ZIMBABWE

[Chinjanista]

Mugabe MUST go! Yes? What would happen if he resigned today?

[Jesus Christ]

ok Chinjanista, I don't think many people on the board know what is happening in Zimbabwe, so i'll just post a summary for them:Currently, Zimbabwe is in a state of turmoil. Incumbent President Robert Mugabe of the Zanu-PF party won an unprecedented fifth term in March 2002, but the election was plagued with corruption and the results are highly contested by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Commonwealth officials agree and have suspended Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth for a year over the dubious elections.

Representatives from South Africa and Nigeria are attempting to mediate negotiations between the parties, but in the meantime, the controversial leader is cracking down on any criticism of his government. His fascist tactics include charging political rivals with treason, arresting journalists and civil rights activists, and threatening any opposition.

Mugabe's plans to accelerate 'land reform' have led to increased violence against white farmers. Members of Mugabe's party began occupying some 1500 white-owned farms in 2000, and recent reports indicate the number of evictions is quickly rising.

Meanwhile, the country is facing the prospect of famine due to an ongoing drought and infrastructure problems. Mugabe recently declared a state of disaster and is calling for foreign aid to help the starving. Mali and Mozambique are also in danger of famine.

The US, UK and Australian governments are advising their citizens to avoid unnecessary travel to Zimbabwe. British Nationals living there are urged to 'keep a low political profile' due to Mugabe's anti-British rhetoric.


this man is a facist and is not going to leave without a fight
simply, someone needs to threaten him with military force, most likely South Africa, because this man is never going to leave through neogotiations
he'll disagree all the way

[Chinjanista]

Thanks for the summary :) ...
i disagree - South Africa is TOTALLY wrong to pose military threat. IT has to come from inside. Zimbabweans must overthrow him thenselves otherwise they will continue through a long string of corrupt leaders without gaining a strong powerbase of the power of the people.

[Hampton]

Where's Steve Biko when you need him. Did the Black Consciousness movement die along with him?

[Chinjanista]

The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed

[Saint-Just]

Who are all you imperiaists??

Mugabe had been in power since the early 80's, He create in Zimababwe one of the most progressive countries in Africa, with the least hunger and disease problems. And, with what is still the highest literacy rate in Africa and a great and commendable achievement of 88% literacy or roundabouts, far higher than most other nations else on the continent.

I am wondering why it is only in the last few years there has been imperialist pressure on Zimbabwe... Possibly the nations rejection of IMF and World Bank's economic plans for Zimbabwe. Which is odd when they have worked such wonders for other countries in Africa and more well known to you in South America, in Argentina. Of course i'm saying they worked wonders for the rich imperialists in the west.

Why do you think Zimbabweans voted Mugabe in 5 terms in succession??

If Mugabe was deposed I think we would see a swift racist-imperialist, enslavement of the nation once more.

South Africa isn't posing a military threat, it has seen it fit to engage in peaceful negotiations with Zimbabwe.

[Chinjanista]

Being Zimbabwean and having lived in Zimbabwe i have to disagree with you. Mugabe has been oppresing his people since 1984. Only, no- one hears about it. Dont let yourself be kidded by this power hungry mad man! Btw. elections in Zimbabwe have become a joke. a sick joke that is full of government imposed violence and rigging. Chinja!

[Fiskebat]

Mugabe is an oppressing dicator! Not some bringer of welfare! What do u mean with "who are all you imperialists??"

[Saint-Just]

'Mugabe is an oppressing dicator! Not some bringer of welfare! What do u mean with "who are all you imperialists??'

I mean you oppose the only nations fighting imperialism. You can't deny that Mugabe has brought greater living standards to Zimbabwe.

'Being Zimbabwean and having lived in Zimbabwe i have to disagree with you. Mugabe has been oppresing his people since 1984. Only, no- one hears about it. Dont let yourself be kidded by this power hungry mad man! Btw. elections in Zimbabwe have become a joke. a sick joke that is full of government imposed violence and rigging. Chinja!'

When did you leave Zimbabwe may I ask? Mugabe has been attempting to turn it into a one-party state since the 80's, I agree. The thing wrong with Mugabe is he isn't particularly far-left, he has no allies and he is an old man, who's country seems to be going through difficulties he can do little to protect them from. Yet I see the other options as worse. In addition, he has done great good for the country.

Would you like that Zimbabwe accepted the wishes of the big American business men in the IMF and World Bank and become a lackey of imperialism?

Whatever Zimbabwe does they will not get out of this situation unless they co-operate with the imperialists. They are in an impossible situation.

[Chinjanista]

I left Zimbabwe two weeks ago because of the threat on my life. What Zimbabwe needs is change. Mugabe *did* do great good but he has become delirious. Problems that may have been resolved before were worsened by him. I cannot call the man who brutally urdered 7000 supporters of an opposition ten years ago and is doing the same to the new opposition *in larger numbers* a leader, a president. He is a dictator and for any future for Zimbabwe he must go. YOu say that you cannot see an alternative - the MDC is the countries dying hope and though it may not be perfect they offer democracy. ALUTA CONTINUA - chinja

p.s. this is a really good and informative site bout Zimbabwe www.swradioafrica.com

[Jesus Christ]

i know there is probably no Communist Party of Zimbabwe, but democracy is probably the best youre gonna get in Zimbabwe unless they establish a constitutional monarchy, and then after that they can plan for a revolution

[Chinjanista]

Democracy is fiiine by me 4 now....:) xx

[Umoja]

As I always say, look at Botswanna. IMHO Botswanna's one of the most successful African countries, only because of it's stability.

[Jesus Christ]

the second most successful country in Africa
47% of their population is still below the poverty line

the most successful African country is Seychelles

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Chinjanista on 12:32 am on June 15, 2003
Democracy is fiiine by me 4 now....:) xx


If you are a Marxist you'd know that bourgeois democracy is not democratic.

What I mean by no alternative, is that all the other parties would bow to imperialist demands. A leader could only surpass Mugabe by offering true independance for Zimbabwe.

I cannot comment on Mugabe's leadership skills, in the past they have done well, but now you can see the country is having problems, although some of them are natural and many are down to the imperialists. The imperialists do tend to overstate how deep the problems of certain countries are.

I have no problem with Mugabe murdering opposition or establishing a one-party state, I hope he succeeds on doing so.

Well, there are Trotskyites in Zimbabwe, but I certainly don't count them as communists.

[Chinjanista]

I have no problem with Mugabe murdering opposition or establishing a one-party state, I hope he succeeds on doing so.


....EXCUSE ME?

- when did murder of innocent civilians become accepptable?
- the opposition = the majority of Zimbabwe's population!?

[Chinjanista]

If you want to know what is REALLY happening in Zimbabwe go to this website : www.swradioafrica.com

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Chairman Mao, for someone who has posted some excellent posts in the past, your views on Zimbabwe are obscene. You appear to be blinded by left-wing radicalism.

It's a basic question of morality here. Mugabe is conducting ethnic cleansing nothing short of what Slobodan Milosevic was put before The Hague for. To say you have no problem with Mugabe murdering opposition makes you sound drunk.

Primus, I beg to differ on your claim that the Seychelles is the most succesful African nation. Mauritius is by far more successful across the board than Seychelles.

HEALTH: Infant mortality rate in Seychelles is around 18.5 deaths per 1000 births while Mauritius' lays at around 14.6 per 1000.

Life expectancy in Mauritius is 78.5 whereas in the Seychelles it is just 70.3.

HIV Prevelance rate in the Seychelles is 0.08% whilst Mauritius' is not applicable.

EDUCATION: Seychelles has 58% literacy rate. Very low compared to Mauritius' 83.9%.

ECONOMIC: Mauritius' economy is lightyears ahead of the Seychelles. The GDP purchasing power parity in Mauritius is $12.9 billion with the growth rate at 5.2%. Seychelles figures are $605 million with a 1.5% growth rate.

Gross Domestic Product per capita in Mauritius is $10,800 compared to $7,100 in the Seychelles.

Seychelles does fare better off when it comes to poverty. Only 6% lay below the poverty line compared to 9% in Mauritius.

Inflation is higher in Seychelles, at 6.1% compared to 3.9% in Mauritius.

Around 38% of the population of the Seychelles contribute to the labour force, while 45% do so in Mauritius.

Again, the Seychelles comes out slightly on top in unemployment. Only 4.6% of the population are unemplyed whereas 4.9% of Mauritians are.

Mauritius has a much higher budget, $1.9billion compared to $239 million in Seychelles.

The Seychelles relies heavily on exports to the UK, with 48% of it's exports heading here and the rest to either France or Holland. Mauritius, however, deals very well with the UK, France, South Africa, USA, Germany and Italy

Not sure who is actually the winner this time, but Seychelles spends 1.2% of it's GDP on the military, compared to Mauritius' 0.2%. Neither really need a strong military, so I would suggest Mauritius is inthe right.

GOVERNMENT: Seychelles has 3 political parties. Mauritius has 7.

The Mauritian government is headed at the moment by the MSM (Militante Socialist Movement) headed by Sir Anerood Jugnaut, who has revolutionised the country, improving the standards of life immensely.

Pressure groups vary enourmously in Mauritius with trade unions having a very strong link with government. The main pressure group in the Seychelles is the Roman Catholic Church, with unions not very well represented if they exist at all.

TECHNOLOGY: Whereas 100% of Seychelles energy comes from fossil fuels, Mauritius has made advancements with other sources of energy. 19% of the energy in Mauritius comes from hydro sources, the rest from fossil fuels.

60% of Mauritian households have a phone, 45% of Seychelles.

50% of households have TV's in Mauritius compared to just 23.4% in Seychelles.

10% use the Internet in Seychelles, 19% in Mauritius.


GENERAL: Mauritius boasts 5 or 6 well represented ethnic groups speaking around 7 languages, with around 5 different religions being openly practised. The Seychelles cannot boasts such a mix of cultures.

Although Seychelles can boast excellent bananas, lots of vanilla, cinnamon and coconuts, Mauritius produces tonnes of sugar cane which goes to all corners of the globe as well as tonnes of tea, making exports total $1.9 billion compared to Seychelles' $189million.

And finally, ending on a sour note for Mauritius, there are small amounts of cannibis consumed and produced locally.

A clear winner, I think you'll find.

[Severian]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 7:45 pm on June 14, 2003
I am wondering why it is only in the last few years there has been imperialist pressure on Zimbabwe... Possibly the nations rejection of IMF and World Bank's economic plans for Zimbabwe.

Mugabe's stopped accepting the IMF's dictates? I didn't know about that.

But the main reason we hear so much anti-Mugabe stuff lately is the issue of the capitalist farmers, usually referred to in the press as the "white farmers." Prior to that nobody had a huge problem with him; he was regarded as a statesman because for decades he postponed and prevented land reform in Zimbabwe.

Working farmers lose their land all the time; no big deal. But let some exploiters lose their land, and the worldwide outcry begins.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Severian on 3:38 am on June 16, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 7:45 pm on June 14, 2003
I am wondering why it is only in the last few years there has been imperialist pressure on Zimbabwe... Possibly the nations rejection of IMF and World Bank's economic plans for Zimbabwe.

Mugabe's stopped accepting the IMF's dictates? I didn't know about that.

But the main reason we hear so much anti-Mugabe stuff lately is the issue of the capitalist farmers, usually referred to in the press as the "white farmers." Prior to that nobody had a huge problem with him; he was regarded as a statesman because for decades he postponed and prevented land reform in Zimbabwe.

Working farmers lose their land all the time; no big deal. But let some exploiters lose their land, and the worldwide outcry begins.

I absolutely agree severian, yes he did also stop accepting IMF dictates.

'Chairman Mao, for someone who has posted some excellent posts in the past, your views on Zimbabwe are obscene. You appear to be blinded by left-wing radicalism.

It's a basic question of morality here. Mugabe is conducting ethnic cleansing nothing short of what Slobodan Milosevic was put before The Hague for. To say you have no problem with Mugabe murdering opposition makes you sound drunk.

You know I am not unreasonable Socialsmo o Meurte. I will explain: Mugabe's suppression of the opposition, how can you go against this if you are a Marxist-Leninist, the same happened in PRC, USSR etc. I do not want any kind of bourgeois democracy, I want the dictatorship of the proletariat. Mugabe is no Marxist as of yet, but he is a leftist and his party is a worker's party to some extent, his reforms are not extreme left-wing, but they do go in favour of the workers.

I know you are not as extreme left-winger as me, so it is natural you disagree with the suppression of opposition. But you cannot say that I am being unreasonable for my support of it.

As to the issue of Milosevic, The Hague is not about war-crimes, otherwise most of the American Army leaders would be in there, it is simply another tool of NATO. The Milosevic trial is ongoing and if it was a just trial Milosevic would now be free; what have they proved? virtually nothing.

A lot of people tend to easily eat up all the bourgeois lies. The fact is that all imperialist dogs in South Africa and Eastern Europe are the ones that should be criticised.

Do you not think the Apartheid regime in South Africa was worse than the ethnic cleansing you suppose is happening in Zimbabwe. In fact there is not ehtnic cleansing. They are simply redistributing the land owned byt eh big landowners that happen to be white because of the previous colonial nature of Zimbabwe.

The population of Zimbabwe is 13 million. The white population accounts for 70,000. 4,500 whites control half of the country's 81 million acres of arable land, while close to a million black farmers are crammed into the rest. The land the big landowners occupy is the most fertile, while that which the working black farmers have is the least fertile.

Following independance Mugabe said: 'It could never be a correct justification that because the whites oppressed us when they had power, the blacks must oppress them today because they have power.'

So an agreement was drawn up with collaboration with the UK and U.S. known as the Lancaster House agreement that stated no land redistribution would take place for 10 years, although it could purchase the land back. The U.S. agreed the donation of $2 billion to help the government purchase the land. An agreement had been drawn up for white-black co-operation. However the whites rejected the agreement and the U.S. failed to donate the $2 billion. As a result Mugabe decided to confiscate the land or else Zimbabwe would forever live in the shadow of colonialism. This is what provoked the imperialist press and white farmers.

Zanu PF also decided to reject the IMF's 'Austerity programme'. As a result sanctions were enforced and requests for loans rejected. In addition to this white farmers engaged in crop sabotage with co-operation from the imperialist powers. Whilst this went on the region saw problems with droughts to further worsen the situation.

It is not simply just this that has provoked the imperialist powers. You may be wondering why they have decided to pay such attention to this country of South Africa so far away from U.S. It is because in addition to what I have already mentioned, Zimbabwe has sent troops to aid the government in Congo in their repulsion of Rwandan and Ugandan forces, the invasion having been incited by the U.S. imperialists, as the U.S. became enraged at Congo's rejection of the U.S. economic designs for Africa.

And what about the great MDC (Movement for Democratic Change), I wonder who set up this movement and funds it?? This very movement that supports the IMF and free market, that wants retension of land by the white minority and withdrawal of troops from Congo. And which individual is in league with the MDC as part of the U.S. set up Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, Chester Crocker, the notorious racist supporter of the Apartheid regime.

The truth is that only 160 members of opposition have died in the last 2 years, hardly noteworthy since most of the deaths have nothing to do with Mugabe. Generally the imperialist press rant about economic failure in Zimbabwe and of the suppression of the imperialist press who continue to write lies about Zimbabwe.

[Invader Zim]

Mao I have seen you misunderstanding, that Mugabe is leftist, maybe once when he gained freedom from the British oppression yes, however power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly. Something has altered from his origional status as a leftist to being a right wing fascist. Of which he most certaily is, he has all the propertys of such a political stance. And none of a leftist, he takes land from the farmers who have generations of knowlage in farming that region and given the land to Zanu-PF supporters, as capitalistic rewards, who have not gained the practical skills necessary, hense the reason why the people of Zimbabwe are facing abject poverty and famine.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

AK47, you are going a bit too far in saying he is a right wing fascist.

Mao, I do understand Mugabe's thinking. Clearly, a redistribution of the land to the real and original owners is justified. It does seem like a case of kicking the colonialists out, and I am all for eradicating any form of colonialism or colonialist powers. However, long gone are the days of colonialism and these people are Zimbabwean. Yes, there are only whites in Zimbabwe because of the British colonialism and they are/were the ones who owned the land. It does seem wrong, but so long has passed and the whites are now Zimbabwean people. There must be a better compromise than simply kicking them out in such brutal fashion. It is through no fault of their own that they have inherited the land.

That is as far as I can go. Your understanding of the Zimbabwe situation far exceeds mine so I cannot really argue the points you have made.

I just believe that any redistribution of the land to the black, original Zimbabwe people could have been done as more of a compromise.

[Saint-Just]

Mugabe is primarily a patriot. He used to have only a few leftist policies, but now he has more. He has become more leftist, not strayed from the left. Originally they struggled to kick out colonialism, now Mugabe wants to follow a more left-wing path and an independant, anti-imperialist path whilst Morgan Tsvangiri wants a capitalist, free market path to follow.

To both of you, it is not a case of: the whites deserve their land because they have lived there for so long. The fact is most of them are right-wing exploiters who care nothing for the black population of Zimbabwe. The majority of land and the most fertile farming land is in the hands of a handful of whites, 4,500 owning half the arable land.

Mugube has the same opinion as you on ex-colonialism if you look at the quote I gave you, and there are other similar quotes. Furthermore, Mugabe did try to compromise as I explained with the Lancaster House Agreement.

The truth is that the imperialist powers are still stuck in the past and will not relent from interfering to further their own expanionist interests.

[Sensitive]

Here is a good article about this topic...

Imperialists step up attacks on Zimbabwe (http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/zimbab0619.php)

[kylie]

So Chairman Mao, what you are saying is that we cannot criticice Mugabes government for political suppression when it is something we support occuring under socialism. An interesting view, but is such a blanket approach neccessary? There is a difference between a socialist government using political suppresion and a capitalist country using it. In Zimbabwe it is used to further aid the bourgeoisie, and to continue the exploitation of workers, as is to a degree occuring in most countries of the world. uer socialism however it is done to protect workers, and the state from going back to capitalism.
Would you really compare Lenins actions(and as a marxist-leninist, also Stalins) to those of the US government for example? The motives and goals are entirely different.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from feoric on 9:00 am on June 18, 2003
So Chairman Mao, what you are saying is that we cannot criticice Mugabes government for political suppression when it is something we support occuring under socialism. An interesting view, but is such a blanket approach neccessary? There is a difference between a socialist government using political suppresion and a capitalist country using it. In Zimbabwe it is used to further aid the bourgeoisie, and to continue the exploitation of workers, as is to a degree occuring in most countries of the world. uer socialism however it is done to protect workers, and the state from going back to capitalism.
Would you really compare Lenins actions(and as a marxist-leninist, also Stalins) to those of the US government for example? The motives and goals are entirely different.

Interesting point, however I would suggest that Mugabe does not suppress socialists, he has some working class policies, and primarily his suppression of opposition attacks the imperialists. It is a capitalist society in Zimbabwe. I do not believe that his suppression of opposition attacks the working class and protects the bourgeoisie. It gives concesssions to the working class and protects them from imperialism.

Mugabe's party seems to be moving in a working class direction, it started out simply being patriotic, but has moved towards a socialist stance. I do not think Mugabe's suppression of opposition harms the working class nor does it perpetuate the oppression of the working class inherent in capitalism.

[Cassius Clay]

Mugabe is no Marxist or anything of the sought. But really what are his 'crimes', compared to most tin-pot African dictators he's a angel. The truth is that Mugabe is picked upon because he refused to play ball with the IMF, and his decision to take back the land. For this Mugabe must be applauded, but Zimbabwe is sadly not democratic or working class orientated, do the workers own the means of production there. I doubt it.

Support Mugabe in his struggle against Imperialism, support the Zimabwean people in reclaiming their land and also support the people in establishing a genuine Socialist regime free of Imperialist lackeys in the MDC and corrupt and brutal officials in Zanu-PF.

[Moskitto]

Morgan Tsvangiri wants a capitalist, free market path to follow.

Morgan Tsvangiri is actually a union leader, he wants a welfare state system with racial equality, he is not interested in a free-market economy.