Is there any sort of Communist/socialist movement in Zimbabwe?

[Colombia]

The country is too poor to have any socialist movement.

This guy is crazy. In the past he has commited genocide against citizens practicing some religion he viewed as "satanic in nature".

How this guy can now justify burning homes is beyond me.

[Tupac-Amaru]

But apparently he used to be good. He used to be like a Nelson Madela sort of leader. Cose i think there was also an appartheit-style system in Zimb, and he was the leading revolutionary. But he appears to have become crazy now...too bad.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:43 AM
What are your opinions on him?

Personaly I don't know enough about Zimbawe's politics,so i'll stay in the neutral corner.
My opinion of Mugabe? I support both ZANU-PF and Mugabe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by rebelafrika+Jun 14 2005, 06:36 PM--> (rebelafrika @ Jun 14 2005, 06:36 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 08:43 AM
What are your opinions on him?

Personaly I don't know enough about Zimbawe's politics,so i'll stay in the neutral corner.
My opinion of Mugabe? I support both ZANU-PF and Mugabe. [/b]
You cannot be serious.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 14 2005, 06:46 PM--> (NoXion @ Jun 14 2005, 06:46 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:36 PM

[email protected] 14 2005, 08:43 AM
What are your opinions on him?

Personaly I don't know enough about Zimbawe's politics,so i'll stay in the neutral corner.
My opinion of Mugabe? I support both ZANU-PF and Mugabe.
You cannot be serious. [/b]
They asked my opinion. Thats my opinion.

[LSD]

They asked my opinion. Thats my opinion.

Yes, obviously, but the relevent question is WHY!?

[bolshevik butcher]

The man is a disgusting dictator who ruthlessly starves his country to keep power.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 08:29 PM

They asked my opinion. Thats my opinion.

Yes, obviously, but the relevent question is WHY!?
Here is one reason why the A-APRP and myself support Mugabe

http://www.sfbayview.com/090402/zimbabwe090402.shtml

By the way...thank you all for being respectful, even though you may differ in opinion with me regarding Mugabe.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

the wealth redistribution was essential but done in a catastrophically stupid way. zimbabwe is an example of why change must occur calmly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mugabe isn't fucking interested in wealth redistribution (An idea that's crap anyway)
He's an opportunistic dictator who only cares about himself. Witness him leveling the houses of his political opponents, and his actions which hurt the ordinary people of Zimbabwe.

Mugabe is a reactionary fucknut who needs to be capped.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:33 PM
the wealth redistribution was essential but done in a catastrophically stupid way. zimbabwe is an example of why change must occur calmly.
Now this I agree on 100%. ZANU should not have taken up the policy presented in the Lancaster Accords. They should have IMMEDIATELY (calmly) seized the land upon independence.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:40 PM
Mugabe isn't fucking interested in wealth redistribution (An idea that's crap anyway)
He's an opportunistic dictator who only cares about himself. Witness him leveling the houses of his political opponents, and his actions which hurt the ordinary people of Zimbabwe.

Mugabe is a reactionary fucknut who needs to be capped.
Why do you say that? Because "CNN" says it?

[Black Dagger]

Did you check Redstars links?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4598645.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4586559.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4605935.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4072978.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3017678.stm

You're denying it?

I can understand why you might have supported Mugabe... a few decades ago, but you need to make a judgement on his actions and his government- NOW, and at the moment his dictatorship is not helping the people of Zimbabwe-or their future. You support dictatorship? You support the gukurahundi? I just don't understand how your support can be justified.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

mugabe is an autocrat, hes not yet a dictator - he could be removed from office - the problems seem to be really as ever in africa with all its false post imperial borders - is ethnic tensions and people not being able to exercise their right to self determination.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2005, 11:33 PM
Did you check Redstars links?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4598645.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4586559.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4605935.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4072978.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3017678.stm

You're denying it?

I can understand why you might have supported Mugabe... a few decades ago, but you need to make a judgement on his actions and his government- NOW, and at the moment his dictatorship is not helping the people of Zimbabwe-or their future. You support dictatorship? You support the gukurahundi? I just don't understand how your support can be justified.
Every last one of those links were BBC. It was British Imperialism that created the mess in Zimbabe in the first place, therefore AT THE LEAST I am suspect of their validity. Did you check out the link "I" posted?

People call Comrade Fidel Castro a dictator and I support him too...so I guess I do (if you consider "them" to be such).

I think if you check out the information in the link I posted, you will understand better how I can justify my support for him.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:47 PM
mugabe is an autocrat, hes not yet a dictator - he could be removed from office - the problems seem to be really as ever in africa with all its false post imperial borders - is ethnic tensions and people not being able to exercise their right to self determination.
Now we're starting to get somewhere. The "balkanization" of Africa is a major source of her problems.

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:04 PM
Now this I agree on 100%. ZANU should not have taken up the policy presented in the Lancaster Accords. They should have IMMEDIATELY (calmly) seized the land upon independence.
Thank you.

We should be clear why the imperialists from Europe to North America are opposing Mugabe. They aren't against him for what he's done wrong, but for what he's done right, which is fast-track the land reform process.

[JC1]

I think Mugabe was lookin' progressive when he launched his Land reform movement. However , from what I read in the Weekly Worker, Hes begining to drift to the right. But I unconditinaly suppourt himk against British Imperialism.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:08 PM
But I unconditinaly suppourt himk against British Imperialism.
Yes as we all should do.

We should cticise him from a Marxist-leninist critique and also citicise the imperialist who citicise him.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For fuck's sake, british imperialism is dead!
The BBC is one of the most unbiased sources I have ever seen, if right-wingers and pseudo-leftists criticise it then it must be good.

A dictator that starves his own people... how can any leftist support that? How many times has Mugabe mentioned class struggle? Can't say I ever heard anything like that from him.

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:45 AM
For fuck's sake, british imperialism is dead!
Really? How do you explain the thousands of British troops in the Gulf and in Ireland?


How many times has Mugabe mentioned class struggle? Can't say I ever heard anything like that from him.

The struggle in Zimbabwe is a national struggle against colonialism and its remnants, which had been delayed, as rebelafrika noted, by the Lancaster Accords. It's a struggle of the whole nation against imperialism. Until Zimbabwe and all of Africa is freed from imperialism, socialism is out the question.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Really? How do you explain the thousands of British troops in the Gulf and in Ireland?

You think that's imperialism? I'm sorry but compared to the US british imperialism is a lemon-stand operation.
Don't mistake Blair's toadying for imperial ambition.


The struggle in Zimbabwe is a national struggle against colonialism and its remnants, which had been delayed, as rebelafrika noted, by the Lancaster Accords. It's a struggle of the whole nation against imperialism. Until Zimbabwe and all of Africa is freed from imperialism, socialism is out the question.

Yes, because British troops are currently in Zimbabwe terrorising the local population. Dumbarse. The 'land reform' is actually a power-grab by Mugabe.

[h&s]

Lets forget the things that Mugabe has done wrong for a moment - this man is a leader of the country, a leader of the ruling class. This on its own is enough to hate him - he is an obstacle - no an enemy - of the working class and democratic working class control of society.
Some people seem to be forgetting this and just worrying about imperialism.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by xnj
Really? How do you explain the thousands of British troops in the Gulf and in Ireland?


THANK YOU!!!

[h&s]

And Tory Blair doing what Dick Cheney tells him to shows what a big imperialist power the UK still is... :rolleyes:

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:04 PM
You think that's imperialism? I'm sorry but compared to the US british imperialism is a lemon-stand operation.
Don't mistake Blair's toadying for imperial ambition.
The US is the dominant imperialist power, but that doesn't mean Britain isn't one either, or France or Germany. Is the US forcing Blair to keep occupying troops in Ireland? Were 10,000 British troops sent to Iraq because Blair is a "toady" or because a faction of the British ruling class is just as interested as its US counterparts in access to Gulf oil?


Yes, because British troops are currently in Zimbabwe terrorising the local population.

Troops or sanctions or intervening in domestic Zimbabwean politics by funding the MDC, it's the same imperialism. The West is trying to stop Zimbabwe from taking stolen land away from racist white settlers and returning it to indigenous Africans.


The 'land reform' is actually a power-grab by Mugabe.

All politics is about power-grab. If the left in Britain did a little more power-grabbing during colonialism, assuming there was a British left, maybe the Zimbabwean people wouldn't be land-starved today.

[h&s]

All politics is about power-grab. If the left in Britain did a little more power-grabbing during colonialism, assuming there was a British left, maybe the Zimbabwean people wouldn't be land-starved today.

Oh so its our fault now is it? :rolleyes:

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 15 2005, 03:20 PM
Lets forget the things that Mugabe has done wrong for a moment - this man is a leader of the country, a leader of the ruling class. This on its own is enough to hate him - he is an obstacle - no an enemy - of the working class and democratic working class control of society.
Some people seem to be forgetting this and just worrying about imperialism.
He's a member of the WHAT??? He was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the PEOPLE of Zimbabwe!!! ZANU-PF "OPENLY" says that Mugabe should be replaced by Joice Mujuru and Mugabe AGREES!!! When was the last time an "evil dictator" allowed discussion on who was to replace him??? You KNOW if it was STALIN, EVERYBODY would be wiped out. Seriously...I think some of yall are way off when it comes to Mugabe. Then again...if that's your "opinion"...I'll try to respect that.

[h&s]

He's a member of the WHAT??? He was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the PEOPLE of Zimbabwe!!!
In borgeois elections.
Judging by that same rekoning, Tony Blair is the vanguard of the British working class and Bush is the leader of the world revolution.
Elections mean nothing on this scale - there is no element of real democracy in any of them.

[xnj]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 15 2005, 03:20 PM
Lets forget the things that Mugabe has done wrong for a moment - this man is a leader of the country, a leader of the ruling class. This on its own is enough to hate him - he is an obstacle - no an enemy - of the working class and democratic working class control of society.
Some people seem to be forgetting this and just worrying about imperialism.
To the extent that the national bourgeoisie in Zimbabwe struggles against foreign oppression and its remnants, it is worthy of support by socialists. When the national bourgeoisie collaborates with imperialism, socialists should struggle against it.

As long as Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole are under the boot of imperialism, it's not possible to build socialism and working class power.

This was the accepted socialist tactic during the era of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Europe between 1789 and 1871, and is applicable to the colonial and semicolonial world today. It's interesting how Europeans want to deny others what they've already won.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 15 2005, 03:59 PM

He's a member of the WHAT??? He was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the PEOPLE of Zimbabwe!!!
In borgeois elections.
Judging by that same rekoning, Tony Blair is the vanguard of the British working class and Bush is the leader of the world revolution.
Elections mean nothing on this scale - there is no element of real democracy in any of them.
I guess I'm confused as to how to distinguish a borgeois election from a working class election (or if there is even such thing as an "election" for the working class). Maybe you can explain?

[bolshevik butcher]

Deomocratically elected :blink: . It's been proved several times that these elections were rigged to say the least.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 04:19 PM
Deomocratically elected :blink: . It's been proved several times that these elections were rigged to say the least.
LOL, I said "Zimbabwe"...not "Zaire" (The Congo).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by rebelafrika+Jun 15 2005, 03:54 PM--> (rebelafrika @ Jun 15 2005, 03:54 PM)
h&[email protected] 15 2005, 03:20 PM
Lets forget the things that Mugabe has done wrong for a moment - this man is a leader of the country, a leader of the ruling class. This on its own is enough to hate him - he is an obstacle - no an enemy - of the working class and democratic working class control of society.
Some people seem to be forgetting this and just worrying about imperialism.
He's a member of the WHAT??? He was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the PEOPLE of Zimbabwe!!! ZANU-PF "OPENLY" says that Mugabe should be replaced by Joice Mujuru and Mugabe AGREES!!! When was the last time an "evil dictator" allowed discussion on who was to replace him??? You KNOW if it was STALIN, EVERYBODY would be wiped out. Seriously...I think some of yall are way off when it comes to Mugabe. Then again...if that's your "opinion"...I'll try to respect that. [/b]
If Mugabe agree that he needs to step down, why doesn't he do it NOW?

Why are you supporting this bastard? He is as bad as Bush or Blair.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 15 2005, 04:28 PM--> (NoXion @ Jun 15 2005, 04:28 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:54 PM

h&[email protected] 15 2005, 03:20 PM
Lets forget the things that Mugabe has done wrong for a moment - this man is a leader of the country, a leader of the ruling class. This on its own is enough to hate him - he is an obstacle - no an enemy - of the working class and democratic working class control of society.
Some people seem to be forgetting this and just worrying about imperialism.
He's a member of the WHAT??? He was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the PEOPLE of Zimbabwe!!! ZANU-PF "OPENLY" says that Mugabe should be replaced by Joice Mujuru and Mugabe AGREES!!! When was the last time an "evil dictator" allowed discussion on who was to replace him??? You KNOW if it was STALIN, EVERYBODY would be wiped out. Seriously...I think some of yall are way off when it comes to Mugabe. Then again...if that's your "opinion"...I'll try to respect that.
If Mugabe agree that he needs to step down, why doesn't he do it NOW?

Why are you supporting this bastard? He is as bad as Bush or Blair. [/b]
To my understanding, he has expressed that he will no longer accept the nomination of ZANU for him to run for president after this term.

C'mon now...Mugabe makes mistakes and EVERYBODY should accept that fact, but he's NOWHERE near as bad as Bush and Blair and you KNOW this.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by rebelafrika+Jun 15 2005, 04:26 PM--> (rebelafrika @ Jun 15 2005, 04:26 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 04:19 PM
Deomocratically elected :blink: . It's been proved several times that these elections were rigged to say the least.
LOL, I said "Zimbabwe"...not "Zaire" (The Congo). [/b]
eh yeh, and the election was rigged, you ahd to join the party to get food! And ther were hardly any polling stations in the inner city's where mugabe is unpopular. So he certainly isn't a represntitive of the protaletariat!

[Andy Bowden]

Could any of the Mugabe supporters tell me whats progressive, just, or in any way Socialist about his recent destruction of slum houses - thus exarbating Zimabwes homeless problem.

Is it true Zimbabwe's unemployment rate is 70% BTW?

[nody]

To cut it short Mugabe is just not a very good leader of people. The land reforms that he carried out clearly needed to take place to help the black farmers. Mugabe has successfuly improved the conditions for many black farmers, but the methods he used has affecetd the lives of others in a negative manner. It is a fact that less food is now being produced than when the white farmers were in control, this is a result of Mugabes poor land reform programe.

And to prove the point of his lack of sympathy of the poor check the BBC links.

[xnj]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 16 2005, 02:52 PM
Could any of the Mugabe supporters tell me whats progressive, just, or in any way Socialist about his recent destruction of slum houses - thus exarbating Zimabwes homeless problem.
It's not progressive. But, the point that I've been making since the beginning of this thread is that the Western powers and their press don't really care about the slumdwellers of Zimbabwe. The US and Britain are crying crocodile tears to cover up the real source of their hostility to Mugabe, which is his fast-tracking of land reform.

Also, their depiction of the MDC as a real domestic opposition movement [like in this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5074920,00.html) from the Guardian] is extremely disingenuous. The MDC is funded and controlled by Western imperialism. It opposes land reform and supports neoliberal policies.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Jun 15 2005, 08:24 PM--> (Clenched Fist @ Jun 15 2005, 08:24 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:26 PM

Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 04:19 PM
Deomocratically elected :blink: . It's been proved several times that these elections were rigged to say the least.
LOL, I said "Zimbabwe"...not "Zaire" (The Congo).
eh yeh, and the election was rigged, you ahd to join the party to get food! And ther were hardly any polling stations in the inner city's where mugabe is unpopular. So he certainly isn't a represntitive of the protaletariat! [/b]
Thats not true. I have a comrade from Zimbabwe who is NOT a member of ZANU and he got food in Zimbabwe.

And the elections being rigged are MDC propaganda...all being funded and bolstered up by the british government.

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:27 PM
It is a fact that less food is now being produced than when the white farmers were in control, this is a result of Mugabes poor land reform programe.
The effects of land reform programs have always been long-term. Zimbabwe is in an especially hard situation because it's held down by Western sanctions at the same time (which are supported by the same people decrying the difficulties of land reform!):

"Western reports persisted in viewing land reform primarily through the prism of its immediate effect upon production, implying that the effect would be permanent. This distorted view had an obvious utility for those who opposed a more egalitarian distribution of land. Yet, the success of any land-reform process can only be understood by examining its long-term results, thus it will be years before a proper assessment can be made of fast-track land reform in Zimbabwe. According to a report by the United Nations Development Program, "a transition period before the full benefits" are achieved from land reform "is to be expected," requiring a minimum of five years. The substantial economic benefits realized by resettled farmers must also be considered. One study determined that, given start-up grants, subsidized credit and adequate inputs, "land reform can generate a sustainable income flow for the beneficiaries, in year 15 reaching 570-690 percent of their incomes before the project." The same study also examined the effect of land reform on production and employment, and concluded that although "some disruption of the agricultural production should be expected" in the initial stage, "production achieved by the resettled farmers after 15 years would be significant." Professor Bill Kinsey of the University of Zimbabwe carefully investigated the results of earlier land reform resettlements, and concluded that "any attempts at comprehensive evaluation of the benefits of land reform in less than a generation are ill-advised." Since small-scale farming is more labor intensive than operations on commercial farms, land reform should in the long-term result in a net increase in employment. Therefore it can be expected that increasing wealth across a broader spectrum of the population should act as a spur to what has been sluggish growth in Zimbabwe.

"A report issued by four economists, including two employed by the World Bank, stated, "Economic theory is very clear on the fact that a one-time redistribution of assets can, in an environment of imperfect markets, be associated with permanently higher levels of growth." Conversely, "inequality in the distribution of land ownership is associated with lower subsequent growth." A survey of resettled households covering the years from 1983 determined that "the income of resettled households is more than five times as high as that of communal households in similar areas," and their "productivity has increased significantly." Given enough time, the increase in productivity means that crop yield should improve substantially, although it may never match that of commercial farms, due to the greater possibilities for mechanization on large farms. It is important to note, however, that the percentage of underutilized land in large commercial farms averaged about 40 to 50 percent in the regions with the best land, and 85 percent where the land was less suitable for farming. Studies indicate, furthermore, that "productivity decreases exponentially with increase in farm size in all natural regions of Zimbabwe." Every study finds that resettled farmers plant a far larger percentage of land than do commercial farmers. Therefore, the difference in yield between commercial farms and small-scale farming is to a certain extent offset by the greater utilization of land by small-scale farmers. Those farmers who were resettled in the first phase of land reform in the 1980s "represent 5 percent of the population, but produce between 15 and 20 percent of the marketed output of maize and cotton, while also largely satisfying their own food consumption needs." The report concludes, "The best available data show that the performance of resettled farmers in Zimbabwe is better than is conventionally believed," and that a well-designed land reform program "can have a large impact on equity as well as productivity."

"These conclusions were confirmed by another study that surveyed nearly 400 resettled households in 1983-84. Follow-up interviews took place in 1987 and then again annually from 1992 to 1998. The study found that "there has been an impressive accumulation of assets," for resettled families while "increases in returns to these assets" were "important in generating the dramatic increase in crop incomes observed in these households." The authors noted that this "finding is robust to a wide variety of econometric concerns." Despite a significant increase in household size, per capita incomes in the surveyed farms grew about 160 percent, which the authors pointed out, "is impressive in the context of a country in which per capita incomes have been stagnant since 1980." Much of the reallocated commercial farmland was uncultivated prior to resettlement, thus requiring extensive clearing and stumping before planting could take place. Time constraints meant that fields could only be partially cleared and it often took years to complete the process. "Without full clearing and stumping," the authors of the study reported, "ox-plowing cannot be done efficiently." The same problem arose for many farmers resettled under fast-track land reform in 2002, given the large percentage of underutilized land on commercial farms. Over time newly resettled farms gain expertise in plowing, use of inputs and learning which crops grow best on the land. These are some of the factors that lead resettled farmers to steadily increase efficiency and realize greater incomes.

"Difficulties in the first years of resettlement are to be expected and match historical patterns. "Experience shows that welfare levels are almost universally lower following resettlement than before," found Bill Kinsey of the University of Zimbabwe in one of his studies. "The period following resettlement is one of stress and adjustment from which most but not all households will recover. There is then an upturn as farmers complete the post-relocation adjustment process and begin to reap benefits from their enhanced resource base. As experience accumulates and collaborative efforts begin, benefits continue to grow often quite rapidly." However, a crucial factor is the degree of growth in the national economy. Unless growth is dynamic enough to absorb a growing rural population, then the increase in the size of resettled households will tend to bring down the standard of living. Unfortunately, Western sanctions act as a drag on the economy, and as long as they remain in place, urban economic growth is unlikely to be strong enough to absorb excess rural population. The success or failure of land reform is heavily dependent on a second factor as well, one that is also adversely affected by sanctions. Kinsey emphasized that the degree of "growth of welfare is extremely sensitive both to specific interventions," such as "timely delivery of inputs" for example, but also "to the wider economic environment." The ability of the government of Zimbabwe to provide the necessary inputs to support resettled farmers has been hampered by the Western sanctions. The success of land reform can only be judged over an extended period of time; thus all Western condemnations of its effect on productively are essentially meaningless except in terms of propaganda. A proper assessment of land reform should also take into consideration sanctions-imposed constraints, which directly hinder the very factors that are so necessary for success. Ironically, those in the West who most loudly complain about the effect of land reform on productivity are also the most committed to the continuation of sanctions.

Zimbabwe's Fight for Justice - Gregory Elich (http://www.counterpunch.org/elich05072005.html)

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 16 2005, 02:52 PM
Could any of the Mugabe supporters tell me whats progressive, just, or in any way Socialist about his recent destruction of slum houses - thus exarbating Zimabwes homeless problem.

Is it true Zimbabwe's unemployment rate is 70% BTW?
Mugabe tearing down slum houses is a mistake on his part (if he isn't going to put anything up better). And I hope you are not saying that Mugabe is creating unemployment in Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe "AS A STATE" has alot more (of food, clothes, EMPLOYMENT, etc.) than other states in Africa.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:27 PM
To cut it short Mugabe is just not a very good leader of people. The land reforms that he carried out clearly needed to take place to help the black farmers. Mugabe has successfuly improved the conditions for many black farmers, but the methods he used has affecetd the lives of others in a negative manner. It is a fact that less food is now being produced than when the white farmers were in control, this is a result of Mugabes poor land reform programe.

And to prove the point of his lack of sympathy of the poor check the BBC links.
Less food is being produced, but what about the IMF and world bank? Sometimes they have a hand in what a state in Africa can use it's money for and what it CANNOT use it's money for. Have you "REALLY" looked into the situation? Or are you getting all your info from the BBC...who I already pointed out are suspect...considering that it was british imperialism that colonized Zimbabwe in the first place.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by xnj+Jun 16 2005, 05:12 PM--> (xnj @ Jun 16 2005, 05:12 PM)
Andy [email protected] 16 2005, 02:52 PM
Could any of the Mugabe supporters tell me whats progressive, just, or in any way Socialist about his recent destruction of slum houses - thus exarbating Zimabwes homeless problem.
It's not progressive. But, the point that I've been making since the beginning of this thread is that the Western powers and their press don't really care about the slumdwellers of Zimbabwe. The US and Britain are crying crocodile tears to cover up the real source of their hostility to Mugabe, which is his fast-tracking of land reform.

Also, their depiction of the MDC as a real domestic opposition movement [like in this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5074920,00.html) from the Guardian] is extremely disingenuous. The MDC is funded and controlled by Western imperialism. It opposes land reform and supports neoliberal policies. [/b]
RIGHT!!! And on another note, I think the problem that people who are against Mugabe have is that they don't have access to any independent informational sources on Africa. They have to rely on the BBC (which has been mentioned how many times?) or The Guardian or CNN "at best" to formulate an analysis on the situations in Africa.

[Guerrilla22]

True, there needs to be land redistribution in Zimbawae, however Mugabe often seizes land for his own personal and corrupt use, handing out land to friends and family. Also allowing wide spread pillaging, killing and rape should not be allowed, no matter what the justification.

[Anarcho-Communist]

He is just another corrupt dictator

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:36 AM
True, there needs to be land redistribution in Zimbawae, however Mugabe often seizes land for his own personal and corrupt use, handing out land to friends and family. Also allowing wide spread pillaging, killing and rape should not be allowed, no matter what the justification.
Where'd you get that information from? BBC? CNN?

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Anarcho-[email protected] 17 2005, 05:10 AM
He is just another corrupt dictator
That's what people say about Fidel.

[Anarcho-Communist]

At least Fidel in some cases is fairer than Mugabe. Mugabe is a horrible man, look how he treats his people. I agree that Fidel is a little bit corrupt but not as bad as all the previous leaders, just look at the Batistas. There haven't been any tortures in Cuba that have been heard of in years.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Anarcho-[email protected] 17 2005, 06:29 AM
At least Fidel in some cases is fairer than Mugabe. Mugabe is a horrible man, look how he treats his people. I agree that Fidel is a little bit corrupt but not as bad as all the previous leaders, just look at the Batistas. There haven't been any tortures in Cuba that have been heard of in years.
You cannot give any specific examples because you don't have any. Anti-Castro Cubans say that Fidel is a horrible man and would probably say Fidel is worse than Mugabe. How does Mugabe treat his people worse than Fidel treats his people? Did you read the article I posted?

[Anarcho-Communist]

No i didn't read it. But what do the Anti-Castro Cubans know about Mugabe, they haven't had to live under his regime?

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Anarcho-[email protected] 17 2005, 06:36 AM
No i didn't read it. But what do the Anti-Castro Cubans know about Mugabe, they haven't had to live under his regime?
Right. They would sound pretty idiotic trying to say Castro is worse than Mugabe when they don't know anything about whats going on in Zimbabwe...right?

P.S. Here's the article: http://www.sfbayview.com/090402/zimbabwe090402.shtml

[Anarcho-Communist]

Are you from Zimbabwe or do you just really support them?

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Anarcho-[email protected] 17 2005, 06:43 AM
Are you from Zimbabwe or do you just really support them?
I support ZANU-PF (thus I support Mugabe) and I have a comrade from Zimbabwe who is NOT with ZANU-PF who supports ZANU-PF. It's not a matter of sentimentality either. If I would have been more politically aware when I was younger, I would have DENOUNCED Mobutu of the Congo. When I became politically aware, I DID DENOUNCE Jonas Savimbi. I DENOUNCE Mubarak of Egypt and (the one that hurts me the most) I have become EXTREMELY discouraged at the direction Khadafi has taken. MOST African leaders I denounce. I don't support African leaders for the sake of them being African. I'm telling you...people are misinformed on Mugabe. They are falling for enemy propaganda.

[Raisa]

Yall, the only time Imperialism is on a level where a nations government is executing the imperialism- is in the very beginning when an imperialist country's government opens the door for their capitalists to go in and imperialize it themselves.

Because that is actuality of imperialism for today, if anyone has forgotten. Capitalist imperialism against the third world. Governments dont even do it anymore. They open the door and let their capitalists do it, and then they all profit from it while the nations they imperialize are being sucked dry of their life blood and almost held back into a dark age while the nations the Imperial capitalists are all from prospire and progress, and live in surplus.

The foreign imperialist governments have left, and are replaced with foriegn capitalists.

Even Oprah Winfrey has her words about the third world. She reported on her show yesterday that there are more people living in slavery today then ever, and they are mostly from the third world, and how back in the day a slave costed like 1,000 dollars to buy in the USA, and now the cost to enslave someone can be as low $40.

Maybe we should spend more time and attention looking at imperialism, because this is the real issue. And so far, even though it is supposed to mostly be about Mugabe this looks like a very healthy discussion for our minds. I'd guess and say that most of the world's workers live under foreign capitalist imperialism, and as people who believe in the Liberation of the working class it is worth a good lot of our attention.

[h&s]

Originally posted by rebelafrika+Jun 15 2005, 04:19 PM--> (rebelafrika @ Jun 15 2005, 04:19 PM)
h&[email protected] 15 2005, 03:59 PM

He's a member of the WHAT??? He was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by the PEOPLE of Zimbabwe!!!
In borgeois elections.
Judging by that same rekoning, Tony Blair is the vanguard of the British working class and Bush is the leader of the world revolution.
Elections mean nothing on this scale - there is no element of real democracy in any of them.
I guess I'm confused as to how to distinguish a borgeois election from a working class election (or if there is even such thing as an "election" for the working class). Maybe you can explain? [/b]
A borgeoise election is a standard election - what capitalists cll democratic.
If you ever try to enter one of these, you'll see straight away that they are anything but democratic.
They are geared up so that only rich parties can ever afford to run and campaign. The media completely freezes out working class organisations from its coverage.
How can Mugabe be democratically elected when the election was designed to keep the vast majority of the population out from it?
Working class elections are localised, and more importantly, borgeois grouips are not allowed to take part - hence 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:36 AM
True, there needs to be land redistribution in Zimbawae, however Mugabe often seizes land for his own personal and corrupt use, handing out land to friends and family.
How often? It'd be helpful if this discussion could go beyond the level of vague abstractions.

Between 1980 and 2000, about 90,000 families received land. Between 2000 and 2002, during the fast-track of land reform, another 134,000 families got land [Source (http://www.counterpunch.org/elich05072005.html)]. That's a total of 224,000 families up to 2002. Mugabe must have a lot of friends and family!

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 07:56 AM
Maybe we should spend more time and attention looking at imperialism, because this is the real issue. And so far, even though it is supposed to mostly be about Mugabe this looks like a very healthy discussion for our minds. I'd guess and say that most of the world's workers live under foreign capitalist imperialism, and as people who believe in the Liberation of the working class it is worth a good lot of our attention.
Exactly! That's why struggles from Zimbabwe to Venezuela to Haiti to Palestine take on a national character, because the people are oppressed as nations not just as workers.

Everyone should check out the article that was posted in another thread: Mugging Mugabe by Stephen Gowans (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36727). It provides some historical background on the situation in Zimbabwe and the continuing role of imperialism in the country's domestic politics.

[Invader Zim]

It was British Imperialism that created the mess in Zimbabe in the first place, therefore AT THE LEAST I am suspect of their validity.

You may have had a point, 30 years ago. But since Zimbabwe became the 'bread basket' of Africa, despite British imperialism 'back in the day', it is only very recently that has changed. The cause of the current crisis rests firmly in the hads of ZANU (PF) and Mugabi.

[refuse_resist]

Here's a link to a thread I posted recently some of you may like to check out.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36727

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:41 PM
It was British Imperialism that created the mess in Zimbabe in the first place, therefore AT THE LEAST I am suspect of their validity.

You may have had a point, 30 years ago. But since Zimbabwe became the 'bread basket' of Africa, despite British imperialism 'back in the day', it is only very recently that has changed. The cause of the current crisis rests firmly in the hads of ZANU (PF) and Mugabi.
I see that the first article I posted isn't catching many people's attention. I hope that this second article does better:

http://www.info-ghana.com/zimbabwe's_truth.htm

If anybody is interested, I can post a third.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I am interested.

[rebelafrika]

DEATH OF THE WORKING CLASS IN ZIMBABWE: A TRAGEDY FOR TRADE UNIONISM THE WORLD OVER



A tragedy has unfolded in the history of the worker’s revolution or struggle the world over. The arena being the tiny but vastly important Southern African state of Zimbabwe where the working class is no more.



For the first time in the history of worker/employee relations, the two formerly totally antagonist classes have joined hands to remove the ZANU PF Government of President Robert Mugabe from power. This, indeed is a completely new development which should sadden and shame all those trying to better the lot of the working class the world over.



The ZCTU, the organisation purporting to the world to be representing the workers of Zimbabwe, has committed a sacrilegious crime against the poor working people in the country as well as those all over the world. In their bid to gain political power and possibly remove the ZANU PF Party from government, they have cheated the working class into believing that their lives would be better represented if they were to join hands with the imperialists, capitalists and indeed the former colonial power.



The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, because of their hunger for power and a desire to gain monitory funding from the capitalist class, in their quest to get into government, have cheated and dragged the working class into a situation where they are now totally without representation.



A new class which I call “The Collaborator Class” has now emerged. It is made up of the former poor working class (who are being cheated) the middle class (who are the core of the MDC), the ZCTU (an opportunistic organization using workers to get into power) the capitalist Industrial magnets (who want to safe guard their capital base) and then the White Commercial Farmers (whose land has been reclaimed by its rightful owners).



The new Collaborator Class has virtually nothing in common apart from the fact that it is made up of deceit on the part of the other affluent components and total ignorance on the part of the workers. The employers connive with the ZCTU to organize mass actions, strikes and stayaways designed to force the ZANU PF Government out of power. The ZCTU then deceives the worker into thinking that by participating in the illegal actions, they would end up having a government that will ensure that their tables are full of food and their pockets full of money.



What the poor workers fail to understand is how “union” with the very group with whom they would like to negotiate for a rise after these strikes, is going to benefit them. They participate in the closures of their factories, they are provided with company vehicles to ferry them into the city centre to destroy property there and they are even paid for the period they are on strike. All this is well and fine in as for as the worker has not yet been affected by their actions. But it will not be long before strike actions lead into loss of production and shortages of basic goods and food stuffs.



This loss of production Leads to the scarcity of goods and food stuffs which will lead to the rise in prices of the little that is still available on the market. Transport charges go up, electricity charges go up, school fees, rentals, water charges and a host of other things all go up. The pinch, caused by the numerous rises starts to affect the worker. As more and more rises are instituted by one constituent of the unholy alliance, (“the capitalist company owner,”) the worker decides to ask for a rise. What rise, the employer now wants to know? The worker is asked whether they do not know that they were both strike and that the struggle to remove Mugabe from power does not take a single day.



All of a sudden they are made to know that the companies were not making any profits at the time the whole collaborator class was on shutdown-stay ways. The company accountant is summoned to explain the loss that the strike action has caused to the whole organization. The figure is spelt out in hundreds of millions for a couple of days that they were on strike. Being semi-literate and down right stupid as these workers usually are, they take the blasphemy hook, crook and sinker.



Because of their low intellectual capacity, they continue to be manipulated into thinking that one day their lives might improve for the better. How on earth can one be said to be having a functional brain when they are being cheated by people owning huge industrial complexes, the latest 4 X 4 vehicles, mansions in the plash suburbs of Borrowdale Brook, Mandara, Umwinsdale, Chisipiti Graystone Park, Marlborough, Gunhill, Glen-lorne, The Grange, Christone Bank and many others.



The world should really mourn the death of Trade Unionism and the struggle of the working class in Zimbabwe. Organisations such as COSATU that claim to be championing the struggle of the workers in South Africa and voice out in solidarity with Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions against the Zimbabwe Government should infact be mourning in the passing away of the working class in Zimbabwe.



It is a pity that the workers could not see beyond their noses in as far the source of their welfare was concerned. Each year, from 1980 to about 1995, the Government negotiated with their employers and announced the minimum wages that would have been agreed to by the two parties. The workers in Zimbabwe were always being cushioned from the rises in costs of goods, rates and other charges that the industrialists were tying to institute and which the government saw as damaging to the workers welfare.



Education for all children had been free; and so were health and the provision of agricultural inputs for the peasant farmers. All workers who had occupied municipal houses were allocated the houses in a bid to empower the working class. The minimum value of those houses today stands at not less than twenty million Zimbabwe dollars for a two roomed house. By giving workers the houses that they were occupying, the ZANU PF Party in government was in fact giving each occupant an equivalent of not less than twenty million Zimbabwe dollars in today’s monetary terms. The worker thought this was not enough and wanted even more. This was apart from the fact that not even one percent of their population had owned a television set at the time of independence in 1980.



Greed led to demands for the ZANU PF Party in government to leave them alone so that they could negotiate with their employers for better salaries. A lot of these workers had been made to believe by their employers that they the employers were being hampered by the government from instituting higher salary increments as they were being made to pay a minimum wage other than these increases that they were prepared to surpass. Maybe because of a combination of downright stupidity, greed or ignorance, the workers became more and more arrogant to government’s effort to represent them. In the end the Zimbabwe government succumbed and left the workers to negotiate on their own with their trusted employers.



This is the time when the ZCTU was doing a lot of clandestine work for the MDC party which was still operating in obscurity. The worker became exceedingly happy that at last they could have a party made up of themselves as workers so that they could redress their own situation even better than what ZANU PF had been doing for them in government. What they could not comprehend is the fact that even if an organization can proclaim itself a “Workers Party,” it was to have intellectuals, opportunists and the like to lead them as workers had to go back to the factory floor to produce goods. They did not possess enough intellectual prowess to be able to run their affairs on their own. Because of this painful weakness in the workers struggle their efforts were hijacked by intellectuals in the ZCTU, directionless activitists, greedy industrialists and white commercial farmers who wanted to use the worker as a front for their own struggle to safeguard the land that they had stolen from Zimbabwean fore-fathers years back.



The worker, through this unholy alliance, as I pointed out before, found themselves in the imperialist court, eating the colonialist crumps and fighting now against Africa’s true sons and daughters. This was a struggle that the new group that I call, the “collaborator class” because of their loosely knit unison could not win at all.



True sons and daughters of Africa the world over, cannot be seen to be siding with the newly imperialist assembled group of cronies whose main task is to be “the main weapon for imperialist return to recolonise Africa”. The former worker might find solace in the fact that they can now co-operate with their former colonial masters, attend rallies together and shout anti Mugabe and ZANU PF sentiments as one unit, but it should be well brought down to them that “never ever will they benefit monetarily from that loose marriage.” Whilst it is their stomach that growls with the pangs of hunger, it should be very clear that it was their very imperialist new friend who imposed sanctions. Because of their ignorance, they think that they can get into the streets, destroy property and possibly remove Robert Mugabe and his ZANU PF party from power for them to return and plunder the resources of Africa.



Karl Max did not dream of such a day when he wrote his master piece “Das Capital” for the emancipation’ of the working class the world over. But the world of Max, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Fredrick Angels, Samora Machel, Luis Cabral, Che Guevara, Cho Enlai, Didan Kimathi, Thomas Mboya, Kwame Nkrumah, Herbert Chitepo, Julius Nyerere, Edwardo Mondlane, Malcon X and many others, is being made to crumble because of the greed and ignorance of the Zimbabwean workers.



This lot chooses to sell the cause of the revolution, the revolution of the African Children, those in the Diaspora and indeed the struggle of the working class the world over, all for the sack of a pat on the back by the imperialist and colonial devils. Their desire is to be regarded as “one of them” as they become an evil system’s running dogs.



Who, amongst those in the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) can claim to the world to be representing the working class in Zimbabwe when in real fact they have dismantled that group for the benefit of the imperialists and former colonial power Great Britain? Can there ever be a Trade Union group in the world that is funded and supported by the imperialists and which can stand up and claim to be representing workers rights? What trade union can ask imperialist devils to torture the people that it claims to be representing all for the benefit of only a few people in its leadership?



Surely the whole world should be made to know that the working class has been killed in Zimbabwe. The Judas Iscariot in the murder case which might spread to other parts of the world is non other than the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions formally led by the President of the MDC Party and now under the leadership of Lovemore Matombo. The world, should mourn the demise of a noble workers cause that was led to the sacrificial alter by stooges in the ZCTU who care not for the workers welfare. It is now up to the world to make a learned decision, on whether it is the ZANU PF Party in government that has workers interests at heart as pronounced by the improvements that occurred to workers lives since 1980 or of ZCTU under the control of the Movement for Democratic Change MDC. The world should also be aware that the workers organization only came into being through the bitter struggle that the ZANU PF Party fought to liberate the people of Zimbabwe as well as the working class against the oppressive imperialist world.

[the fury]

Mugabe is just another reactionary pimp, He needs to be overthrown but from within, and the way I see it, he can never be ousted peacefully because he has so much control in the country.

What is worse, he accuses britain and America for being ~imperialists~. Maybe it is a holier-than-thou speech.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 19 2005, 01:48 PM
Mugabe is just another reactionary pimp, He needs to be overthrown but from within, and the way I see it, he can never be ousted peacefully because he has so much control in the country.

What is worse, he accuses britain and America for being ~imperialists~. Maybe it is a holier-than-thou speech.
How DARE Mugabe call amerikkka and britain "imperialists." Who does he think he is? :lol:

[RedStarOverChina]

Believe it or not, Mugabe is seen as a hero by the black people of Africa, because he fought against white privileges. I saw a few racists gathered together to condemn him because of his policies against which conflicts with the interest of white people.

[bolshevik butcher]

isn't it racist to target people because they are white?

[xnj]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 19 2005, 01:48 PM
What is worse, he accuses britain and America for being ~imperialists~.
Are Britain and the US not imperialist countries?

They're openly intervening in Zimbabwe's internal affairs by funding and directing the opposition MDC, a party that expouses neoliberal economics and opposes land reform. All hell would break loose if a political party in Britain or the US received funding and direction from a foreign govt for the purpose of overthrowing the domestic govt.


isn't it racist to target people because they are white?
It's not racism to return stolen land and abolish white privilege. It's justice.

[bolshevik butcher]

Aren't there any rich black landowners at all in zimbabwe?

[xnj]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 19 2005, 08:10 PM
Aren't there any rich black landowners at all in zimbabwe?
". . . by the time fast track land reform was launched in 2002, 70 percent of the richest and most productive land still remained in the hands of just 4,500 white commercial farm owners. At the same time, six million African peasants eked out a precarious existence on small farms in the "communal areas," the land encompassing the former native reserves. Because of historically imposed overcrowding in the communal areas, the already barren land was depleted long before by deforestation and over-grazing, thus making it even more unsuitable for agriculture."

Source (http://www.counterpunch.org/elich05072005.html)

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 19 2005, 07:25 PM
isn't it racist to target people because they are white?
Not if they are colonialists. Racism isn't just a "feeling" of superiority. There's a component of "power" that has to be considered as well. If Africans came into britain and exerted their "power" for the purpose of subjegating the british, I would support british targeting blacks (...but this was not the case). TODAY I support the Iraqis targeting ANY united snakkkes troops (be they black, white, green, pokadot or plaid).

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Mugabe isn't fucking interested in wealth redistribution (An idea that's crap anyway)

Why is it "crap"?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Even Oprah Winfrey has her words about the third world. She reported on her show yesterday that there are more people living in slavery today then ever, and they are mostly from the third world, and how back in the day a slave costed like 1,000 dollars to buy in the USA, and now the cost to enslave someone can be as low $40.

Where can I buy a slave?

Does slaves exist in the US?

In what countries does slavery exist?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

TODAY I support the Iraqis targeting ANY united snakkkes troops

"united snakkkes troops"? Oh come on, give us a break.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:25 PM
Where can I buy a slave? ... In what countries does slavery exist?

Sometimes referred to as bonded laborers (because of the debts owed their masters), public perception of modern slavery is often confused with reports of workers in low-wage jobs or inhumane working conditions. However, modern-day slaves differ from these workers because they are actually held in physical bondage (they are shackled, held at gunpoint, etc.).

Modern-day slaves can be found laboring as servants or concubines in Sudan, as child "carpet slaves" in India, or as cane-cutters in Haiti and southern Pakistan, to name but a few instances. According to Anti-Slavery International, the world's oldest human rights organization, there are currently over 200 million people in bondage.

Source (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html)

[Andy Bowden]

I'm not a fan of Mugabe but I thought the way he wormed his way through the crowd at the pope's funeral so he could shake Prince Charles' hand was hilarious :lol:

Now why can't all dictators be that funny?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:24 PM

Mugabe isn't fucking interested in wealth redistribution (An idea that's crap anyway)

Why is it "crap"?
yeh, sharing out the riches money, what could possibly be stupider. However i don't feel mugabe is interested in that.

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:37 PM

TODAY I support the Iraqis targeting ANY united snakkkes troops

"united snakkkes troops"? Oh come on, give us a break.
I would...but no.

[exit]

All those supporting Bob Mugabe are clearly fucking idiots...without wasting time deliberating it because it's pretty fuckin obvious you dicks. FREEDOM OF SPEECH says it all...by the way "Che's" politik clearly has no place in the modern world along with Marxism and the rest of the "communal" family....bunch of oppresive fucktwats..! MOve into the next millenia or fade away cause it was tested and guess what...the same nations that allow you on here (democracy - i mean imagine if you lived to what u believe you would NOT be doin this - arsholes) to rant and rave about what the fuck you like actually won over your sorry ideals....byeeee.

SMF

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:08 AM
All those supporting Bob Mugabe are clearly fucking idiots...without wasting time deliberating it because it's pretty fuckin obvious you dicks. FREEDOM OF SPEECH says it all...by the way "Che's" politik clearly has no place in the modern world along with Marxism and the rest of the "communal" family....bunch of oppresive fucktwats..! MOve into the next millenia or fade away cause it was tested and guess what...the same nations that allow you on here (democracy - i mean imagine if you lived to what u believe you would NOT be doin this - arsholes) to rant and rave about what the fuck you like actually won over your sorry ideals....byeeee.

SMF
That's some profound shit, man. Definitely changed my mind.

hahahahaha

[bolshevik butcher]

I've been converted. Let's give up, his arguments are so good.

[RedAnarchist]

No point in talking about him anymore, he's restricted and cannot se this thread (well, not with his current account anyway).

[Kitbag]

I think it is i unfair to say that people who support Mugabe are wrong (I'm not one of them) as everyone should be entitled to form their own opinions, and if we stifle that right then we stifle the right to discuss and debate, and without that, we'd be screwed. However, saying that, I think it is a bit conceited to think that Mugabe is to be supported, even if he does discuss his replacement, as it could just be another trick to make you think he's alright. I know that6 sounds a bit odd, but I would never put it past a policitician.

[rebelafrika]

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAC26.htm

Trashing Mugabe:
The last thing Zimbabwe needs is more interference by
Britain.

by Josie Appleton



Not only has healing the 'scar' of Africa become the
issue of the summer - now Zimbabwe's president Robert
Mugabe is presented as the source of all Africa's
problems. Everywhere there is the conviction that
Mugabe's slum clearance programme is uniquely
terrible, that he is uniquely evil, and that something
must be done about it.


UK foreign secretary Jack Straw, along with European
Union (EU) partners, made a statement back on 7 June
demanding that the Zimbabwean government end its slum
clearance - and he has reiterated this demand more
forcefully over the past few days. Ten UN human rights
representatives recently demanded that Zimbabwe
'immediately meet its human rights responsibilities',
and a UN envoy is currently in the country
investigating the situation (1).


In addition, there are growing calls for the British
government to suspend the deportation of asylum
seekers back to Mugabe's regime, where, according to
one Zimbabwean opposition figure, they are considered
to be British spies and persecuted. The Archbishop of
Canterbury has made a rare foray into politics,
arguing that sending asylum seekers back was 'deeply
immoral', and that he was 'amazed' the government was
continuing to do it (2). A leader in the Observer
called on UK critics of Mugabe to 'recognise their
responsibilities': '[We cannot] return asylum seekers
into the hands of [Mugabe's] thugs.' (3)


Of course, there should be no deportations. But why is
Zimbabwe being singled out from all those other shaky
third world states, to which asylum seekers are
routinely returned? The fact that the Tory Party is
calling for a halt on deportations to Zimbabwe, when
it normally campaigns to kick asylum seekers out,
suggests that Mugabe has become a special case.


This idea of the Zimbabwean president as a uniquely
evil dictator just doesn't wash. In fact, his chaotic
programmes seem to be fairly run-of-the-mill, compared
with those of similar third-world countries. As was
the case with Saddam Hussein, the West is applying one
standard for Mugabe and another for everybody else.
And we can be sure that intervention from the likes of
Jack Straw and co is a recipe for further disaster.


There are conflicting reports of recent events. Since
19 May, police have apparently bulldozed or torched
illegal street stalls and shacks on the outskirts of
Zimbabwe's cities, as part of 'Operation Restore
Order'. Estimates vary wildly about how many were
affected - Zimbabwe's police claim 120,000;
international groups say 300,000; and the UN puts a
top figure of 1.5million. Two children reportedly died
last month after they were crushed by rubble. This is
indeed distressing, but unfortunately it is pretty
common practice in straitened third world states.
Countries from Brazil to India have in the past sent
in the bulldozers to clear slums, in a bid to combat
the crime, informal economy and disease associated
with these impoverished settlements.


Zimbabwe certainly isn't a bastion of liberty, but
it's not a totalitarian state either. It has an
opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC),
which has seats in parliament and manages to get its
amendments into key government bills. There's no free
press for the BBC, but the Zimbabwean Daily News and
Standard keep up an ongoing commentary on government
activities; the Daily News was briefly shut down by
the government, but a Harare High Court ruled that it
should be reopened. The judiciary has also shown
independence in repeatedly tossing out Mugabe's
attempts to have the opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai locked up for treason.


In the African context, Zimbabwe is pretty much on a
par with the region's Western allies. Mugabe's regime
is criticised for intervening in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, for example, but other states with
similar records are encouraged. Uganda and Rwanda are
both seen as good guys by the West - yet those
governments have little opposition to speak of, and
both have press and courts that are far from
independent.


Mugabe's increasingly erratic policies seem to spring
from his desperate attempts to respond to political
forces that are pulling in opposite directions. He
often vacillates, playing off first one group, then
another. At one moment he plays up the anti-Western
rhetoric, then makes conciliatory gestures. In January
2005, for example, he told the UN to cut its food
distribution, saying: 'We don't want to choke on your
food.' Yet as the economic crisis worsened, in early
June he reversed tack, saying that he would 'welcome'
more UN food aid.


In a populist move in 2000, Mugabe sanctioned war
veterans' seizures of white-owned farms. This was
actually relatively little relatively late - seeking
to rectify land problems that had been hanging over
for 20 years. It was in 1979 that Zimbabwe - formerly
the British colony, Rhodesia - was handed over to the
black majority, from the white elite that had seized
power after Britain pulled out in 1964. Mugabe, prime
minister of the country's first government, agreed to
concessions that would limit badly needed land reform.
The 1979 Lancaster House agreement, written by
Britain, specified that owners would have to be paid
in expensive foreign currency for expropriated lands -
an impossible task for the fledgling state.


The demonised image of Zimbabwe comes less from events
in that country, than from Western grandstanding. By
holding Mugabe up as a unique figure of evil, and
demanding that he change his ways, Western leaders get
to flatter themselves in comparison. This comes at a
time when Africa has shot to the forefront of
attention, with politicians competing to be seen
solving its problems. When it comes to Zimbabwe,
critics of the government turn allies, often demanding
that the government 'do more' to put pressure on
Mugabe. There's an unholy alliance here between the
old and the new imperialism - between those who
instinctively support Zimbabwean white landowners
because they are our kind of chaps, and those who
criticise Mugabe for his treatment of homosexuals.


Increasingly, though, this is a very self-effacing
kind of grandstanding. Rather than threaten Mugabe
directly, Western leaders instead bully African
leaders to tell him what's what. Last week, Straw said
that there was a 'high responsibility' placed on
African leaders 'not to continue to turn a blind eye
to what is going on in Zimbabwe'. A UN official was
reported as saying that the South African and Nigerian
presidents should have intervened. The Observer
criticised the region's 'apologists': 'Just as South
Africa's friends around the world once found ways to
put pressure on the apartheid regime of South Africa,
now Zimbabwe's nearest neighbour must recognise its
responsibilities.' (4) The conceit of it: we stopped
buying oranges for you, now you must do your bit.


But the African Union has - quite rightly - ignored
these calls, and argued that Zimbabwean sovereignty
must be respected. President Mbeki of South Africa
commented that 'The land question is Zimbabwe has
never been a South African responsibility.' (5) A
spokesman for the African Union (AU) said: 'I do not
think it is proper for the AU commission to start
running the internal affairs of members' states.' It
is likely that they realise that such an action would
be highly destabilising, not just for Zimbabwe, but
for the region as a whole.


More Western intervention is the last thing that
Zimbabwe needs. Indeed, outside meddling is in part to
blame for the current mess. Since 1998, bodies such as
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
International Development Bank (IDB) have frozen
loans, warned off investors, and refused renegotiation
of the country's debt. The more that British ministers
criticise the Zimbabwean president, the more he's
likely to react with defensive measures.


Zimbabwean opposition supporters have found friends in
London, inside Whitehall and out. At one rally last
year, the Gay Rights Group Outrage! marched with
banners reading 'Forward to Freedom in Zimbabwe -
People's Revolution Now!', 'Victory to People Power -
Overthrow Mugabe!'. Solidarity among the world's
political movements is all to the good. But in this
case, appealing to Western supporters proves a
substitute for building a movement. The opposition
often ends up gearing its protests towards overseas
media, presenting issues in ways that will grab London
newsdesks - rather than creating a base in Zimbabwe,
which could provide an alternative to Mugabe in the
long run.


Isn't it time for London to stop trying to decide what
goes in Harare? The Zimbabwean people should be left
to make their own destiny.