Results 21 to 40 of 77
it's not like the BBC to let the truth get in the way of a good story... :/
And there I thought that socialists were in favour of abolishing private 'ownership' of land?
While I'm not going to complain at the dismantling of the settler monopoly on land, there is little progressive about a re-entrenchment of small peasant farming
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
Laugh how the picture of the "victimised" white farmer is meant to draw sympathy, anyone with any knowledge of Zimbabwes past would have little sympathy for the former colonial ruling class.
First of all I'm surprised you can advocate the expropriation of land from any class on the grounds that it 'belongs' to a different ethnic group.
Just as there is no such thing as 'white' land there is no such thing as 'black' land.
Here's a scenario, East Prussia was incorporated into Poland after the end of WWI and WWII, many consider East Prussia to be 'German' land, would you, on this basis, advocate that Polish workers be evicted from their homes and be replaced by Germans?
East Prussia is just as much German land as Zimbabwe is the land of any.
so basically rostern, whites can go pillage africe, stay there 20 years, and their plunder is legitimate?
If i break into your house, kill your family for resisting, then stay there for two decades, do you have no right to get that room back to live in, cos time legitimises this, or because there is no such thing as family land?
How did you find a justification for imperialism in my post? Really, I'd be interested to see how you'd explain that.
Nobody should be treated according to their race, or what their ancestors did, they should be treated according to class and they should not have their land expropriated due to their race.
I'm not pro-private ownership of land, per se. But Zimbabwe is far from being a Socialist country in the first place. In fact, I would argue that it's closer to being feudalist than capitalist. So there's a lot that Zimbabwe needs to do before we come along into Socialist-styled politics.
The word "feudalist" no longer means a damn thing anymore. Too many people have abused it and now it's broken.
How would you take Zimbabwe's current economic status? Granted, there's no present Monarchy, and the controlling of lands is no longer present since President Mugabe's land reform took place, but there'll always be a long process between each socio-economic transfer.
Frankly I see no reason not to call it capitalist, it's just that it's dominated by agriculture. The economy has traditionally been dominated by cash crops like cotton or tobacco, and that of course means it's been on the bottom rung developmentally because an economy which produces raw materials and relies on imports for it's industrial goods is not going to have a healthy trade balance.
Zimbabwe is a country locked in the grip of a decolonization struggle.
^Even if so, it would only be under the early stages of capitalism. In which, even at that, my comments on such still stand that Socialist-styled politics isn't exactly ready to be enacted in Zimbabwe. The first step, clearly, was to take back land away from European colonialists. If this wasn't to take place, then Socialism would be much further away than it is today.
There's little point in being programmatic about revolution or about socialism - Zimbabwe is a colonized state. It's unlikely to progress to an industrialized state without local intervention because it's a raw materials provider and market for first world industrial goods. It won't be allowed to reach that higher stage, in other words.
What of Native Americans who were guaranteed their reservation lands (for giving up their home lands, of course) by treaties? I ask this in the sense that Native identity is tied directly to the land and often specific landmarks. Yes, they don't "own" the land. But if you take that from them, you continue the destruction of their identities.
[FONT=Georgia]Hunger's the best sauce, and since that's one thing the poor are never without, we always enjoy our food.- Teresa Panza (Don Quixote)
La libertad es como la mañana. Hay quienes esperan dormidos a que llegue, pero hay quienes desvelan y caminan la noche para alcanzarla.- Subcomandante Marcos
When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is just, yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die. And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about justice.- Mumia Abu-Jamal[/FONT]
And how will entrenching peasant farming prove to be any way progressive?
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
How would allowing European colonialism to continue show any progress? To claim such acts are not progressive is ignorant.
You haven't answered my question. What is progressive about strengthening the peasantry?
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
It's a step away from European colonialism, and a step towards social-democracy. That's progressive in itself.
And this "step towards social-democracy" is...?
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
The left is not defined by analogies devoid of class.
Ah, the "stages theory". Look, Russia had a tiny working class when it had the first socialist revolution so already your theory of Zimbabwe needing to go through stages is proven wrong. What separates revolutionaries from reformists is the end goal. Socialist politics is obviously pro-decolonization, but if we have decolonization without socialist politics, it is only going to go back into neo-colonialism, which has been the problem with all of Africa's countries since decolonization began. The African ruling classes are imitating the European model because they inherited it; that is why the borders of today's countries in Africa were drawn by the colonizing powers. Decolonization has already happened across Africa but it is still in crisis precisely because there has not been enough socialist politics, and people like you are making excuses for the postponement of authentic revolution: a complete break with the capitalist/colonial heritage.
