Mugabe Defiance Correct

[sexyguy]

Mugabe defiance is a correct response to monstrous anti-state stunts organised and provoked by western “democracy” frauds – the grotesque colonialist hypocrisy underlined by real violence constantly perpetrated by western stooges everywhere from Pakistan to Egypt.

But the greatest devastation of imperialism is in the warmongering still festering in Iraq and Afghanistan and planned for escalation to get capitalism out of its “overproduction” slump crisis due. Fake-“lefts” are more exposed by their capitulation to western stunts. Leninism is vital.

The monstrous “any crap will do” lies and propaganda poured out against the likes of Sudan and Zimbabwe – two of the demonised potential victims for imperialism’s world war escalation – and the increasingly hysterical nonsense about a “global warming Armageddon for mankind” (see follow on article) all have one thing in common.

They are giant diversions from – and excuses for – the real catastrophe facing the billions on this planet – the accelerating approach of the greatest capitalist crisis ever.
There is one cause – and one cause only – of all human violence and brutality and that is the ever more degenerate capitalist economic and political order, now more decayed then ever in history and able to avoid, it imagines, its total disintegration and collapse only by the imposition of increasingly bloody warmongering “shock and awe” on the planet.

But the devastating setbacks to imperialism’s plans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine, are leading to increasingly desperate efforts to keep the warmongering hatreds on the boil.
The foulness of the lies and fascist Goebbels propaganda escalate daily – along with the capitulation and cravenness of the so-called lefts.
Which is more disgusting – the strutting and play-acting “victimhood” of the lying little nazi provocateur Morgan Tsvangirai, getting himself and his handful of western-backed supporters reams of carefully programmed capitalist world press “outrage” coverage of Zimbabwe, as they show off their deliberately provoked injuries – or the posturing, sanctimonious, mendacious, hypocrisy of the western politicians and media which followed?

Neither, is the answer – it is the craven tagging along after the imperialist Goebbels set-up spectacle with mealy mouthed halfway “condemnation” or “distancing” from Mugabe’s anti-imperialism, by the petty bourgeois South African ANC and its craven leader President Thabo Mbeki; the cowardly “embarrassment” of the African Union; and the trailing behind this of much of the fake-”left” worldwide from “Bomber” Clare Short on Question Time to the Trots (with one or two slightly more honourable exceptions) all making equally treacherous “condemnations” (just as they betray by “condemnation”, all anti-imperialist upheaval and struggle).

And the revisionist Stalinist (and Maoist) legacy has once again also demonstrated its complete ineffectuality, revealing yet again a total lack of grasp of the enormous warmongering chaos that imperialism is forcing on the world because the huge intractable contradictions in its profit-making system.
Mugabe is a particular hate figure for sad and moribund British imperialism, having exposed so clearly by armed revolutionary defeat of the fascist Smith “unilateral” colonialism, the nonsenses of an Empire “graciously handing over independence” which was used to cover over retreat from anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles around the world in the post war period (and even now in Ireland as another armed struggle for Irish freedom slowly wins justice) .

ZANU’s popularity and inspiration to the ANC armed struggle which eventually overtoppled the apartheid colonialism of the even more significant South Africa, have never been forgiven.
The British ruling class’s impotent rage has been vented routinely ever since in lies and calumnies on the relative firmness of the ZANU-PF and its eventual re-possession of plundered colonialist land “ownership” for re-distribution, rather than capitulation to western bribery and stoogery witnessed elsewhere in Africa, from Nigeria to Kenya.

Endless fabricated incident, talked up sourness from the defeated ZAPU movement (which sided with imperialism during the bitter and brutally suppressed anti-imperialist war), and demented logic, blaming the regime even for natural events, from drought to AIDs, are used to vilify the struggle to hold the country together.
Every “crop failure” is held to be a “regime failure” even as the rest of the east African countries have suffered even more devastating drought and hunger (with no western vilification for supposed “collapsing regimes”).

But Zimbabwe is also now demonised increasingly by imperialism in general as one of the spectrum of potential “axis of evil” victims from North Korea and Cuba, to Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Syria among others, being deliberately set up by endless hypocritical vilification to stir up war fever and demented “righteousness” among the more reactionary layers of the rich western countries, so that imperialism can get fully into the swing of the world wide warmongering it needs to “solve” its overproduction crisis.

Stirring up such provocations is vital if the ruling class is to overcome the now deeply inbuilt world resistance to a return once again to the warmongering of the 1914-18 and 1937-45 periods which imperialism needs to sort out the huge imbalances in overall world development and destroy the ever-growing accumulations of capital which more and more clog up its profiteering system.

The obvious normal human understanding, that in a world of desperate poverty and insane “overproduction” (and relentlessly and accelerating inequalities) it makes sense simply to re-distribute the enormous surpluses achieved by modern production to mobilise as much human potential as possible, is a million miles from the understanding of the imperialists.

That would mean planned economies and the rational use of resources, with everyone able to benefit fairly from the coordinated use of labour output from billions of people (provided they worked), rather than the obscene accumulation of privilege, indolence, luxury and power for the few. Socialism in other words.

DEVELOP REVOLUTIONARY THEORY!
DEFEAT THE WARMONGERS!

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Great work.

While criticizing the mistakes of anti-imperialist leaders, we must defend them from vicious imperialist propaganda.

[Cheung Mo]

Any leader who cites the Bible as justification for his regime's homophobic policies is no enemy of imperialism. No true revolutionary and no true rationalist would use a literal interpretation of a religious text to justify a position that is otherwise untenably reactionary.

[sexyguy]

Cheung Mo,

Who in your opinion are enemies of imperialism? And who are “true revolutionaries“?

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:15 pm
Cheung Mo,

Who in your opinion are enemies of imperialism? And who are “true revolutionaries“?
An enemy of imperialism would not use the tools of imperialism to persecute a group against whom they have an unjustifiable personal prejudice. If someone here posts homophobic slurs or otherwise insinuates that sexual and gender minorities are inferior, deviant, or otherwise worthy of persecution and repression, they are appropriately sanctioned by the administrationm the harshness of the sanction depending on the circumstances.

If we do not act against the political repression of homosexuals (or against any group that may be persecuted for similar reasons) because the perpetrator is an "anti-imperialist" government, our actions here amount to nothing more than empty gestures of political correctness. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Mugabe's homophobia and the policies that stem from it are no more rationally grounded or justifiable than Ceausescu's misogyny was.

[sexyguy]

An enemy of imperialism would not use the tools of imperialism to persecute a group against whom they have an unjustifiable personal prejudice. If someone here posts homophobic slurs or otherwise insinuates that sexual and gender minorities are inferior, deviant, or otherwise worthy of persecution and repression, they are appropriately sanctioned by the administrationm the harshness of the sanction depending on the circumstances.

If we do not act against the political repression of homosexuals (or against any group that may be persecuted for similar reasons) because the perpetrator is an "anti-imperialist" government, our actions here amount to nothing more than empty gestures of political correctness. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Mugabe's homophobia and the policies that stem from it are no more rationally grounded or justifiable than Ceausescu's misogyny was.
Any leader who cites the Bible as justification for his regime's homophobic policies is no enemy of imperialism. No true revolutionary and no true rationalist would use a literal interpretation of a religious text to justify a position that is otherwise untenably reactionary. Cheung Mo,

That’s all fine and well as far as it goes, but the question in response to:


Any leader who cites the Bible as justification for his regime's homophobic policies is no enemy of imperialism. No true revolutionary and no true rationalist would use a literal interpretation of a religious text to justify a position that is otherwise untenably reactionary. Cheung Mo,

was


Who in your opinion are enemies of imperialism? And who are “true revolutionaries“?

[sexyguy]

Cheung Mo,


OK, if it takes time actually identifying anti-imperialists and “true revolutionaries” it may be easier for you to just tell us who the “true rationalists” are.

Meanwhile


No ruling class ever gave up the sweet life and least of all the dominant US imperialism, more powerful and wealthy than any in history; nothing happening challenges the Marxist understanding that they can and will continue to impose their order for as long as they have the world’s wealth and means of production in their hands alone.

They desperately need to keep the war momentum going as the first blitzing adventures in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan have run into increasing difficulties, stirring up a hornet’s nest of resistance and rebellion which for all its crudity, incoherence and sometimes backward ideology, has pushed the most powerful military and industrial power on the planet back on its heels.

Huge questions are now posed for world working class understanding as it becomes increasingly clear that the 800 year rule of capitalist exploitation is degenerating into paralysed collapse and war chaos, and as the billions pushed down into endless exploitation are transformed by the system into fighters against it on an increasing and irreversible scale.

But a huge vacuum is revealed in leadership, from anti-communist Trotskyism joining in the pouring of garbage on the anti-imperialists like Mugabe, to the silence from opportunist world revisionism.

Where, for example, is Beijing’s vigorous exposé of this imperialist lying stunt and, even more pertinently, the South African Communist Party’s denunciation of the supposed Movement for Democratic Change, which is neither democratic, nor wanting any change except reversion to western imperialist domination (and a comfortable stooge role for themselves as in various other corrupt east African post-colonial countries).

Where is the denunciation of the very notion that this constitutes a “movement” at all, except in the carefully organised and western intelligence-funded sense that created the fascist Ukrainian “orange revolution”, and the dozen other public-relations colour-themed bogus instant “peoples movements” from Serbia to Hungary (currently being whipped up among the Hungarian reactionary petty bourgeoisie again to create yet another deliberately violent incitement in Budapest).

Tsvangirai’s posse has even less “mass support” than those: the alleged demonstrations so carefully filmed in the run up to this deliberate confrontation with Zimbabwe’s state forces had no more than a couple of dozen people in the tightly cropped camera shots, as in a supposed “demonstration” in South Africa given prime time TV news coverage to allege some “popular opposition”.

It is a measure of the brain-deadness of revisionism that there was more inadvertently revealed about the true nazi-thug nature of Tsvangirai in a Guardian apologist editorial than in anything it has to say:

.
]..Mr Tsvangirai is no Nelson Mandela.[/b] He has admitted lapses of judgement, such as the time he was secretly taped discussing plans to assassinate Mr Mugabe with a former Israeli spy. It was a set up and formed the basis of one of two charges of treason, of which he was acquitted. Under him, the MDC split on ethnic lines, between the Shona and Ndebele tribes, over whether to contest elections to the senate. He resisted calls to take to the streets in rigged parliamentary elections of 2000 and presidential elections two years later. Critics claim these were missed opportunities, but Mr Tsvangirai has kept faith with his people.

He is plucky and still enormously popular and he has remained a democrat. The eldest of nine children, who had to leave school early to support the family, he is largely self-taught. Despite the miscalculations, or perhaps because of them, there is something of the folk hero about the man who doggedly refuses to bow to the blows of Mr Mugabe’s truncheons.

A “lapse of judgement” (!!!!!!) to describe a months-long conspiracy, aided by the foul and vicious Zionists and plotted in the heart of the imperialist world in North America – to assassinate in cold blood the legally elected (and popular) leader of a country which has held recognised and internationally attested elections over and over again??

The only “lapse of judgement” is that Zimbabwe’s non-Marxist leadership failed to give him the treble life sentence imprisonment which such murderous anti-democratic coup plotting deserved, at the very least, and that he was free to be recruited eventually (despite fearful backing off on two occasions, as the Guardian says) for yet another theatrical nonsense.

The rough and tumble arrests which followed the carefully choreographed “prayer meeting” stunt last week, the violent resistance by Tsvangirai’s crew of the Zimbabwe state forces after carefully tailored incitements to challenge and topple the anti-imperialist Mugabe regime, hardly constitute the kind of punishment blitzings and torture now routinely handed out by the US, Britain, (and always by Western funded Zionism), to innocent Iraqi, Afganistani and Palestinian civilians, let alone those supposedly directly responsible for insurgency, opposition and hostility to western imperialist interests everywhere.

[Joseph Ball]

I can't vouch for the politics of the person that started this thread but the line of supporting Mugabe is correct.

It is western, imperialist rubbish to argue that Zimbabwe's economic problems are caused by land reform. This is just the imperialist garbage that argues that people in oppressed nations cannot govern themselves and have to be led around by the nose by by a lot of white, western racists.

Zimbabwe's economic problems are caused by sanctions imposed by the western imperialists, particularly the so-called 'Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act' passed by the yankees in 2001 which cut off all sources of finance for Zimbabwe except under punitive terms
(see http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/sanctions32.13170.html).

Mugabe's real error is not to be socialist enough. He has not developed enough the defiantly self-sufficient national economy necessary to face down the imperialists.

Why do so many 'leftists' oppose Mugabe's policy of expropriating the white landowners of Zimbabwe who stole the land from Black Africans and maintained their hegemony through decades of racism and murder? Why? Because they are imperialist chauvanists who use socialist rhetoric as a convenient cover for their self-interested political stances.

Victory to Zanu-PF! Down with the MDC sell-outs!

[bcbm]

Why do so many 'leftists' oppose Mugabe's policy of expropriating the white landowners of Zimbabwe who stole the land from Black Africans and maintained their hegemony through decades of racism and murder?

I've no problem with that, but I am concerned over who's hands that land ultimately ends up in.

[sexyguy]

Ha, the phantom “peoples movement” in Zimbabwe has failed to organise a “General Strike” today. Imperialist circles and there loyal lying media, and the majority of ’lefts’ in western Europe and North America are sick as parrots that the Morgan Tsvangirai failed to pull off a General Strike, again.

(First posted March 27th)


Where is the denunciation of the very notion that this constitutes a “movement” at all, except in the carefully organised and western intelligence-funded sense that created the fascist Ukrainian “orange revolution”, and the dozen other public-relations colour-themed bogus instant “peoples movements” from Serbia to Hungary (currently being whipped up among the Hungarian reactionary petty bourgeoisie again to create yet another deliberately violent incitement in Budapest).

Tsvangirai’s posse has even less “mass support” than those: the alleged demonstrations so carefully filmed in the run up to this deliberate confrontation with Zimbabwe’s state forces had no more than a couple of dozen people in the tightly cropped camera shots, as in a supposed “demonstration” in South Africa given prime time TV news coverage to allege some “popular opposition”.

[Spike]

Any leader who cites the Bible as justification for his regime's homophobic policies
Are you a communist? Or do you hold the belief that sexual preference transcends class lines? Because I've noticed in your posts a systematic effort to discredit any and all revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements from the Nepalese Maoists to ZANU-PF on the basis of a perceived anti-homosexual position.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Spike+April 22, 2007 08:24 pm--> (Spike @ April 22, 2007 08:24 pm)
Any leader who cites the Bible as justification for his regime's homophobic policies
Are you a communist? Or do you hold the belief that sexual preference transcends class lines? [/b]
What is that supposed to mean? What do 'class lines' have to do with homophobia or opposing homophobic scum bags like Mugabe?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Because I've noticed in your posts a systematic effort to discredit any and all revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements from the Nepalese Maoists to ZANU-PF on the basis of a perceived anti-homosexual position.

'Perceived'? You dont think it exists?

As far as political positions go, i much prefer cheung mo's critical approach to your and sexguys etc. defend any authoritarian bigot or dubious group to the hilt approach; all in the name of 'anti-imperialism' of course, coz you gotta couch your homophobia apologism in marxist-sounding rhetoric just to be safe.


SOS
While criticizing the mistakes of anti-imperialist leaders, we must defend them from vicious imperialist propaganda.

How is Mugabe an 'anti-imperialist' leader?

[Spike]

'Perceived'? You dont think it exists?
No. The claim that they are homophobic are slanderous fabrications.

What do 'class lines' have to do with homophobia or opposing homophobic scum bags like Mugabe?
My point is that homosexuals can come from any class. That one is homosexual does not mean that they are to be automatically defended. Billionaire David Geffen is a capitalist. Only class-conscious proletarian homosexuals are to be accepted.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Spike+April 22, 2007 08:45 pm--> (Spike @ April 22, 2007 08:45 pm)
'Perceived'? You dont think it exists?
No. The claim that they are homophobic are slanderous fabrications.
[/b]
Right, so you dont think Mugabe is homophobic?


Originally posted by Spike+--> (Spike)
My point is that homosexuals can come from any class. [/b]

Obviously, yeah.


[email protected]

That one is homosexual does not mean that they are to be automatically defended.

Of course, but do you think that makes homophobia or discrimination against gay people who are not working class acceptable?


Spike
Only class-conscious proletarian homosexuals are to be accepted.

What do you mean by this?

Communists should not 'accept' (what does that mean in practice?) gay people who are not class-conscious? Why?

Communists should not 'accept' gay people who are not proletarian? Why?

[Spike]

but do you think that makes homophobia or discrimination against gay people who are not working class acceptable?
Opposition solely on that basis is just idiotic. A gay billionaire should be opposed only because of his wealth. But a gay billionaire should not be defended by communists just because he's gay.


Communists should not 'accept' (what does that mean in practice?) gay people who are not class-conscious?
Because gays that are not class-conscious identify with other gays rather than the workers. A movement which crosses class lines borders fascism.

Communists should not 'accept' gay people who are not proletarian? Why?
Because communists represent the proletariat. Those not part of the proletariat are not welcome.

[Andy Bowden]

Because gays that are not class-conscious identify with other gays rather than the workers. A movement which crosses class lines borders fascism.

Mugabes regime attacks homosexuals regardless of their class though.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Spike+--> (Spike)A gay billionaire should be opposed only because of his wealth.[/b]

So, you dont think homophobia or discrimination against gay people who are not working class is acceptable?


Originally posted by Spike+--> (Spike)But a gay billionaire should not be defended by communists just because he's gay.[/b]

Ok, but no one is suggesting anything like that.

Of course rich people should not be 'defended' by communists simply because they are also members of an oppressed social group, but that's not the point - and it never was.

The issue here is not that someone is defending gay members of the bourgeoisie 'because they're gay' - but whether or not communists should criticise 'anti-imperialist' regimes which are homophobic, and moreover - whether it is acceptable for communists to support homophobic regimes or groups at all. If so, where do you draw the line?

How much social reaction is acceptable?

How violently homophobic does a regime or group have to become before you will no longer support them?

Would you support a regime or group that actively persecutes or imprisons gay people for being gay, but also claims to be 'anti-imperialist'?

What about a regime or group that kills gay people for being gay?

How violently reactionary does a group have to be before you will withdraw your support?

This discussion never had ANYTHING to do with 'defending' the gay members of the bourgeoisie (although its certainly troubling that this is where you've taken the debate):

This whole thing began with your criticism of Cheung Mo for this post:


Originally posted by CM

Any leader who cites the Bible as justification for his regime's homophobic policies is no enemy of imperialism. No true revolutionary and no true rationalist would use a literal interpretation of a religious text to justify a position that is otherwise untenably reactionary.

You replied:


Originally posted by Spike

Are you a communist? Or do you hold the belief that sexual preference transcends class lines?

Cheung Mo was criticising Mugabe for his homophobic policies and ideas, apparently from your POV this places ones status as a 'real' communist in question.

Nevertheless, your whole spiel about sexuality transceding class is an irrelevant sidebar to this discussion, as Andy Bowden has stated, the homophobia of Mugabe and his party targets gay people regardless of class... and it cant do anything but.

Homophobia is ALWAYS an attack on ALL queer people, regardless of class, because social prejudice is a generalised attack on an entire social category, be it 'gay', 'Black', 'Women' etc.


Originally posted by Spike
Because gays that are not class-conscious identify with other gays rather than the workers.

Actually, no - that is an absurd generalisation - not every gay proletarian who is not class concious is universally invested in some kind of classless gay nationalism - i dont suppose you could back that claim up in any way?

If gay proletarians who are not class conscious are not be accepted by communists, how are they meant to be engaged with?

And do you apply this same logic to other groups?

Do you think that Black proleterians who are not class conscious should be 'accepted' by communists?

Ditto for women.


[email protected]

A movement which crosses class lines borders fascism.

Which 'movement' are you talking about?

The civil rights movement in the US, bordered facism? The Black Liberation movement, bordered fascism? The Queer Liberation movement bordered fascism? The Women's Liberation movement bordered fascism?


Spike
Because communists represent the proletariat. Those not part of the proletariat are not welcome.

So what does that mean in practice?

Communists should not condemn social prejudice directed against non-proletarians?


P.S.

Can you please answer this question:

"Right, so you dont think Mugabe is homophobic?"

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Spike
Only class-conscious proletarian homosexuals are to be accepted.
Would you propose a similar stance on racism? I.e. that only racism directed at class-conscious, proletarian people of colour should be opposed?

I hope that sheds some light on how ridiculous your logic is...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Is it that hard to understand the difference between defending someone/thing against imperialism and supporting someone/thing?

[Spike]

I.e. that only racism directed at class-conscious, proletarian people of colour should be opposed?

That argument doesn't hold up well. People of color are predominantly part of the working class.

"Right, so you dont think Mugabe is homophobic?"
President Robert Mugabe has been Africa's fiercest and most persistent critic of homosexuality, which he has condemned as a Western import.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/523162.stm
This may be homophobic but this criticism is not rooted from the Bible as Cheung slanderously says.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 22, 2007 10:10 pm
Is it that hard to understand the difference between defending someone/thing against imperialism and supporting someone/thing?
You dont seemt to understand the actual issue at stake here,

Where is the line drawn?

How much more reactionary does Mugabe have to be before you will stop defending him? Or are you saying that you will defend anyone regardless of their politics if they get criticised by the western press or politicians?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Spike
That argument doesn't hold up well. People of color are predominantly part of the working class.
That's irrelevant to the hypothetical I posed. Most queer people are part of the working class too.

Answer the question.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Spike+--> (Spike)That argument doesn't hold up well. People of color are predominantly part of the working class. [/b]

Of course it holds up, people of colour are from all classes (regardless of proportions) - so are you going to be consistent with your logic or not?

Would you propose a similar stance on racism? I.e. that only racism directed at class-conscious, proletarian people of colour should be opposed?

Or not?

No cop-outs.


Spike
President Robert Mugabe has been Africa's fiercest and most persistent critic of homosexuality, which he has condemned as a Western import.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/523162.stm
This may be homophobic but this criticism is not rooted from the Bible as Cheung slanderously asserts.

I thought you said that the claim that Mugabe was homophobic was a 'slanderous fabrication'?

And please dont pretend that your reponse to Cheung Mo's post was motivated by the desire to correct him on the theoretical basis of Mugabes homophobia :rolleyes:

[Spike]

How much more reactionary does Mugabe have to be before you will stop defending him?
I'm not too enthusiastic about IMF influence in Zimbabwe.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Spike+--> (Spike)I'm not too enthusiastic about IMF influence in Zimbabwe.[/b]

Right so as long as the IMF has an influence on Zimbabwe you dont really care what Mugabes politics are? Or what his governments policies or actions are?

Of course when a fascist dictators gets harrassed by the IMF you'll be the first in-line for the solidarity network right?


Oh and Spike, are you going to reply Mujer Libres' post (or my post after hers?)?

Or the body of this post at all?


Originally posted by me+--> (me)

Originally posted by Spike
A gay billionaire should be opposed only because of his wealth.

So, you dont think homophobia or discrimination against gay people who are not working class is acceptable?


Originally posted by Spike
But a gay billionaire should not be defended by communists just because he's gay.

Ok, but no one is suggesting anything like that.

Of course rich people should not be 'defended' by communists simply because they are also members of an oppressed social group, but that's not the point - and it never was.

The issue here is not that someone is defending gay members of the bourgeoisie 'because they're gay' - but whether or not communists should criticise 'anti-imperialist' regimes which are homophobic, and moreover - whether it is acceptable for communists to support homophobic regimes or groups at all. If so, where do you draw the line?

How much social reaction is acceptable?

How violently homophobic does a regime or group have to become before you will no longer support them?

Would you support a regime or group that actively persecutes or imprisons gay people for being gay, but also claims to be 'anti-imperialist'?

What about a regime or group that kills gay people for being gay?

How violently reactionary does a group have to be before you will withdraw your support?

This discussion never had ANYTHING to do with 'defending' the gay members of the bourgeoisie (although its certainly troubling that this is where you've taken the debate):

This whole thing began with your criticism of Cheung Mo for this post:


Originally posted by CM

Any leader who cites the Bible as justification for his regime's homophobic policies is no enemy of imperialism. No true revolutionary and no true rationalist would use a literal interpretation of a religious text to justify a position that is otherwise untenably reactionary.

You replied:


Originally posted by Spike

Are you a communist? Or do you hold the belief that sexual preference transcends class lines?

Cheung Mo was criticising Mugabe for his homophobic policies and ideas, apparently from your POV this places ones status as a 'real' communist in question.

Nevertheless, your whole spiel about sexuality transceding class is an irrelevant sidebar to this discussion, as Andy Bowden has stated, the homophobia of Mugabe and his party targets gay people regardless of class... and it cant do anything but.

Homophobia is ALWAYS an attack on ALL queer people, regardless of class, because social prejudice is a generalised attack on an entire social category, be it 'gay', 'Black', 'Women' etc.


Originally posted by Spike
Because gays that are not class-conscious identify with other gays rather than the workers.

Actually, no - that is an absurd generalisation - not every gay proletarian who is not class concious is universally invested in some kind of classless gay nationalism - i dont suppose you could back that claim up in any way?

If gay proletarians who are not class conscious are not be accepted by communists, how are they meant to be engaged with?

And do you apply this same logic to other groups?

Do you think that Black proleterians who are not class conscious should be 'accepted' by communists?

Ditto for women.


[email protected]

A movement which crosses class lines borders fascism.

Which 'movement' are you talking about?

The civil rights movement in the US, bordered facism? The Black Liberation movement, bordered fascism? The Queer Liberation movement bordered fascism? The Women's Liberation movement bordered fascism?


Spike
Because communists represent the proletariat. Those not part of the proletariat are not welcome.

So what does that mean in practice?

Communists should not condemn social prejudice directed against non-proletarians?


P.S.

Can you please answer this question:

"Right, so you dont think Mugabe is homophobic?"[/b]

[sexyguy]

“... weston press...” ?! I wonder if you meant to say ‘capitalist press’ there, or not!

You are walking down the main street, see a gang of capitalist thugs kicking shit out of a group of poor homeless immigrants many (if not most), you know to have been involved in anti-social criminality.

You could
Join in to help the ‘westerners’ against the ‘foreign’ ‘criminals‘?
Join in to help the ‘poor homeless immigrants’ against the ‘thugs‘?
Call for a truce because you can’t make your mind up?
Join in against the capitalists because you know the capitalists are your main enemy? Aren't they???

Or you could help the local news vender distribute stories about the anti-social criminal foreigners and pretend you are being an objective bystander or even an anti-capitalist!

... weston press...” ?! I wonder if you meant to say-“ ‘capitalist press’ there, or not!

[Comrade_Scott]

the fact that you gys support mugabe is crazy and creepy, the man holds no elections and the people who vote against him are 'relocated" hmmm sounds like a great human, remember the elections how right after them relocations took place. anyway about the land reform it was handled poorly.

he should have kept the white farmers on board not just take the farms away, let them train people how to work the lands and then push them in the background not take away the land from people who know the land and he didnt even give it to part time farmers nono he gave them to government ministers and whatnot so the farms have gone to the dogs. yes alot of the criticism is idle like for the most part the economy but he has alot of questions to answer. just because he was a great revolutionary dosent mean we can let him get away with everything shape up or ship out.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:29 am
“... weston press...” ?! I wonder if you meant to say ‘capitalist press’ there, or not!

You are walking down the main street, see a gang of capitalist thugs kicking shit out of a group of poor homeless immigrants many (if not most), you know to have been involved in anti-social criminality.

You could
Join in to help the ‘westerners’ against the ‘foreign’ ‘criminals‘?
Join in to help the ‘poor homeless immigrants’ against the ‘thugs‘?
Call for a truce because you can’t make your mind up?
Join in agains the capitalists because you know the capitalists are your main enemy? Aren't they???

Or you could help the local news vender distribute stories about the anti-social criminal foreigners and pretend you are being an objective bystander or even an anti-capitalist!

... weston press...” ?! I wonder if you meant to say-“ ‘capitalist press’ there, or not!
No, i meant to say western press... typo.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:29 pm
“... weston press...” ?! I wonder if you meant to say ‘capitalist press’ there, or not!

You are walking down the main street, see a gang of capitalist thugs kicking shit out of a group of poor homeless immigrants many (if not most), you know to have been involved in anti-social criminality.

You could
Join in to help the ‘westerners’ against the ‘foreign’ ‘criminals‘?
Join in to help the ‘poor homeless immigrants’ against the ‘thugs‘?
Call for a truce because you can’t make your mind up?
Join in agains the capitalists because you know the capitalists are your main enemy? Aren't they???

Or you could help the local news vender distribute stories about the anti-social criminal foreigners and pretend you are being an objective bystander or even an anti-capitalist!

... weston press...” ?! I wonder if you meant to say-“ ‘capitalist press’ there, or not!
You could keep walking.

[sexyguy]

Yes, or run even? -To call the cops or find some more workers to attack the capitalists?

[Hiero]

I often wonder about the credibility of Mugabe's anti-imperialism. He is a hero of the Zimbabwe national liberation movememnt and once a commited Marxist who use Maoist guerrilla theory to liberate Zimbabwe. Though I think he has long been a revisionist.

Here is what Zwelinzima Vavi (COSATU General Secretary) has said about Mugabe.



We are not convinced that this was a genuine programme since government has failed for 20 years to address the central question at the centre of the revolution in Zimbabwe - the land question. In order to mask its failures and faced by prospects of a credible opposition government opportunistically used the land question to deflect attention from its failures. The fast track land resettlement programme was nothing less than an election gimmick. For 20 years there was sluggish progress but when confronted with real opposition the government found enthusiasm to fast track what it failed to implement for 20 years. In the last 20 years we have not seen a government led campaign against the Lancaster agreement in so far as it impinges on successful land redistribution. Therefore, the Lancaster agreement cannot be used as an excuse for doing nothing for 20 years. I believe government’s action have discredited the whole land redistribution process and many people see it purely as an election ploy. It is therefore imperative that land redistribution be salvaged in Zimbabwe.


What we have witnessed in Zimbabwe is a study in irony. Government for a long time fails to address critical issues facing the masses but in a rather Orwellian fashion turn up revolutionary rhetoric to try to whip up support. Additionally, government embraces neo-liberalism only to discard it towards election and immediately after the elections adopt IMF-World Bank-type adjustment programmes.

Zimbabwe and most of the countries in the region need a package of measures aimed at addressing the colonial legacy. Embracing neo-liberalism or structural adjustment programmes is a risk that the democratic government take at its own peril. The IMF-inspired reforms have not worked in a majority of cases in Africa including Zimbabwe. The self-imposed structural adjustment programme in South Africa - GEAR, has not worked and will never work. Governments that have adopted such policies have difficulty communicating these compromises and generally speak in fork-tongues; use intimidation and other bully tactics; and/or camouflage the shift in revolutionary rhetoric and blame others when things don’t work out according to the plan.

http://www.afrol.com/html/Countries/Zimbab..._zim_speech.htm (http://www.afrol.com/html/Countries/Zimbabwe/backgr_cosatu_zim_speech.htm)

[chebol]

While critically defending Mugabe's Zimbabwe from Imperialist attacks, we should also lend our support to the radical movements in Zimbabwe! (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/707/36721)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:24 pm
Here is what Zwelinzima Vavi (COSATU General Secretary) has said about Mugabe
Indeed, COSATU has been very critical of Mugabe, and in turn the ANC for their quiet spoken stance on Mugabe (&#39;more time... we&#39;ll just give him a little more time&#39; etc), but no doubt COSATU (an union federation with deep roots in the anti-apartheid struggle in SA and with historical roots in Zimbabwe itself in solidarity work) has been corrupted by the slander of the imperialist press... coincidentally that seems to be the fate of all of Mugabes detractors, regardless of whether they live in the West or next-door to Zimbabwe itself, be they bourgeois politicans or African trade unions <_<

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:05 pm
Yes, or run even? -To call the cops or find some more workers to attack the capitalists?
No, just keep walking. :rolleyes: Because ultimately "taking a position on Mugabe" means all of jackshit and is more about commie-cred than anything meaningful.

[sexyguy]

“No, i meant to say western press... typo.”
Thanks b gums, but unconventional “weston” or conventional "western" press is not the same thing as ’capitalist’ press, as you know very well, don’t you?

Your nervous anti-communist prejudice is what the original post is aimed at.
Flushing out fake ‘lefts’ and fake ‘anarchist’ pro-capitalist sentiment, is some of the most rewarding work for Leninist revolutionaries. It’s a duck shoot.

AFTER THE ORIGINAL POST - NONE OF THE ’LEFTS’ OR ‘ANARCHISTS’ ATTACKED THE MAIN ENEMY - CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM&#33;

They ( the &#39;lefts&#39; and &#39;anachists&#39; ) only ever bravely attack the TAGETS of imperialism.

Just describe the world better.

That is Leninism&#33;

[bcbm]

AFTER THE ORIGINAL POST - NONE OF THE ’LEFTS’ OR ‘ANARCHISTS’ ATTACKED THE MAIN ENEMY - CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM&#33;

They ( the &#39;lefts&#39; and &#39;anachists&#39; ) only ever bravely attack the TAGETS of imperialism.

One can reject and fight imperialism and remain critical of those the imperialists target as well.

[Cheung Mo]

"I find it extremely outrageous and repugnant to my human conscience that such immoral and repulsive organizations, like those of homosexuals, who offend both against the law of nature and the morals of religious beliefs espoused by our society, should have any advocates in our midst and elsewhere in the world." -- Robert Mugabe

"We don&#39;t believe they (gays) have any rights at all." -- Robert Mugabe

"It cannot be right for human rights groups to dehumanise us to the status of beasts." -- Robert Mugabe

&#39;an abomination, a rottenness of culture, real decadence of culture&#39; -- RM

""worse than dogs or pigs." -- RM

"White disease" -- RM

And yet, here&#39;s what Mugabe has to say about cricket, another game exported to Africa by European colonialism: "Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen."

And here, he resorts to racialism and far-right nationalism as opposed to a genuine Marxist assessment of the behaviour of European colonialists in Africa. What would Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky have said about such language?

"The white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans."


On 17 August 1996 Mugabe and Marufu were married in a Roman Catholic wedding Mass at Kutama College, a Catholic Mission School he previously attended...A spokesman for Catholic Archbishop Patrick Chakaipa, who presided over the ceremony, said the diocese saw "no impediment" to the nuptials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Personal

That being said, there are pro-American regimes that are as homophobic and even more despotic than Mugabe&#39;s: The Western media is just quiet about their atrocities.

The only opposition that can ultimately succeed in trouncing neo-liberal imperialism is revolutionary internationalism based upon a sound theoretical framework. Can anyone provide arguments that Mugabe and ZANU-PF offer any of these things, or, given the apparently laughable extent of Mugabe&#39;s understanding of history, of Marxism, of science, and of the human condition, are even capable of doing so? Would a legitimate vanguard not be more ideologically mature and theoretically advanced than the toiling masses they seek to empower so as to precipitate a revolution and the creation of a proletariat dictatorship?

[RNK]

Well said.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by sexy guy+--> (sexy guy)Thanks b gums[/b]

That&#39;s B.G. Malatesta to you, thanks.


Originally posted by sexy guy+--> (sexy guy)but unconventional “weston” or conventional "western" press is not the same thing as ’capitalist’ press, as you know very well, don’t you?[/b]

Of course it&#39;s the same thing.

I would have thought that to someone as obviously well-rehearsed in revleftist-sounding rhetoric as yourself would have been with me on the assumption that the term &#39;western press&#39; is synonymous with &#39;capitalist press&#39; - &#39;western&#39; as a prefix refers to the advanced capitalist nations, just as &#39;western press&#39; refers to the press of these capitalist nations.


Originally posted by sexy guy
Your nervous anti-communist prejudice is what the original post is aimed at.

Anti-communist prejudice - yes, nervous - no.

I type with a steady hand.


sexy [email protected]

Flushing out fake ‘lefts’ and fake ‘anarchist’ pro-capitalist sentiment, is some of the most rewarding work for Leninist revolutionaries. It’s a duck shoot.

I&#39;m glad to have brought you pleasure, it&#39;s a duck shoot for people like me.


sexy guy
Just describe the world better.

That is Leninism&#33;

Can&#39;t wait to see that slogan up on glossy billboards after the next Leninist revolution.

[Spike]

another game exported to Africa by European colonialism: "Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen."
This is not anything to object to. The exchange of ideas did not originate with colonialism in Africa. Take chess for example.

"The white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans."
The white population of Zimbabwe has primarily led a parasitical, oppressive existence. Whites own 90% of the land.

What would Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky have said about such language?

"The white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans."
Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm

[sexyguy]

Black Coffee,
Yes one can. One can also “keep walking.” away from the fight with capitalists and one can, “... just keep walking.”
“Because ultimately "taking a position on Mugabe" means all of jackshit and is more about commie-cred than anything meaningful.” (All quotes from Black Coffee)

Anarchism is frequently praised and certainly ‘defended’ by Leninists for its studious commitment passion and the personal bravery of its adherents, if nothing else. So what happened here?

Contrary to popular ‘left’ opinion, being “critical of those the imperialists target ...” is not governed by neat formulas, particularly when the “target” victims are under relentless ruthless attack by every murderous reactionary centre on the planet.

The brave youths who were vilified for lunching an attack on the enemy recruiting office in Milwaukee is a case you are familiar with. You saw and responded to ( I must be careful here. I might get another warning) back-stabbing sectarianism from the fake ‘Marxism‘. And your “commie-cred” was definitely on display their. So what happened?

[sexyguy]

Is it that hard to understand the difference between defending someone/thing against imperialism and supporting someone/thing?

CDL,
It is hard, and regrettably for many, completely impossible to ever understand these things if neat and tidy preconceived notions about world revolutionary crisis and war have been ‘fixed’ by capitalist boom-time conditions and are at odds with the untidy reality of world revolutionary crisis and war.

If the defeats, setbacks, and even embarrassments suffered by “shock and awe” fascist imperialism and its supporters are not even looked-for, never mind celebrated when they do occur, (due to the academic cynicism and pessimism which informs most ’left’ analysis and interventions) how on earth can anyone see their way through the crucial questions about attack, defence and support in any given situation? The answer is they can’t, and usually end up siding with imperialism whether they intend it or not on the grounds that they are being “rational”, “scientific” “materialist”, “objective”

The widespread vilification of anyone and everyone who resists, attacks, refuses to cooperate with, or in any way attracts genuine disapproval from imperialist circles, (e.g. ‘Muslims’, ‘Maoists‘, third world ‘national liberation’ fighters of every kind, and even ‘anarchists’) is the dominant mood on this site. “Condemnation“ is what their is most of. All because the ‘RESISTING’ victims of imperialist intrigue and mayhem don’t measure-up to ’left’ preconceptions about what makes the “perfect”, “democratic”, “Bolshevik” “green” “non-authoritarian” or non-hierarchical” revolution, but the ones who aren&#39;t RESISTING, the very same ruling class but should be, are spared the same routine vicious denunciation and “condemnation”, e.g., almost the entire ‘left’ and especially the world communist movement.

But when the propaganda slogan for “defeat” of the fascist war machine is raised in the debates the reaction is the same as if someone had let off a loud fart in church. You couldn’t make it up.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:52 pm
Black Coffee,
Yes one can. One can also “keep walking.” away from the fight with capitalists and one can, “... just keep walking.”
“Because ultimately "taking a position on Mugabe" means all of jackshit and is more about commie-cred than anything meaningful.” (All quotes from Black Coffee)
I don&#39;t think you understood my point. If I say "I support Robert Mugabe," that does absolutely nothing to help the people of Zimbabwe resist imperialist interference. Likewise, if I say "Fuck Robert Mugabe," that doesn&#39;t strengthen the imperialist&#39;s attack. While I may have an opinion on the subject (truthfully, I haven&#39;t looked in to it enough to have one), voicing and defending that opinion on a message board is ultimately about projecting a certain image, not doing anything concrete in resistance to imperialism.



Anarchism is frequently praised and certainly ‘defended’ by Leninists for its studious commitment passion and the personal bravery of its adherents, if nothing else.

Not around here...


So what happened here?

Contrary to popular ‘left’ opinion, being “critical of those the imperialists target ...” is not governed by neat formulas, particularly when the “target” victims are under relentless ruthless attack by every murderous reactionary centre on the planet.

I&#39;m not interested in neat formulas either, I&#39;m interested in critical analysis of the situation on the ground. A piece of shit being attacked by murderous reactionaries is still a piece of shit. I think one can maintain that the imperialists should stay the fuck out of Zimbabwe while having a critical analysis of Mugabe and his regime, not just giving it a free pass for all manner of fucked up shit.


The brave youths who were vilified for lunching an attack on the enemy recruiting office in Milwaukee is a case you are familiar with. You saw and responded to ( I must be careful here. I might get another warning) back-stabbing sectarianism from the fake ‘Marxism‘. And your “commie-cred” was definitely on display their. So what happened?

Good choice in example, actually. I was fine with those who criticized the action but maintained solidarity with the arrested against the police- they have no obligation to support everything done, but showing support for those under attack is crucial. On the other hand, those who offered nothing but shit-talk got a much different response.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Harlem march says: &#39;Hands off Zimbabwe&#33;&#39;
Published Apr 22, 2007 11:13 PM
WW photo: Monica Moorehead

“Mugabe is right&#33;” and “Bush and Blair are wrong&#33;” were two slogans chanted repeatedly during a march in Harlem, N.Y., on April 14 to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the liberation of the southern Africa country of Zimbabwe from British colonialism in 1980. The Brooklyn-based December 12th Movement and Friends of Zimbabwe initiated the march, which was supported by other groups.

The demonstration was more than just a celebration of independence. It also served as an occasion to defend Zimbabwe’s sovereignty and its president, Robert Mugabe, from ongoing threats by U.S. and British imperialism.

The Zimbabwean government has been carrying out a radical land redistribution plan to take back the land for African people that was stolen by white landowners when the country was first colonized in the late 1800s. Both Blair and Bush have been the main cheerleaders for imposing economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. These sanctions have strained the economy of this country.

March organizers also linked the land issue in Zimbabwe to the ongoing crisis of massive gentrification in Harlem caused by big real estate developers who want to turn what was once referred to as the “capital of Black America” into a haven for affluent whites.

On April 13, Workers World Party held a special forum at the Solidarity Center in Manhattan on Zimbabwe featuring Omowale Clay, a leader of the December 12th Movement. A podcast of Clay’s remarks can be heard at www.workers.org.

http://www.workers.org/2007/world/zimbabwe-0426/

[sexyguy]

Black Coffee,

Are the ‘images’ being projected by the imperialists and their apologists doing anything ‘concrete’? Of course they are&#33; They are attempts to ‘concretely’ strengthen the ideological influence among the working class (including ‘communist’) of an exploitative, crisis ridden, blood soaked racket by hypocritically emphasising some alleged ‘uncivilised‘ or ‘undemocratic’ backwardness of their victims. None of us are, or can be ’independent’ or ‘objective’ in this all encompassing class struggle. Our response whatever it is, is ’concrete’, real, genuine. We either aid imperialist ideological influence or combat it, “walking away” from the fight aids the bullying aggressor in the fight.

The development of revolutionary theory and its propagation everywhere - graffiti, placards, banners, speeches, leaflets, debates (in schools, bars, kitchens, work places, bus-stops etc, ) newspapers, films, books and web sites is crucial ’concrete’ action to develop revolutionary consciousness. Don’t let any &#39;left&#39; philistine devotee of “practice“ and "action" (usually reformist) tell you otherwise.

You have heard it before and you are going to keep hearing it - without us developing correct revolutionary theory there is not a snowball in hell chance of defeating imperialism.

[bcbm]

You&#39;re not saying anything I feel like I need to reply to, I think my last post covered things well enough. Certainly we should fight imperialism, but that doesn&#39;t mean complete acceptance of whomever the imperialists are targeting.

[sexyguy]

And I didn&#39;t say it did.

[bcbm]

Then what are we arguing about? ;)

[sexyguy]

We are struggling to develop revolutionary theory by clarifying our understanding. The best possible thing we can be doing at every step of the fight to DEFEAT imperialism. :D

[Black Dagger]

Found this horrible piece of bourgeois imperialist propaganda on the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation (based in South Africa) myspace... thought some of the folks here might be interested:

Here (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=131844575&blogID=204141828&MyToken=379d4bd4-b726-4872-877c-abd3a9f49d83)


Originally posted by Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation


Xenophobia, Solidarity and the Struggle for Zimbabwe


How to fight for freedom in Zimbabwe? How to avoid another Mugabe coming into power? How to fight poverty, inequality, unemployment? How to create equality and decent lives for all? These are the burning questions we must face.

There are two main issues we have been asked to talk about today: xenophobia and solidarity. Let..s look at each of these, and then explore them, and look for answers to the burning questions.

Xenophobia

Around the world, millions of people are moving between countries. Some move to find jobs and a better life. Some flee repressive, murderous regimes. And some just want to see more of the world: nothing wrong with that.

What is a problem is that the States, the governments, of the host countries, seek to divide the immigrants from the local working class and peasants. Let me be more precise. Rich immigrants are left alone. Their money brings them access to the charmed circles of the wealthy and powerful elites. The ruling class of one country recognises its fellows from other countries.

The elite knows the elite, and they know that they have something in common: their wealth, their power, are based on keeping the mass of the people .. the working class, the peasants and the poor .. in their ..place... And what place is that? Working for masters, earning low incomes, being told what to do: suffering through domination and exploitation from above.

But the situation is different for working class and peasant immigrants. The ruling elites .. using the States and governments, which are their property, their tools .. promote xenophobia. They promote hatred by local working class and peasant people towards the immigrants. The immigrants are blamed for unemployment, for crime, for everything imaginable.

The South African ruling class .. which is generally happy to join its elite brothers and sisters from abroad .. want the masses to believe that all their problems are caused by the immigrants .. people who face exactly the same problems as the local working class and peasantry, like unemployment, exploitation, domination and crime. In short, the ruling classes everywhere tries to teach the masses to hate people .. and blame people, and scapegoat people .. who are exactly the same as them, their brothers and sisters, people with whom they should unite to fight the ruling classes, the ruling classes of every country.

Take South Africa. Not a day goes by when the press does not claim that Nigerians and Zimbabweans peddle drugs and steal. Police reports list their successes: capturing hijackers, rapist and murderers .. and illegal immigrants. And if you have refugee status, or a work permit, and you left it at home, too bad: you..ll spend the next few weeks at prisons like Lindela.

To be an immigrant becomes a criminal offence. The ruling classes tell the local working class and peasantry that it shares more in common with its own exploiters and oppressors than with working class and peasant people who happened to be born somewhere else. Can anything be more ridiculous? The ruling classes welcomes foreigners with money .. and labels foreigners without money as criminals, and tells local people without money to chase and oppress them.

And why do they do this? The immigrants become the scapegoat for the very problems of unemployment and poverty the ruling class has created. The immigrants are divided from the local masses, forced to live in the shadows, unprotected by unions, lacking human rights.

This is exactly the situation here in South Africa, where we are told to be ..Proudly South African,.. blame everything on immigrants, and cheer our local ruling class for persecuting the immigrants .. all the while we are supposed to forget what that ruling class .. which is now brown, black and white .. does to the masses everyday. 1 million jobs have been lost in 10 years, new jobs are mostly casual jobs, old jobs are increasingly unprotected, industrial accidents soar, 500,000 people are evicted off the farms, 10 million people have electricity cut-off .. all by the local ruling class .. and yet we are supposed to think poor immigrants are to blame&#33; It is a disgrace, and an insult to our intelligence.

And here we come to the second big reason for xenophobia: the conditions of the immigrants make them into cheap labour, which benefits the local ruling class. Then the immigrants get blamed for being cheap labour, and accused of stealing jobs&#33; The working class is divided between national and foreigner, and unable to fight back against the elite, which orchestrates the whole situation. Immigrants do become cheap labour, but this is the result of the actions of the local elite, and believe you me, the ruling class benefits.

There is one final issue: nationalism. Nationalism is the ideology that all people born in one country .. regardless of class .. have something in common, and share a government that represents their will. This is a powerful weapon in the hands of the ruling class. On the one hand, it hides the class divisions in society, and presents the local exploiters and oppressors as friends of the people; their crimes against the working class and peasantry are hidden. On the other hand, it confuses people: the State and government appear as defenders of the masses, when the opposite is true, for these institutions are always .. always .. controlled by the ruling class.

The ruling class promotes nationalism to divide the masses, and their struggles, and to label popular movements as foreign-controlled. There are two more problems with nationalism.

First, elites use this to hijack power. We are for national liberation, but we know the elites try to infiltrate national liberation struggles to take them over, and to take State power. They then replace the old oppressors with new oppressors, and create new forms of national oppression, against other nationalities.

You have an example before your very eyes. The South African working class fought apartheid, but the black elite, through the ANC, hijacked the struggle, and took State power, which they now use to create a black capitalist class. This is called ..Black Economic Empowerment..: the proper term is black elite enrichment. And this so-called empowerment goes hand in hand with neoliberal policies .. privatising, casualising, union-busting, cutting spending on hospitals and schools .. which hits the African working class hardest. It is a black empowerment for a minority of blacks, who now join the old white ruling class in oppressing all South African workers: Africans, Coloureds, Indians and whites.

But there is another example: Robert Mugabe. Using negotiations and the ZANU structures, Mugabe got into power. From 1980-1982 there was a big strike wave in Zimbabwe. It was the biggest strike wave since the strikes of 1948, and organised from below. Mugabe condemned the strikes as ..quite inexcusable.. and "nothing short of criminal", the army and police moved in to arrest militants, protect strike-breakers and installations, enabling dismissals of militants. Kumbirai Kangai, the new Labour Minister, insisted that workers make use of the "established procedures" and threatened: ..I will crack my whip if they do not get back to work.. Then Mugabe placed the unions under government control: the new head of the unions was his nephew, Alfred Mugabe. His crimes continued after that every year: the Matabeleland massacre, the arrests of dissident unionists, the repression of the 1990s, and finally, the Green Bombers and the attacks on May Day rallies.

Secondly, nationalism is used in struggles among the elite. Above we said that the ruling class tends to practice international solidarity amongst itself. This is true, in general, but we must add that the ruling class is also divided internally. The interests of the elite are basically unified in support of the class system. But divisions also arise.

The ruling classes of very powerful countries often try to dominate the ruling classes of weaker countries. Let us think of Iraq. In the 1980s, the American ruling class was very pleased indeed with the dictator, Saddam Hussein: they armed him with weapons, training and money, because they wished him to fight against regimes like that of Iran. The American, Iraqi and Iranian ruling classes were all agreed on one thing: keeping a class system in place, and keep the working class peasantry in their ..place...

But the American ruling class felt the Iranian regime would destabilise the Middle East. They did not care the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini had come to power through crushing the Iranian revolution of 1979-1981, or that it viciously oppressed workers, trade unions, women and national and religious minorities. They did care that it wanted to expand its own capitalism at the expense of American interests, and that other Arab ruling classes might do the same. So they backed Hussein, another butcher of the masses, a man who used nerve gas against the Kurdish minority, tortured trade unionists, repressed free speech.

In 1991, though, Hussein felt strong enough to make himself a little empire of his own, starting with invading Kuwait to grab its oil fields. Then the American ruling class got angry, invaded in 1991 and again a few years back, finally giving Hussein the death penalty. And here is where nationalism comes in: the American ruling class promoted American nationalism to strengthen its campaign, and mislead the American workers (who after all, gain nothing but more taxes, higher petrol prices, less democracy and death in the army from this clash between ruling classes). Iraq promoted variants of Arab nationalism, and spoke of freedom while he crushed uprisings in his country during the two Gulf Wars, and did his best to stay in power.

To go back to Zimbabwe, we have the same thing. There was a long-standing split between the African sector of the ruling class, based mostly in the State machinery and organised through ZANU, and the old white capitalist farmers. In the 1990s, three factors made this division deepen to the point of crisis. A section of the African elite began to promote a strident ..indigenisation.. programme, aiming to use the State to transfer white wealth to elite Africans. The economy went into a crisis with Structural Adjustment, and the State started to go bankrupt, and saw the farms as a resource that could be used to reward loyal ZANU followers. And the mass democratic movement grew into a powerful force. In this context, Mugabe and ZANU moved against the White farmers, promoting the crudest racism against Whites, while cracking down heavily on the democratic movement. The land could be used to reward his cronies; the racism could be used to discredit groups like the MDC.

Solidarity
What does this mean? First, we need to recognise that we live in a class system. There is the ruling class .. generals, politicians, directors of State departments and State companies, the big capitalists .. on the one side. There are the masses on the other: the working class (by which we mean those who work for wages and lack control of their lives, including the unemployed) and peasants (small family farmers who work for themselves).

Between the ruling class and the lower classes, there is nothing in common: the ruling class exploits the masses, enriching itself at their expense; the ruling class dominates the lower classes, telling them where to live, what to do, even what to think, who to hate and who to persecute. The ruling class, on the one hand, and the lower classes, the working class, peasantry, the poor, on the other hand, are locked in struggle. Everything the ruling class has comes from the lower classes: a higher wage means less profit for the elite; insubordination means less power for that elite.

The only way out of this situation is to unite the working class and peasantry to fight back, whether through unions or through community struggles or through movements in the schools and army. Only a mass movement from below can start to change the situation, fighting for better living conditions, higher wages, lower rents, lower charges, more rights, more freedom, more space to live our lives as people, as human beings.

And only such a movement can start to make fundamental changes in society: not just improving our lives in the here and now, but challenging the whole inequitable class system. Only through a mass movement from below can the masses start to build organs of counter-power that can defeat the instruments of the ruling class .. the State, the companies .. and create a new society, based on equality and freedom. Such a society we call libertarian socialism, or anarchism: a society based on distribution by need, grassroots control (self-management) of the community and the workplace, with an economy planned from below to meet human needs rather than satisfy the lust for wealth and power. It would be a universal human community, not a world divided into different States, with endless war and oppression.

And when we say a mass movement from below of the working class and peasants, we do not mean a movement in one country only, or of one nationality, or of one race, or of one gender. We mean a movement that refuses to recognise the divisions imposed from above by the ruling class, a movement that opposes all States, a movement that really stands for the principle ..Workers of the World .. Unite&#33;..

So, we are for class struggle, not for race struggle. We are for the masses everywhere, whether African, Asian, or white, whether black, yellow or brown, whether South African, Zimbabwe, Brazilian, Yemenese, Russian or British. We do not hate a man because he is Chinese, or Indian, or Zulu, or Afrikaner, or Arab or a Jew. We fight the ruling class because it is a ruling class, because it exploits and oppresses, not because of what it looks like- and we know the ruling class is also international and drawn from all peoples. There are European politicians and capitalists, as there are also American politicians and capitalists, also Arab politicians and capitalists, also African politicians and capitalists.

We stand for a movement of the masses of all countries, against the elites of all countries. And nationalism is poison to such a struggle, an international class struggle. Let..s take two examples. One is xenophobia: dividing working classes and peasantries between locals and foreigners, which often also means pitting ordinary people against each other because of their culture, or their race, or even their religion.

Another is racial hatred: you have seen how Robert Mugabe used the issue of white land ownership in Zimbabwe to label the democratic movement as the tool of the British, and to hide his own crimes. Above we said So Mugabe said the MDC was the tool of Tony Blair, and that anyone who opposed him wanted Ian Smith back&#33; What nonsense. The people were struggling for justice, in their own interests.

Conclusion

To sum up this talk on xenophobia and solidarity, we suggest the following:

We live in a class system .. we must wage a class struggle
The working class and peasantry of all countries have common interests in fighting the ruling class: we are for international solidarity:
We are against xenophobia and nationalism, and we are for the principle, ..Workers of the World .. Unite&#33;..
There must be a mass movement from below to fight immediate struggles and move towards creating a new type of society by building institutions of counter-power through the daily struggle. Therefore, we say, ..Tomorrow is Built Today...
Such a mass movement must be driven by struggles on the ground, and through the self-activity and grassroots democratic movements of the masses: ..Only the Workers can Free the Workers...

Now, in terms of the Zimbabwe struggle, we suggest:

There must be support from the South African working class for the struggles in Zimbabwe and other countries suffering from terrible regimes. COSATU has taken this position: what is needed is action, not just words.
What is also needed is to challenge xenophobia and divisions between the South African masses and the ordinary Zimbabwean people in exile in South Africa.
The key task in Zimbabwe is to overthrow Mugabe. This can only be done through struggle from below: through general strikes, struggles around food and housing, struggles against evictions, against cut-offs, against retrenchments.
Even an MDC government would be better than Mugabe..s regime: there must be no illusions that ZANU-PF can become a better, nicer, kinder party. We can work with any forces opposed to Mugabe, so long as we do not compromise our principles, or sacrifice our objectives.
Even so, we must be revolutionary watchdogs against the emergence of new elites in these struggles, elites that aim only to replace Mugabe..s regime, with their own. As Mugabe..s regime shows, the new bosses are as bad as the old bosses: the forms of oppression have changed, but the old evils .. inequality, oppression, and suffering .. remain.
So, the key tasks are to fight neoliberalism and dictatorship .. but this is not enough. There must be a struggle for a new world: a world of solidarity, equality, grassroots democracy, a world freed of capitalism There are those who say there is no alternative to globalisation and neoliberalism: we say a ..New World is Possible... There are those who say the choice is between Mugabe and Blair: we say we don..t want either of them. The masses deserve better than an endless parade of tyrants. The African masses, like the masses elsewhere, want a better world, and they deserve it.

[sexyguy]

We can work with any forces opposed to Mugabe, so long as we do not compromise our principles, or sacrifice our objectives.
Ha&#33;