Liberation of the oppressed?

[CrazyModerate]

It seems to me that some of the supporters of specific Communist ideologies (Leninism, Maoism etc) seem more interested in advancing the power their specific ideas hold rather than improving the conditions of the poor. Would I not be correct in assuming most of you (rev lefters) would be opposed to the advancement of, say, a disenfranchised African nation such as Ethiopia through "bourgeois" means such as aid(yes, even from the evil governments of Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim) combined with fair trade(not free, I say this because I know some of you would try to put words in my mouth)? Would you prefer it if Mengistu, a self labelled Marxist-Leninist, came back to power? I'm just wondering, because historically this seems to be the failure of other revolutions. Lenin, Mao, and Castro seemed more interested in holding on to power rather than liberating those who suffered before. It seems as if most of you hold figures such as those previously mentioned at Deified heights.

In a bid to not be completely flamed, I will say I hated Reagan and he himself was an enemy of Liberty, Equality, Peace, Tolerance and Democracy, and that these are all good things which do not truly exist in any democracy OR socialist state so far in history.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate
Would I not be correct in assuming most of you (rev lefters) would be opposed to the advancement of, say, a disenfranchised African nation such as Ethiopia through "bourgeois" means such as aid (yes, even from the evil governments of Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim) combined with fair trade...

The question is CAN THAT HAPPEN?

Is that a realistic option in today's world?

In my opinion, the Maoists would do a far better job of developing a modern economy in a poor country like Ethiopia than any possible combination of imperialist countries.

Remember that the imperialist countries had a whole century or more to "develop Africa"...and failed abysmally outside of parts of South Africa.

Even at their "best", imperialist countries "hyper-develop" a small part of the colonial economy while the rest is left to rot.

Look at Nigeria or Angola: a modern oil industry has been built while the people who live there remain mired in shit so backward that it would embarrass a barbarian.


Would you prefer it if Mengistu, a self labelled Marxist-Leninist, came back to power?

He couldn't do any worse than the ass-hats who run the place now, could he?


It seems as if most of you hold figures such as those previously mentioned at Deified heights.

Try the Theory Forum; I think you'll quickly find quite a few threads that are rather "blasphemous" regarding those "deified figures". :lol:

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

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:31 AM
It seems to me that some of the supporters of specific Communist ideologies (Leninism, Maoism etc) seem more interested in advancing the power their specific ideas hold rather than improving the conditions of the poor.
Yes, there are some like that. They're not very clever, are they?

To answer your question: Yes, I would support the improvement of living conditions in Africa by bourgeois means. I would support them by almost any means that would work. But understand that my support of socialist and communist ideas comes from the fact that I believe they are the best if not the only means of improving life for those on society's bottom rung.

But, in the absence of the chance of revolution, yes, I support reform.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 08:56 AM
In my opinion, the Maoists would do a far better job of developing a modern economy in a poor country like Ethiopia than any possible combination of imperialist countries.


Would you prefer it if Mengistu, a self labelled Marxist-Leninist, came back to power?

He couldn't do any worse than the ass-hats who run the place now, could he?

:o Please don't say those things!

Mengistu and his "Derg" (Junta) are partialy responsible for 1984-85 famine in Ethiopia! Over 1 million people died!!!! And what were the benevolent Marxist-Leninists doing to help their people? NOTHING! They were starting a war of agression against Eritrea!!!!!!

According to Micheal Buerke of the BBC, Ethiopia under the Derg was "the closest thing to hell on earth". I think the facts speak for themselves: the communists's unwillingness to help their own people and their savage lust for invation cost the lives of millions of people!

I think it goes without saying that the "ass-hats" today are running the country much better than Mengistu.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tupac-Amaru
I think it goes without saying that the "ass-hats" today are running the country much better than Mengistu.

Well, you said it anyway.

So...are people there not still starving in large numbers?

Country profile: Ethiopia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072164.stm)

It was a shithole under Haile Selassie, a shithole under Mengistu, and it's still a shithole!

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

[bezdomni]

Would I like to see less suffering, even if it temporarily perpetuates capitalism? Yes.

Is that likely? No. Because capitalism is not interested in seriously reforming and fixing things unless it profits from the reforms. Fair trade is very unlikely to occur because then there is little point to imperialism. Why have the factories in China when they cost more than having a factory in the United States?

Capitalists cannot and will not work outside of their own material interests, it is that simple fact that makes revolutionary communism the only plausible way to end suffering and implement "fair trade".

Can we and should we ADVOCATE fair trade under capitalism? By all means, yes; but where these advocacies will get us is close to nowhere.

[Dean]

Opposing or supporting developments over ideological lines must focus on the actual ideology. In the case of Mao, Lenin and Castro I cannot find myself a supporter - I would have suggested drastic changes in their policies myself and I'd have a hard time calling them marxists or communists. That does not rule out the good that may have been in their words, ideas and actions, howevcer uncommon the good may be.

The U.S. is more a fascist state than anything else, as are most so called capitalist nations in the world - they are largely run by corporations which hold no loyalty to the populace. The public has had some weight in some nations, notably the western 'democracies' and nations which have undergone huge revo9lutions, and the corporate power structure is threatened and curgbed to some degree by these movements.

They certainly don't constitute a rebirth of freedom for the world; we are digressing in many ways, but when a capitalist decides that a nation should be more egalitarian or more free, I support the move regardless. It is not a capitalist move, after all.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:42 PM
So...are people there not still starving in large numbers?





No, not in extremely large number, in far less number than under the commies, and they're not being sent to their death on a pointless war with Eritrea.


It was a shithole under Haile Selassie, a shithole under Mengistu, and it's still a shithole!

Sir! Please cut back on the rude language, i would like to mention that my older brother is currently living in that "shit hole" working for the UN.

And i'm going there this summer to visit the country's beautiful nature and historic sites...so please refrain from calling it such things!

[Tupac-Amaru]

And in response to CrazyModerate's question:

I definitely think that a capitalist approach is necessary to solving the problems of poverty and misery in Afrika.

The source of poverty is the lack of wealth. The wealth must be created first before re-distributing. In order to produce this wealth there must be political freedom, which is NOT the case in Ethiopia and in most of Africa today. Politically, this is the single cause of mass poverty: the lack of economic freedom and individual rights. Observe that most of the poorest countries today are lacking in capitalism.

Obviously the government of Ethiopia today is much more liberalist than the Derg, but it is still far from being a free country and this is the biggest obstacle to creating wealth and helping the poor.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tupac-Amaru
Sir! Please cut back on the rude language, I would like to mention that my older brother is currently living in that "shit hole" working for the UN.

And I'm going there this summer to visit the country's beautiful nature and historic sites...so please refrain from calling it such things!

Well, I didn't send your brother there...and I trust he's making plenty of money there for whatever UN silliness he's up to.

If you want to go there...hey, it's your life. If looking at lots of people in appalling misery is your idea of "beauty", well, you must be one pretty sick puppy!

Ethiopia is a shithole...and one of the worst on the planet. But perhaps you have to see it with your own eyes to "appreciate" it.

Africa needs a "Mao"!

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

[Tupac-Amaru]

Hey man! Come on! You'd expect a man in his 60s to be a bit more mature. How could say such rude things! :o


But perhaps you have to see it with your own eyes to "appreciate" it

First of all I have already been there several times, as well as Tanzania and Morocco. And I come from Peru, so i don't need you to tell me to look at the poverty...i know its there! :angry:


If looking at lots of people in appalling misery is your idea of "beauty", well, you must be one pretty sick puppy

That's an absolutely ignorant and rude comment! May I suggest you spare a few dollars and buy yourself a Lonely Planet guide to Ethiopia, you'd be surprised with the beautiful things you will find there! Frankly, i would expect better from you RedStar! Your response is very narrow-minded and ignorant.


Africa needs a "Mao"!

Well i suppose i can't help a lost cause. You've been beleiving this shit all your life...i doubt i can change that...you've been blinded by your romantic idea of a worker's paradise and choose not to acknowledge the millions of dead caused by Maoism... :( i'm not even gona begin argueing. :(

As long as it makes you happy, beleive what you want...i just hope you never come to any kind of position of power.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tupac-Amaru+--> (Tupac-Amaru)May I suggest you spare a few dollars and buy yourself a Lonely Planet guide to Ethiopia, you'd be surprised with the beautiful things you will find there![/b]

Lonely Planet - Ethiopia (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/africa/ethiopia)


Originally posted by Lonely Planet+--> (Lonely Planet)Capital tensions/Border Issues

Political violence flares now and then in Addis Ababa and though the city is once again quiet, travellers should monitor local news, limit their time in the capital and stay clear of any mass demonstrations.

Travel to the Eritrean border military zone - in the Tigray and Afar regions - should be avoided as forces from both sides gather for possible military action. The border itself is permanently closed. Ethnic tensions dog the west of the country.[/b]


T-[email protected]
First of all I have already been there several times, as well as Tanzania and Morocco. And I come from Peru, so I don't need you to tell me to look at the poverty...I know it's there.

So what's that make you...some kind of poverty voyeur?


T-A
You've been blinded by your romantic idea of a worker's paradise and choose not to acknowledge the millions of dead caused by Maoism.

I have never argued that Mao's China was a "workers' paradise"...it was mainly a paradise for people high up in the Party hierarchy.

But Maoism developed China...do you have any idea of what it was like there before Mao?

Sort of like Ethiopia with even more dying people! :o

Now, as to those "millions of dead", the last plausible estimate I ran across was 18,000,000 excess deaths as a consequence of the famine associated with Mao's "Great Leap Forward".

That's pretty bad...no question about it.

How about all the famines that China regularly suffered before Mao? Or the famines that Africa regularly suffers now without any "Mao" to blame?

Consider this one: ever since the USSR was abolished by Yeltsin's coup and the benevolent grace of capitalism accepted, the population of Russia has been falling at the rate of 700,000 per year. At least that's what Putin has been claiming lately.

Lots of people there are nostalgic about Stalin! Do you blame them?

The suggestion that modern capitalism is going to "develop Africa" is ludicrous.

I reiterate: Africa needs a "Mao".

For that matter, so does Peru!

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

[CrazyModerate]

I would like to say my rant wasn't directed at anarchists, as they tend to realize there is no difference between autocrats ranging from Bush to Mao.

[jaycee]

red star is an idiot but there you go. Mao was as bourgeois as any leader you care to mention and he caused millions of deaths with his crazy sceams. Africa will not be developed by a moaist bourgeois anymore than an imperialist 'free-market' (free market doesn't exist anywhere, all countries use some form of state capitalism now days). Capitalism is decedent and in permenant crisis, it will not improve things in Africa anymore than in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia.

[overlord]

Lots of people there are nostalgic about Stalin! Do you blame them?


That doesn't necessarily mean they would swap Putin for Stalin. One thing I've learnt is that people remember the negative points of their posessions and the positive points of their experiences. Hence they remember the positive points of their schooldays even though they might have been bullied often, but if that new mercedes has a scratch on it - i'm mad, i'm going to kill myself with angst.

[BobKKKindle$]

Regardless of whether Africa needs its own 'great leap forward', Orthodox Marxism stipulates the need for Capitalism and development of the forces of production before the relaitons of production can be changed throgh a socialist revolution. So For orthodox Marxists, Africa must first progress from the primitive produciton stage to post-industrial capitalism (a stage in which the forces of production are so great that all needs can be satisfied) before a socialist revolution can occur.

Now, the best way to do this may be a rapid industrialisaiton program in which the means of production are centralised under a central planning administration, as in Russia under Stalinism (note; I am not a stalinist) The Main barrier to Africa's development is the predominance of subsistence agriculture and a low level of education. A Mechanisation and Collectivization program, as well as literacy and technichal education schemes, could change this dramatically.