Zimbabwean Workers

[Xiao Banfa]

Zimbabwe: Massive march supports a defiant government
By Caleb T. Maupin
Published Dec 12, 2007 11:52 PM

Al-Jazeera’s news coverage of Zimbabwe’s Million Man and Woman March on Dec. 7 showed huge crowds—estimated in the hundreds of thousands—marching, chanting and waving red, black, green and yellow flags. They are the symbol of the Zimbabwe African National Union—People’s Front, the party that has ruled the country since independence.

It was nearly 27 years ago, in the very suburb where this march took place, that Robert Mugabe declared Zimbabwe—formerly Rhodesia—to be free from colonialism. The war of liberation, also known as the “Rhodesian Bush War,” was over and the African people had won. The white-dominated colonial government had been overthrown.

The recent march was led by thousands of veterans of the liberation struggle, who proudly proclaimed that Washington, Downing Street and Wall Street have no right to remove Mugabe, the leader they have chosen.

“Britain has no right to be sitting and discussing us almost every week in their stupid Parliament. Have they no shame?” President Mugabe proclaimed loudly from the podium at the rally. His speech gained thundering applause from the massed crowds of workers and farmers.

Marchers converged on the capital city of Harare from every corner of Zimbabwe, coming by bus, train and even on foot. Songs of the revolution were sung, and chants supporting Mugabe and in defense of the revolution rang out.

The march was endorsed by the Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions, which represents thousands of workers. The ZFTU has had differences with Mugabe and ZANU-PF in the past, but, according to the Herald—the main newspaper of Zimbabwe, it was in full support of the Dec. 7 march.

The leader of ZFTU issued a statement in which he proclaimed that Mugabe is “a leader whose ideals are focused on the welfare of his people.”

Mugabe has become the object of scorn by the Western capitalists due to his policy of redistributing the land back to the African people, from whom it was stolen by the colonial powers and given to white farmers. Britain, in particular, the country which once held Zimbabwe in its colonial clutches, has, to no surprise, expressed disapproval of the land redistribution that Mugabe has championed.

But the hundreds of thousands of marchers on Dec. 7 made it clear that they would not allow the British, U.S. and other Western powers to steal their revolution away. Their message was that they stand behind Mugabe and national liberation 100 percent.

[Red October]

I like how people like to conveniently omit Mugabe's overt homophobia. Especially Caleb Maupin, who's in WWP which is supposed to be so outspoken against LGBT discrimination.

[Xiao Banfa]

I can kind of understand critically supporting a leader holding the line against an imperialist and neo-colonial victory.

We need to think in terms of whether the bigger issue is defending Zimbabwe against imperialism or criticising commonly held (if deficient) views in Africa.

Yes there should be education on the evils of homophobia but that shouldn't stop us from refusing to recognise a victim of imperialism.

[Red October]

Yes, imperialism is bad, but in this case the "victim of imperialism" is a raging homophobe and a racist too. I'm all for supporting the Zimbabwean people, but not a dick like Mugabe.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23, 2007 12:02 pm
Yes, imperialism is bad, but in this case the "victim of imperialism" is a raging homophobe and a racist too. I'm all for supporting the Zimbabwean people, but not a dick like Mugabe.
While I can let homophobia go (nothing can really be done for now unless we solely focus on fighting homophobia over workers rights, which would be unwise) I cannot let racism go. Luckily, Mugabe is not a racist. Is he a Marxist-Leninist? No. Socialist? No. Anti-colonial leader? Yeah.

Any source on the racism? Unless taking unused, inefficient, gained-by-exploitation white-only farmland and giving it to poor black farmers (debate how it was done all you want, it's the action that counts) = racism.

[Red October]

I'm glad to know you're willing to tolerate homophobia.

"It's unnatural and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings... What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behaviour and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as lesbians and gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!" -Mugabe

Is that the kind of leader you're willing to support. I say he's a racist because he blames homosexuality on Europeans and claims it did not exist before the Europeans came.

I think it's ridiculous that we're supposed to support these leaders just because they're anti-US, regardless of whether or not they are oppressors too. Mugabe is a reactionary homophobe, it's that simple.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24, 2007 12:25 pm
I'm glad to know you're willing to tolerate homophobia.I tolerate it if is pretty much inevitable considering the current situation, yes.


Is that the kind of leader you're willing to support. I say he's a racist because he blames homosexuality on Europeans and claims it did not exist before the Europeans came.1. I'd be willing to support, in a purely anti-colonialist matter, a bourgeois African head of state. I don't know of any serious mistreatment of homosexuals in Zimbabwe. Are they being executed?

2. The claim that Europeans brought a culture of depravity is nothing new. Considering that Mugabe is both a Catholic and anti-colonialist leader it is to be expected of him. Is he right? No. Also, culture =/= race. Does he believe that Europeans are inherently evil? If so, I would like a quote.


I think it's ridiculous that we're supposed to support these leaders just because they're anti-USAnti-US, anti-British, anti-Portuguese, anti-French and so on in an anti-colonialist way.


regardless of whether or not they are oppressors too.You better not have supported the South African anti-colonial movement, the Angolan anti-colonial movement, and so on. Because in both cases (and in just about every case) the anti-colonialist forces had to appeal to conservative parts of the societies they lived in and Socialism was barely implemented in Angola, much less South Africa. Anti-colonialism if continued is good as it also leads way towards anti-imperialism.


Mugabe is a reactionary homophobe, it's that simple.Mandela is just as reactionary sans homophobia. What makes both different?

[Red October]

Homosexuality is a criminal offense in Zimbabwe. You can be arrested just for holding hand with someone of the same gender. Supporting a reactionary bourgeois leader just because they are "anti-colonialist" is ridiculous. Should we support the New Black Panther Party just because they oppose racism against black communities, even if they themselves are reactionary? The idea that we should tolerate and support reactionaries just because they oppose imperialism is absurd. If you browse Stormfront you'll find plenty of posts against Zionism and Imperialism, but it doesn't make those people any less reactionary or worthy of our opposition.

[spartan]

Homosexuality is a criminal offense in Zimbabwe. You can be arrested just for holding hand with someone of the same gender. Supporting a reactionary bourgeois leader just because they are "anti-colonialist" is ridiculous. Should we support the New Black Panther Party just because they oppose racism against black communities, even if they themselves are reactionary? The idea that we should tolerate and support reactionaries just because they oppose imperialism is absurd. If you browse Stormfront you'll find plenty of posts against Zionism and Imperialism, but it doesn't make those people any less reactionary or worthy of our opposition.
QFT! :D

You should join the debate i am having with all these Iran supporters who support them because they are "anti-Imperialist" :lol: (Never mind there forcing of women to dress modestly and having an investigation on whether the Holocaust actually happened or not).

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74465

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24, 2007 04:45 pm
Homosexuality is a criminal offense in Zimbabwe. You can be arrested just for holding hand with someone of the same gender. Supporting a reactionary bourgeois leader just because they are "anti-colonialist" is ridiculous. Should we support the New Black Panther Party just because they oppose racism against black communities, even if they themselves are reactionary? The idea that we should tolerate and support reactionaries just because they oppose imperialism is absurd. If you browse Stormfront you'll find plenty of posts against Zionism and Imperialism, but it doesn't make those people any less reactionary or worthy of our opposition.
1. While the situation in Zimbabwe is obviously unfortunate, I do not think it means we need to completely abandon an actual anti-colonial leader, which Mugabe seems to clearly be moreso than Mandela.

2. The «New Black Panther Party» is a complete mockery of the original and is a racist and anti-Semite group. I have no proof concerning Mugabe's supposed racism with the exception of a commonly held belief that Europeans have/had shitty values. (which is barely racist if the context is put in)

3. The posts in Stormfront against Zionism are based upon the belief that Zionism is throughout the entire government and that the US is currently under a «ZOG» rule (Zionist Occupied Government). Also, I'm pretty sure most don't care about the liberation of the Palestinians and care more about saying «See? A Jew is killing a Palestinian! JEWS ARE EVIL!» than «The people's of Palestine shall be liberated and shall hopefully move past racism and dogma and embrace all other people's of mankind in unity with each other.»

4. The posts in Stormfront against imperialism are based upon:
A. Zionism claims
B. Isolationist claims

Both of which don't matter when it suits their interests, of course. How many opposed the apartheid in South Africa? Many still think it was a good and even preferable thing. I'm also willing to bet many Stormfront members wouldn't exactly be against the Vietnam war and such.

So let us compare a normal Stormfront member and Robert Mugabe:
=Mugabe=
Not a racist, is an anti-colonial leader who fought racism and only recently handled the land issue due to demands and its large scope.

=Stormfront member=
Racist, thinks that all of Africa should basically be under apartheid rule, may have strange fixation with Hitler bordering on fellatio, regards land reform of any sort as a Jewish-Communist conspiracy.

[Red October]

You're still ignoring the basic issue here which is that Mugabe is an anti-working class reactionary. Anti-colonialism is awesome, but an anti-colonialist reactionary is still a reactionary and is still not an ally of the working class. Really, how much oppression are you willing to tolerate in the name of anti-colonialism? A man who runs into a bar and kills a gay person and then resists the police may be fighting the government in some form, but he is still a murderer. Maybe that's an oversimplification, but you should get my point.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24, 2007 11:41 pm
You're still ignoring the basic issue here which is that Mugabe is an anti-working class reactionary.
The majority of anti-colonial movements were led by/lead to anti-working class types taking power. Once again, I know that he isn't a Socialist, but his land reform program was still positive and not exactly something a UK/French/whatever puppet would do. My main issue however isn't really about supporting the man himself, but rather defending him from things like «He is a racist» or «the land reform suddenly caused the economy of Zimbabwe to self-detonate for some reason» which is used as ammo by the Stormfront types.

[Xiao Banfa]

If you want to pursue some sort of anti-homophobia crusade in places such as Africa you will isolate people whose interests coincide with ours.

Was Chiang Kai-Shek a holy ally during the war against the japanese? Of course not.

This is a strategic question. Revolution is a science not a moral code.

Saying (in effect) "no solidarity (if critical) with the government of Zimbabwe against imperialism because their leader is homophobic" shoots progress in the foot.

[Red October]

Really? Mugabe's interests coincide with ours? Maybe if you want to throw your lot in with reactionary dictators. I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: how much oppression are you willing to tolerate in the name of anti-colonialism? Where does that slippery slope end? Anti-imperialism means nothing if what we support in it's place is reactionary and oppressive as well. "Critical support" for a reactionary an anti-worker regime is still support for a reactionary and anti-worker regime.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25, 2007 02:58 pm
dictators.
Explain how Mugabe is a dictator. You seem to be repeating the bourgeois press.

CIA World Factbook 2004 states the following:


unicameral House of Assembly (150 seats - 120 elected by popular vote for five-year terms, 12 nominated by the president, 10 occupied by traditional chiefs chosen by their peers, and 8 occupied by provincial governors appointed by the president)

elections: last held 24-25 June 2000 (next to be held NA 2005)
election results: percent of vote by party - ZANU-PF 48.6%, MDC 47.0%, other 4.4%; seats by party - ZANU-PF 62, MDC 57, ZANU-Ndonga 1ZANU-PF would be Mugabe's party. Seems like your average bourgeois democracy in Africa to me.

[Red October]

Originally posted by Mrdie+December 25, 2007 05:32 pm--> (Mrdie @ December 25, 2007 05:32 pm)
Red [email protected] 25, 2007 02:58 pm
dictators.
Explain how Mugabe is a dictator. You seem to be repeating the bourgeois press.

CIA World Factbook 2004 states the following:


unicameral House of Assembly (150 seats - 120 elected by popular vote for five-year terms, 12 nominated by the president, 10 occupied by traditional chiefs chosen by their peers, and 8 occupied by provincial governors appointed by the president)

elections: last held 24-25 June 2000 (next to be held NA 2005)
election results: percent of vote by party - ZANU-PF 48.6%, MDC 47.0%, other 4.4%; seats by party - ZANU-PF 62, MDC 57, ZANU-Ndonga 1ZANU-PF would be Mugabe's party. Seems like your average bourgeois democracy in Africa to me. [/b]
I'd say Mugabe is a dictator in the same way Putin is.


Now how about you answer the questions I asked in my previous post?

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25, 2007 02:58 pm
how much oppression are you willing to tolerate in the name of anti-colonialism?
As long as it isn't absurd. I would say the total ban on abortions in Nicaragua even if the woman is possibly going to die is an example of an extreme action. (not that Nicaragua is particularly anti-colonialist or anything since Ortega went from poor to shitty)

If Mugabe began mass execution campaigns where around 50 people die every day or something then I would begin withdrawing support, but he isn't doing that. His worst is arresting homosexuals, which while bad (as I've said about 4 times now) is pretty much going to happen anyway.


I'd say Mugabe is a dictator in the same way Putin is.At least Mugabe has legit opposition.

[spartan]

At least Mugabe has legit opposition.
Yes an oppossition that is virtually persecuted and barely given a voice to get their points across in Zimbabwe to the Zimbabwean people.

You seem to be conveniatly ignoring all the alleged electoral abuse and fraud that is thought to be the reason why Mugabe keeps on "winning" elections to keep him in power in Zimbabwe (Of course i am sure that it is all just a big Capitalist conspiracy with the western media :rolleyes: ).

Sometimes we on the left just have to face reality, and the reality is that Mugabe is a reactionary homophobe who, if he was a leader of a non African state, would have been out of power long ago.

But of course the west doesnt want to do anything to severe to Mugabe as they dont want to be given the "racist" tag as Mugabe is a black African leader who led a movement, that was the winner in a struggle, against the racist white minority rule in the former Rhodesia.

We on the left have to stop our sensitivity towards Africa and its leaders, just because they fought against white minority governments, as it is allowing dickheads like Mugabe get away with anything (Persecution of oppossition politics and homosexuals amongst other reactionary things).

I also find it sickening that people, even nowadays, in the left can support idiots like Mugabe just because he is "anti-Colonialist" (Which to these people means that he has an excuse for, and can get away with, anything that he wants, including homophobia, racism and un-Democractic practices, because he is "resisting" Colonialism).

Didnt Hitler use the "resisting Jewish Capitalism" arguement as an excuse for all his future horrible actions?

Using the "resisting" excuse back then didnt make all the actions taken in its name right and it still doesnt make it right now.

[Xiao Banfa]

But of course the west doesnt want to do anything to severe to Mugabe as they dont want to be given the "racist" tag as Mugabe is a black African leader who led a movement that was the winner in a struggle against the racist white minority rule in the former Rhodesia.

No of course not, the west would never like to hurt Mugabe. The biggest concern of the imperialists is not being labelled 'racist'. That's bullshit comrade.

Many an anti-racist african leader has been assasinated. Many an anti-racist movement has been waged war against by the west. It can happen again.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:37 pm
(Of course i am sure that it is all just a big Capitalist conspiracy with the western media :rolleyes: ).Yes, the United Kingdom imposed trade sanctions because Mugabe is corrupt. :rolleyes:


Sometimes we on the left just have to face reality, and the reality is that Mugabe is a reactionary homophobe who, if he was a leader of a non African state, would have been out of power long ago.Maybe him helping to bring down the actually racist government of Ian Smith and leading the new nation of Zimbabwe has something to do with his popularity.


We on the left have to stop our sensitivity towards Africa and its leaders, just because they fought against white minority governments, as it is allowing dickheads like Mugabe get away with anything (Persecution of oppossition politics and homosexuals amongst other reactionary things).1. I don't deny that there is corruption in Mugabe's government, but acting like he doesn't allow any free speech at all or something is idiotic. He is certainly less corrupt than Putin.
2. For the sixth time, you can't do anything about the homophobia. If you went there and talked about how homosexuality is fine the people there would either consider you a deviant, a Satanist, or gay yourself. You can't say «Well, thing is...» since the mindset of, say, a religious African is much different. They usually view the bible in a more literal fashion.

When a vanguard party comes to power (or the people of Zimbabwe magically abandon religion and embrace the legalization of homosexuality) that issue will be solved in due time.


I also find it sickening that people, even nowadays, in the left can support idiots like Mugabe just because he is "anti-Colonialist"I would call taking lands from white owners who did not allow anyone else to own said lands and usually weren't even on the fucking things and were instead relaxing in the United Kingdom while their farms went to waste is a pretty damned good example of anti-colonialism, is it not?


Didnt Hitler use the "resisting Jewish Capitalism" arguement as an excuse for all his future horrible actions?Yeah, I remember one time reading how Mugabe stood up on a high pedestal while thousands of followers saluted him in a cultist manner and he screamed into his microphone about how the Europeans must be destroyed. I then stopped doing drugs.


Using the "resisting" excuse back then didnt make all the actions taken in its name right and it still doesnt make it right now.Ignoring for a moment that 1933 Germany =/= 2007 Zimbabwe (or any moment in Zimbabwe's entire history) and that comparing Mugabe to Hitler is fucking retarded, I still haven't seen any proof of Mugabe's racism to even make that sentence have any sense at all. Mugabe resisted white colonization, Hitler wanted to execute a racial minority for absolutely no reason save his insanity-driven paranoia.

[kromando33]

Mugabe is not a socialist, even if his party is official Marxist it's only Marxist in theory, it's about as 'socialist' as China or Vietnam. Officially the Patriotic Front abandoned it's policy to create a socialized economy, instead opting for a 'mixed economy' (ie state capitalism) under Mugabe's orders. The nationalizations he has done in the last few years are not socialist in origin, they are meant to give proletarian control of production, but are rather a racist policy to destroy the perceived 'white power structure' left by Rhodesia, the nationalization are not economically motived in a Marxist way, but instead are a political opportunistic attempt at petty populism, the whole 'getting a one-up on the imperialists' etc.

[Ismail]

Explain how it is a racist action, kromando. There was a "white power structure" in agriculture. Most of the lands were owned by white farmers, some (most?) of which weren't even in the country at the time this all happened and were letting the farms go to waste.

[kromando33]

No my point is that Mugabe's own party abandoned it's Marxist roots years ago, and now follows a populist/nationalist 'mixed economy', I am not denying the history of racism but Mugabe overplays it for political purposes and does not empower the proletariat.

[Ismail]

He is still an anti-colonialist leader though, and should be supported in that regard.

[Zurdito]

He is still an anti-colonialist leader though

In what sense?

As far as I can see all he is doing is oppressing the one force which can defeat imperialism, the working class.

Of course Zimbabwe is subjugated by imperialism and the imperialists should be resisted, but how are the likes of Mugabe ever going to lead a succesful struggle, when they are simply a parasitical bureaucracy which rests on the workers and then uses them as a bargaining chip to get better kickbacks from the imperialists: and ALWAYS with a view to eventually selling out completely, as Gadaffi has for example, and as pretty much every stalinist bureaucracy the world over has.

Also saying the Zimbabwe is "no less democratic than most bourgeois states" is such a right-wing argument, it sounds extremely petty-bourgeois and reformist. We think bourgeois democracy is NOT democracy, so why would we support Zimbabwe's govt. when it as undemocratic as many bourgeois states (and even you mr.die will admit, less democratic than many).

[Lynx]

Mr. Mugabe is many things, including being a member of the lumpenproletariat
.

[Ismail]

In what sense?

As far as I can see all he is doing is oppressing the one force which can defeat imperialism, the working class.The whole nation is pretty much anti-colonialist. While the bourgeois are the ones who hold any real power, the workers and such are united with the government on that issue. Want to go start a Communist movement there with intent of overthrowing the government and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat? Be my guest, but as for now Mugabe is the best we got and he isn't a horrible guy or anything.


Of course Zimbabwe is subjugated by imperialism and the imperialists should be resisted, but how are the likes of Mugabe ever going to lead a succesful struggle, when they are simply a parasitical bureaucracyHrm, bureaucracy argument? In a bourgeois nation? That's odd....
and as pretty much every stalinist bureaucracy the world over has.HAHAHAHAHAHA

What the fuck? Zimbabwe is a Marxist-Leninist state? Zimbabwe claims to be a Leninist state? Stop comparing bourgeois democracy to Marxist-Leninism.

Here is how they resist anti-colonialism:
A. Take white-owned farmlands, give to people who deserve them
B. Do not moderate policies in face of sanctions
C. Refuse to cooperate with the UK and other nations that have sanctioned yours
D. Encourage anti-colonialist sentiment in other African nations


Also saying the Zimbabwe is "no less democratic than most bourgeois states" is such a right-wing argument, it sounds extremely petty-bourgeois and reformist.I think saying "No! He treats certain groups badly!" is a worse argument as to why we should not support genuine anti-colonialism. Also, you compare everything with "Stalinism" which makes you look like a fool.


We think bourgeois democracy is NOT democracy, so why would we support Zimbabwe's govt. when it as undemocratic as many bourgeois states (and even you mr.die will admit, less democratic than many).Bourgeois democracy is not democracy, yes, but Zimbabwe is not a dictatorship within the dictatorship of the bourgeois in which bourgeois democracy is included. Mugabe remains a popular anti-colonial leader who is the subject of various sanctions. Mugabe seems pretty intent on keeping the land reform going on, and is much more diplomatically aggressive than other African leaders.

[spartan]

Here is how they resist anti-colonialism:
A. Take white-owned farmlands, give to people who deserve them

Are these the same people who cant work them properly, and are thus contributing to the lack of food in Zimbabwe?


B. Do not moderate policies in face of sanctions

And look where thats left them.

The people are starving and the government suppresses any homegrown oppossition to itself.

Mugabe sure is a great anti-Colonialist, but what difference does that make when his people are starving and cant get him out of power due to the corrupt election system that he has implemented?

Never mind the starving Zimbabwean people, because your leader is an anti-Colonialist!


D. Encourage anti-colonialist sentiment in other African nations

What exactly do you mean by "anti-Colonialist"?

Surely you mean economic Imperialism by the west, because i dont see a desire on the part of white people to go and colonize old Rhodesia again?

[Ismail]

Are these the same people who cant work them properly, and are thus contributing to the lack of food in Zimbabwe?They are being educated. The main reasons for economic trouble are because of sanctions and bad weather.


And look where thats left them."Stupid Africans! Who are they to kick us out!? We gave them what they have now! :mad:"


Mugabe sure is a great anti-Colonialist, but what difference does that make when his people are starving and cant get him out of power due to the corrupt election system that he has implemented?Uh, they can get him out of power. As I've pointed out before in this thread he has had close elections.


Surely you mean economic Imperialism by the west, because i dont see a desire on the part of white people to go and colonize old Rhodesia again?Neo-colonialism. You know what that is yes? Of course they can't go and declare a literal colony, so they resort to a new, "modern" form of colonialism.

[Zurdito]

HAHAHAHAHAHA


What the fuck? Zimbabwe is a Marxist-Leninist state? Zimbabwe claims to be a Leninist state?

Not what I said.


Stop comparing bourgeois democracy to Marxist-Leninism.

Mugabe appears to have the political support of pseudo-Marxist-Leninists. You've pretty much equated yourself with him by refusing to call for independent working class organisation with an immediate view to overthrowing him. What that makes your brand of "Marxism Leninism" I don't know, but it appears indistinguishable from Mugabe's style of bourgeois democracy.


Hrm, bureaucracy argument? In a bourgeois nation? That's odd....

Why? Have you not heard of Bonapartism?


Are these the same people who cant work them properly, and are thus contributing to the lack of food in Zimbabwe?

That's not exactly true. No country can "feed itself". Britain doesn't "feed itself". If Zimbabwe is starving it's not because of the incompetence of its workers. Most Brits can't kill a cow or grow a potato so by your logic we'd be starving too.

Zimbabwe need more popular control, not less.

More likely that bourgeois interests in Zimbabwe do not have the intention of meeting social need, and Mugabe protects them. As long as private property remains, then effectively, price controls will just lead to under-production, and subsidies and tariffs iwll just lead to inflation.

So Zimbabwe needs a socialist revolution, not the kind of imperialist "capitalsit penetration" you keep calling for, across the world. People are starving in plenty of country's that haven't had land redistribution, you know. And also, land distribution was demanded by the workers and peasants because they wer ebeing deprived of the fruits of their country. This led to them being embargoed by the rest of the world. That is NOT their fault. They could have the best skilled farmers int he world,t hey'd still be going hungry, because of forced denial of access to markets.

[Lenin II]

Yes, imperialism is bad, but in this case the "victim of imperialism" is a raging homophobe and a racist too. I'm all for supporting the Zimbabwean people, but not a dick like Mugabe.
So a victim of imperialism is only a victim of imperialism if he is not racist or homophobic? Well, there goes Hamas and the liberation of Palestine, Iran and the resistance of the Middle East, Hezbollah and Lebanon, Syria, the insurgency and Iraq.

I think it's ridiculous that we're supposed to support these leaders just because they're anti-US,
Isn’t that enough? Anyway, it’s not just anti-U.S., its anti-imperialist.

regardless of whether or not they are oppressors too. Mugabe is a reactionary homophobe, it's that simple.
Here we go again with the “blaming the victims of imperialism first for being reactionary” bullshit. Help the bourgeoisie out a little more if you can. All this is being deployed against the overwhelmingly supported ‘black’ leaders of Zimbabwe who are unarguably, some if not the most, long-term oppressed, victimized and astonishingly inspiring brave, resilient anti-imperialist revolutionary fighters on earth.

The idea that we should tolerate and support reactionaries just because they oppose imperialism is absurd.
Referring to a state or a movement as anti-imperialist is not a moral judgment, nor is it some kind of implication that such states or armies would not pursue imperialism under different material/geopolitical conditions. It simply means, dialectically, materialistically, they play an anti-imperialist role as of now. What is important for us is not whether or not these movements are “cuddly enough” to be our “buddies,” but whether or not they oppose imperialism in ALL ITS FORMS!

Should we support the New Black Panther Party just because they oppose racism against black communities, even if they themselves are reactionary?
We can sit behind our monitors in our warm apartments and talk about how the revolution should be fought, but the reality is that revolution is not a perfect situation and if Mugabe and the NBPP are able to dispose of monarchy, dispose of fuedalism, and dispose of imperialism, they are the representatives of oppressed classes and a continuation of the revolution.

If you browse Stormfront you'll find plenty of posts against Zionism and Imperialism, but it doesn't make those people any less reactionary or worthy of our opposition.
This is an extremely weak comparison. Simply because they are against the Iraq war does NOT make them anti-imperialist. In fact, fascists by definition support an aggressive foreign policy or outright isolationism. Their nationalism as well makes them pro-imperialist since their identities are defined by birth to an imperialist nation. They have no problems with killing Arabs, they just think it’s an unwinnable war since Muslims are savage animals. And yes they do not like Israel, but once again not because of the Palestinians, but because it is Jewish and they think it controls the American government.

Are these the same people who cant work them properly, and are thus contributing to the lack of food in Zimbabwe?
Side-stepping the argument, are we? Those UNGRATEFUL African scum! How dare they seek to “own” the land that they were born to when they don’t have the skills to govern their own nation due to years of oppression and apartheid! The NERVE!

And look where thats left them. The people are starving and the government suppresses any homegrown oppossition to itself. Mugabe sure is a great anti-Colonialist, but what difference does that make when his people are starving and cant get him out of power due to the corrupt election system that he has implemented? Never mind the starving Zimbabwean people, because your leader is an anti-Colonialist!
There seems to be little difference between the main big bourgeoisie propaganda and Stormfront white nationalist opinion about Zimbabwe’s history and the petty-bourgeoisie ‘left’ attacks around this site.

What exactly do you mean by "anti-Colonialist"? Surely you mean economic Imperialism by the west, because i dont see a desire on the part of white people to go and colonize old Rhodesia again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7100737.stm

[spartan]

The HU supporting homophobes, racists and sexists just because they are "anti-Imperialist, now why doesnt this surprise me (Especially after one of Kromando33's posts in which he described the fighting against the oppression of minorities as being "worthless")?

Mugabe isnt anti-Imperialist, he is simply a Dictator who is desperate to hold on to power, which he has done via the intimidation of the oppossition, the rigging of elections and recently accusing German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, of racism when she critiscised his regime (Who didnt see that one coming with her being German and all).

I feel really sorry for the Zimbabwean people, who have to suffer under this incompetent idiot and his regime, but i really am indifferent as to whatever the west ends up doing to Mugabe, because, the way things are going, anything is better than what he is doing to Zimbabwe right now.

And that ladies and gentleman is simply the truth!

[Lenin II]

I feel really sorry for the Zimbabwean people, who have to suffer under this incompetent idiot and his regime, but i really am indifferent as to whatever the west ends up doing to Mugabe, because, the way things are going, anything is better than what he is doing to Zimbabwe right now.
Ladies and Gentlemen, spartan the imperialist shows his true colors!

[spartan]

I feel really sorry for the Zimbabwean people, who have to suffer under this incompetent idiot and his regime, but i really am indifferent as to whatever the west ends up doing to Mugabe, because, the way things are going, anything is better than what he is doing to Zimbabwe right now.

Ladies and Gentlemen, spartan the imperialist shows his true colors!

So in which part of that post did i say "support" exactly?

Learn to read English properly next time you dumbass, as i said "indifferent"! (i.e. i couldnt give a shit, like most revleft members outside of the HU).

That was a nice try, but you should really try harder next time.

[Ismail]

You've pretty much equated yourself with him by refusing to call for independent working class organisation with an immediate view to overthrowing him.For the same reason I wouldn't immediately call for an independent working class organization to overthrow Mandela in 1994, or an independent working class organization to overthrow (insert pseudo-revolutionary but still anti-colonial movement here while in infancy)

Mainly because revolution does not simply consist of a bunch of workers saying "Yeah, things suck, let's overthrow the government!" within the span of two minutes. If there was a genuine working class movement with the goal of overthrowing Mugabe then I'd be fine with that, but right now there isn't and calls for his overthrow are nothing more than "Mugabe is a dictator, US/UK media say overthrow is good!"


What that makes your brand of "Marxism Leninism" I don't know, but it appears indistinguishable from Mugabe's style of bourgeois democracy.Go look at how things were done under Enver Hoxha, then look at how things are being done under Robert Mugabe and then get back to me, thanks.


Why? Have you not heard of Bonapartism?We do not support him as a Marxist, we support him as an anti-colonial leader. He's always had a bourgeois streak, but his anti-colonialist streak is much bigger.


The HU supporting homophobes, racists and sexists just because they are "anti-Imperialist"Homophobia is common in African countries. Sexism is too, although a government tolerating sexism is not certainly not good since sexism is mainly a local problem, nor is a government tolerating racism a good thing. However I have not seen evidence that points to Mugabe being either racist nor sexist. The President (before he himself became President) was Rev. Banana, so you can expect them to not be on very good terms with homosexuals.


Mugabe isnt anti-Imperialist,Correct, he's anti-colonialist although he certainly isn't in a position to be an imperialist.


he is simply a Dictator who is desperate to hold on to power,Explain how he has complete control over everything and can bypass the legislative branch. Also, wanting to hold onto power =/= dictator. Didn't Jean Chrétien want to hold onto power too?


and recently accusing German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, of racism when she critiscised his regimeMaybe because she was saying that the land reform shouldn't of happened had something to do with it.


but i really am indifferent as to whatever the west ends up doing to Mugabe, because, the way things are going, anything is better than what he is doing to Zimbabwe right now.What? Are being people burned alive? Is Mugabe declaring that all children be shot or something? Zimbabwe is facing an economic crisis, but it isn't like it's mass starvation and people dying all over with a life expectancy of 40.


And that ladies and gentleman is simply the truth!"Next week on the History channel...."


Learn to read English properly next time you dumbass, as i said "indifferent"! (i.e. i couldnt give a shit, like most revleft members outside of the HU).You clearly don't like Mugabe nor the current Zimbabwean government and as you said, you view any government as being better than the current one. This means you do, in fact, support a west-sponsored regime change.

[spartan]

You clearly don't like Mugabe nor the current Zimbabwean government and as you said, you view any government as being better than the current one.

Where did i say that most governments are better than Zimbabwe's?


This means you do, in fact, support a west-sponsored regime change.

Do i?

Thats news to me!

Look up the definition of the words "indifferent" (Which is what i said) and "support" (Which is what you are accusing me of), and lets see if you come back and still accuse me of supporting a western sponsered regime change in Zimbabwe?

[Ismail]

Where did i say that most governments are better than Zimbabwe's?

but i really am indifferent as to whatever the west ends up doing to Mugabe, because, the way things are going, anything is better than what he is doing to Zimbabwe right now.What is this?

[spartan]

Where did i say that most governments are better than Zimbabwe's?

but i really am indifferent as to whatever the west ends up doing to Mugabe, because, the way things are going, anything is better than what he is doing to Zimbabwe right now.

What is this?

I never mentioned anything about different styles of government being better in that post!

All i did was to simply state a fact.

Zimbabwe is dying a slow death under Mugabe, both economically and politically, so it is simply in the peoples best intrests that they get rid of the problem (Which is Mugabe and his regime).

The alternative is that they stay as they are and eventually end up starving to death.

[Ismail]

Zimbabwe is dying a slow death under Mugabe, both economically and politically,Then how do we solve the "politically" problem without a different system of government?


so it is simply in the peoples best intrests that they get rid of the problem (Which is Mugabe and his regime).And replace it with a new government system, apparently one that isn't a "dictatorship". Of course if you aren't stating that you would prefer just about any other government system to Zimbabwe's current one, then you must identify every head of state ever of any nation as a "dictator".

[spartan]

And replace it with a new government system, apparently one that isn't a "dictatorship". Of course if you aren't stating that you would prefer just about any other government system to Zimbabwe's current one, then you must identify every head of state ever of any nation as a "dictator".

I dont mean replace the government system in Zimbabwe, i meant replace Mugabe and his cronies and make sure that they never again are involved in the Zimbabwean government system.

Apart from Mugabes corrupt choke hold on it, the governing system in Zimbabwe is fine.

What would make it even better is if they had a leader who doesnt let his old fashioned pride get in the way of his peoples desire for prosperity and happiness.

You simply cant deny that Mugabe is a huge part of the problem.

Under his leadership, Zimbabwe has gone from being the bread basket of Africa, to now being a homeless begger.

And yet you would still happily support this reactionary fool, who is head of a Capitalist state, just because he is "anti-Colonialist"!

A fat load of good Mugabe being anti-Colonialist is going to do for the Zimbabwean people.

[Zurdito]

For the same reason I wouldn't immediately call for an independent working class organization to overthrow Mandela in 1994

that's odd then. I personally wouldn't have supproted Mandela even then.

Independent working class organisationw ith an immediate view to overthrowing the stae is not the same thing as arguing that the overthrow of the state should happen immediately btw. Let's be clear on that.


or an independent working class organization to overthrow (insert pseudo-revolutionary but still anti-colonial movement here while in infancy

"infancy"? Now you're justbeing silly. Of all the "Hoxhaists", I always thought you were by far the most honest and fact based, but to say ZANU-PF is in its infancy is laughable.


Mainly because revolution does not simply consist of a bunch of workers saying "Yeah, things suck, let's overthrow the government!" within the span of two minutes.

thanks for letting me know.:rolleyes:


If there was a genuine working class movement with the goal of overthrowing Mugabe then I'd be fine with that,

ummm, your duty as a marxist is to help create genuine revolutionary movements. Otherwise hwy even call yourself a marxist? You might as well just call yourself a ZANU-PF supporter and be done with it.


but right now there isn't and calls for his overthrow are nothing more than "Mugabe is a dictator, US/UK media say overthrow is good!"

really? So the masses who support the Zimbabwean opposition are nothing more than that?


Go look at how things were done under Enver Hoxha, then look at how things are being done under Robert Mugabe and then get back to me, thanks.

but yet you support Mugabe, so maybe I should just judge by what you actually support and what you actually fight for, not some ideal which you fossilise in time but do not even call for in relation to actually existing struggles.

[Ismail]

I dont mean replace the government system in Zimbabwe, i meant replace Mugabe and his cronies and make sure that they never again are involved in the Zimbabwean government system.You are advocating foreign intervention by an imperialist superpower.


What would make it even better is if they had a leader who doesnt let his old fashioned pride get in the way of his peoples desire for prosperity and happiness.Pride? He is an anti-colonialist leader, his people support him for that. He has continuously stated that sanctions and so on are the cause of problems.


You simply cant deny that Mugabe is a huge part of the problem.Of course, the British got angry when he began giving land back to those who deserved it. Mugabe has played a huge part in Zimbabwean history, especially since he, you know, was always at the forefront of it and helped found the damned thing.


Under his leadership, Zimbabwe has gone from being the bread basket of Africa, to now being a homeless begger.Sanctions.


And yet you would still happily support this reactionary fool, who is head of a Capitalist state, just because he is "anti-Colonialist"!So white land owners should still be able to exploit lands in a racist manner?

And now Zurdito:


that's odd then. I personally wouldn't have supproted Mandela even then.So you are outright not at all interested in anti-colonialism, which is what a majority of the people in that area actually cared about. A good way to show that you care for a group of people is to actually link your struggles with theirs, and their struggle was to achieve independence.


"infancy"? Now you're justbeing silly. Of all the "Hoxhaists", I always thought you were by far the most honest and fact based, but to say ZANU-PF is in its infancy is laughable.I was talking about when Mandela just came into power in 1994, not the ZANU-PF which has been around since Zimbabwe's independence in 1980. I also was talking about movements in Angola, Algeria, and so on that weren't exactly Marxist-Leninist.


ummm, your duty as a marxist is to help create genuine revolutionary movements.Anti-colonialism makes one conscious of their surroundings. (or damn well helps) Ergo it helps with the creation of a revolutionary movement as it allows one to say "Now, why was this land made into a colony to begin with?"


Otherwise hwy even call yourself a marxist? You might as well just call yourself a ZANU-PF supporter and be done with it.I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, historical materialism, dialectical materialism, that history is of class struggles, that a classless society organized on a Communist basis is the best, that capitalism as all societies built on class is temporary and so on. Ergo I am a Marxist.


really? So the masses who support the Zimbabwean opposition are nothing more than that?Considering most of the opposition seems to not agree with land reform much and the ones that are actually Communist seem to be of the type that don't understand what role the European nations are playing in Zimbabwe's economy, yes.

[spartan]

You are advocating foreign intervention by an imperialist superpower.

No i am not!

The Zimbabwean people should get rid of Mugabe themselves.

The trouble is everytime they try to get rid of him, Mugabe rigs elections, intimidates the opposition and intimidates people into voting for him to stay in power.

[Ismail]

How does this happen?

[Zurdito]

So you are outright not at all interested in anti-colonialism, which is what a majority of the people in that area actually cared about.

Of course I am interested in anti-colonialism. I'd have supported the ANC against apartheid like I support any Palestinian fighting Israeli apartheid, any Iraqi fighting the occupation, etc. However that doesn't mean I politically support the leadership of those struggles in their internal struggle to coerce their own working class.


A good way to show that you care for a group of people is to actually link your struggles with theirs, and their struggle was to achieve independence.

I agree. I also agree when the shoe is on the other foot, and the masses are struggling against a stalinist or bonpaartist dictator. Even if the oppositon is led by charlatans, that does not make the sentiment of the masses wrong.



I was talking about when Mandela just came into power in 1994, not the ZANU-PF which has been around since Zimbabwe's independence in 1980. I also was talking about movements in Angola, Algeria, and so on that weren't exactly Marxist-Leninist.


so if it doesn't apply to ZANU PF why would you say it? I'm confused.


Anti-colonialism makes one conscious of their surroundings. (or damn well helps) Ergo it helps with the creation of a revolutionary movement as it allows one to say "Now, why was this land made into a colony to begin with?"

correct.


I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, historical materialism, dialectical materialism, that history is of class struggles, that a classless society organized on a Communist basis is the best, that capitalism as all societies built on class is temporary and so on. Ergo I am a Marxist.

you apear to believe in it as an ideal, but not in practice.


Considering most of the opposition seems to not agree with land reform much and the ones that are actually Communist seem to be of the type that don't understand what role the European nations are playing in Zimbabwe's economy, yes

aain, the struggle of the masses needs to be differentiated from the bourgeois charlatans who momentarily have the leadership of those struggles.

The world is not simply divided up into pro-Mugabe anti-colonialists, and anti-Mugabe colonialists. That sounds like something straight out of a dictator's propaganda booklet. If Mugabe was that much of a threaat to imeprialism, he would be gone by now.

I'll ask you, does Mugabe have the potential to qualitatively change the condition of the Zimbabwean state as it stands, from bourgeois-bonpartist, to workers state? Does his movement possess the necessarry contradictions to be forced leftwards, eventually rupturing, and leading to a revolutionary situation? If so, where is the evidence of this? He has been in power for years and the working class is not strengthened, in fact it seems now that any manifestation is banned unless it is controlled by the government. Seeing as a bonpartist only exists when the clas struggle cannot be resolved one way or another and therefore someone is needed to "rise above the classes", how can a bonapartist leader who has effectively disempowered the working class be providing any further pgoressive potential. He has effectively served the boourgeoisie's counter-revolutionary purposes.

And yes, I defend Zimbabwe against any foreign influence. The Zimbabwean working class can oppsoe Zimbabwe and imperialism.In fact the Americans have backed Mugabe before against more radical elements, and would do again if the masses threatened to take power. If Mugabe is kicked out to be replaced by more overly pro-bourgeois leaders, it will be because he effectively paved the way for them, like a nice bureaucratic lackey.

[Lenin II]

ummm, your duty as a marxist is to help create genuine revolutionary movements. Otherwise hwy even call yourself a marxist? You might as well just call yourself a ZANU-PF supporter and be done with it.
The point he was making is that there are no genuine revolutionary movements to support. And yes, it is his “duty as a Marxist” to support revolutionary movements, as well as anti-imperialist movements, which was the point we were making. That is why we side with Mugabe against the imperialists in the first place.

really? So the masses who support the Zimbabwean opposition are nothing more than that?
No, spartan is nothing more than that. And many of the mass movements of Zimbabwe are more counter-revolutionary than ZANU.

The Zimbabwean people should get rid of Mugabe themselves.
That’s not what you said at all.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Zurdito, there is no genuine Marxist party or sizable socialist opposition of immediate relevance, but maybe if you go over there and start a Trotskyist party and show them the shining light of true revolutionism, they will abandon all reactionary inhibitions.

You might go to sleep at night and fell more principled than anyone else, but it nevertheless will get you nowhere. It might seem right, in your sectarian pocket-book, to criticize third world nationalists for not being "right" enough. The "truth," however, is not what is prescribed for Zimbabweans by first-world 'socialists', it is their role in their geo-political surroundings to push out the deadly grip of colonialism and Western domination, which is still present in Africa today.

Africa is exploited still today -- agricultural labor has been subsumed by world capital and is grown for sale on the world market, raw materials are shipped to 'second world' countries at the expense of cheap labor (i.e. developing economies), and pools of abundant resources and land are expropriated by transnational trading blocs. The level of calories obtained yearly, as well as the infant mortality rate and average year of death amongst males and females, is indicative of the effects of imperialism on all African countries. The 'domino theory' applies to the continent however, in that if Zimbabwe breaks away, the solid trade and military pacts that once stabilized the region for foreign investors would be broken, and a "chain in the link of imperialism" would fall off.

The objective conditions on the ground show that all sympathy for whatever 'opposition' there is would be beneficial to Anglo-American imperialism. Before anything closely resembling socialism is achieved, the greater enemy of foreign capital must be confronted.

[Xiao Banfa]

Exactly. What some members have failed to address is the indisputable reality that african nationalists harm imperialist interests.

Why do you think that the US, UK and EU have been screaming about the poor little white farmers getting a few beatings?

Why do you think there was that massive emphasis on pulling down the squatter housing when that sort thing happens all the time in the imperialist dominated third world and on a drastically larger scale?

The carnage in Rwanda which the UN ignored not to mention the DRC war never produced this kind of high-intensity propaganda campaign, this relentless effort to demonize Mugabe as an evil lunatic.

It's disgusting.

If the childish idealists will accept nothing less than a gay friendly council communist in Africa, then I worry about their understanding of how progressive change works.

[Zurdito]

I understand the logic of what you are all saying, it's not like you've all just reinvented the wheel, that has all been standard stalinist propaganda for 70 years.

However it's been proved false by the fact that none of these left-bonparartist (being generous because nearly of all the ones stalinists have supported over time have been out and out bonapartist, but I will be generous because in fact the same applies to left-bonapartists) and stalinist regimes which we have been told are in the process of overthrowing imperialism have in fact ever done so, in fact all they have done is 1.) end the revolutionary situation by executing the leaders of the working class and repressing forms of popular expression, 2.)peacefully co-exist with imperialism for a while whilst collaborating with explicitly anti-working class forces in the imperialist states (ie Gadaffi giving money to the BNP and now being good friends with Bush and Brown, the Soviet Union trading heavily with anti-working class and objectively pro-imperialist regimes across the world such as the 1976-83 Junta in Argentina which nationalised the private debt and bonded the country to the IMF and neo-liberalism for the next 30 years, just to give two random examples of the many out these), and then 3.) reinstate capitalism.

That is the tried and tested formula of both your stalinist and your "left"-bonapartist revolutions. That is why you are ideologically and poltically bankrupt today.

Now it's not me who is comforting myself with fantasies so I can go to sleep peacefully at night. I am not the one who is justifying a comfortable compromise with bureaucracy, third-world cbourgeois and, by extension, global capitalism, whilst telling myself that it will all lead to the defeat of imperialism in some distant, undefined future.

Also, it's not me who is sectarian. I don't deny support to the Zimbabwean masses who are objectively fighting a class war against their bourgeoisie, simply because they do not have an already developed marxist consciousness. I support the masses, even when their consciousness is not fully developed, due to the fact that democratic demands and calling for social-democratic reforms are a key part of the empowerment of the masses, and the masses need to be supproted int his journey, and led to the logical conclusion, which is socialism. You people on the other hand state that you would support them if they were fully revolutionary, oh but there are no fuilly revolutionary groups in Zimbabwe, so I guess we can just forget them. How convenient. And how do you expect these revolutionary groups to arise? Will they just pop up one day? It's you lot who do recognise the course the class struggle takes, not me.

And please don't patronise me by telling me Africa is exploited by imperialism. Obviously I know that. I have not called for imeprialist intervention. I in fact call for the expropriation of all the imperialists property as part of this class struggle of the masses, hwever, I do not expect them to reach that level of consciousnes unaided and without first scoring transitional victories.

[Xiao Banfa]

Ghaddafi wouldn't have sold out if there was still a Soviet Union.

It's the global rollback of the workers states that have led to such humiliating conditions which third world nationalists have responded to by cutting their losses (ie giving up on a nuclear deterrent and abandoning aid to anti-imperialist forces around the world) so they can have some respite in which to preserve some form of strength.

A lot of space in which third world revolutionaries could manoeuver was achieved by the existence of the USSR.
Sure, there were less desirable types like Nasser and Ghaddafi who benefited from this but there were also more democratic and expicitly socialist forces which achieved victories.

Amilcar Cabral, Thomas Sankara and Maurice Bishop were some better examples.

Today, we get exited about Chavez doing a bit of Keynesian nationalisation here and there because of the demoralising order of the post soviet age, but during the cold war that would have been seen as fairly moderate.

Socialist forces had a lot more space to go a lot further.

In the absense of a USSR the former anti-imperialists feel the need to engage more with global capitalism and to normalise diplomatically.
This is to be expected, I don't completely agree with it however.



However it's been proved false by the fact that none of these left-bonparartist and stalinist regimes which we have been told are in the process of overthrowing imperialism have in fact ever done so, in fact all they have done is 1.) end the revolutionary situation by executing the leaders of the working class and repressing forms of popular expression

Yes, unlike some the hoxhaist comrades, am not a stalinist and I criticise this. However where is the well organised, democratic, mass movement carrying out the anti- imperialist tasks such as nationalisation and war against imperialism?

It was the stalinist/nationalists who were doing this, and in this I would have stood shoulder to shoulder to with them.

There were no Trotskyists to really speak of, they'd been marginalised- due to, in my understanding, their lack of acceptance of the significance of the peasantry in fighting the revolutionary national liberation war and their physical liquidation by the NLF.



2.)peacefully co-exist with imperialism for a while whilst collaborating with explicitly anti-working class forces in the imperialist states (ie Gadaffi giving money to the BNP and now being good friends with Bush and Brown, the Soviet Union trading heavily with anti-working class and objectively pro-imperialist regimes across the world such as the 1976-83 Junta in Argentina which nationalised the private debt and bonded the country to the IMF and neo-liberalism for the next 30 years, just to give two random examples of the many out these)

Peaceful co-existence with the capitalist states was a diplomatic position aimed at preventing a nuclear attack on the USSR.
I can understand this while I'm hesitant about fully supporting it.
This had nothing to do with some kind of conspiracy between the ruling circles of the USSR and the the capitalist countries to oppress the workers and oppressed peoples of the world.

With some exceptions (the execution-worthy Gorbachev being one) the soviets were pretty happy to see some form of socialism triumph in the third world. They greatly extended themselves to see it happen.

Yes, Ghaddafi was stupid to give money to the BNP, he's not the most level headed guy in the world- it's not possible for all your allies to act sensibly.

I'd say that was more an example of stupidity that an evil conspiracy, however.

As for the USSR trading with unsavoury regimes- everybody trades with everybody, it's how economies stay afloat. Chavez trades oil with the US, the most vicious imperialist the world has ever seen, but if he doesn't how in the fuck is he going to grow his economy, his movements power and influence? However, if he cuts off his nose to spite his face, is he going to have any hope of contributing to the weakening of imperialism?

The USSR wasn't responsible for Argentina taking the neoliberal path.


and then 3.) reinstate capitalism.

For a not-for profit economy whether it is under bureacratic control or workers control is not going to be able to compete militarily with a a capitalist profit-driven growth economy.
A capitalist economy is simply more able to produce more weapons and it has less scruples about tearing around the globe and engaging in sordid acts of economic penetration.:)

There is a built in advantage.

Also the siege socialist economy which produced the degeneration of the democratic life of the USSR and the bloated bureaucracy meant that traitorous elements in the USSR unfortunately arose and weren't purged viciously enough.

It was a hard game, the USSR lost. But it could have gone the other way, then there would have been more room for democratisation without the threat of imperialist subterfuge and aggression.

[Labor Shall Rule]

If working class currents were stronger, they would easily of thrown off the 'tinpot' dictators of the third-world. Their defeat shows that conditions were not ripe yet for socialism, and that the struggle would take years longer to ensure victory. And yes, as a Marxist, you can't expect someone with objective truth to come around with the correct 'set of ideas' and suddenly have a mass following — revolutionary organizations do "just pop up one day," they are formed at a stage where the working class is at its strongest point as far as organization and technical and economic training is concerned. Not only that, but many members of the working class were 'weekend warriors' for many guerrilla movements, in that they supported its operations somehow, no matter if they were involved in trade union activity or not.

The class struggle begins in the 'post-colonial' countries as soon as the fetters of feudalism and imperialist monopoly capital are thrown off. It couldn't start in any other way.

I would agree that Ghaddafi's turn to reactionary parties in the first-world was directly related to the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an inspiration to the oppressed masses that a colony could throw off the yokes of its masters and become a developed country. And revolutionaries knew that if they managed to toss out their ruling class, the USSR was there, ready and able, to deliver military and development aid and to help their country economically survive. Cuba, Libya, and North Korea could be dismembered and destroyed within a seconds now.