BBC admits: Zimbabwe land reform ‘not a failure’

[Robocommie]

And how will entrenching peasant farming prove to be any way progressive?

I love how incredibly teleological Revleft gets with it's "regressive" and "progressive" labeling. The idea that development runs along a singular track, like some kind of rail car perpetually stuck on a single course, is so ridiculous. Marx himself rejected it. Historical materialism is not a bound progression of how things MUST be, but rather how things were. It's a tool for understanding history, not a recipe for revolution.

[Agnapostate]

I saw a L.A. Times front page article the other day that reiterated this idea of black farmers possessing insufficient human capital (i.e., education, skills, etc.), as applied to South Africa. In both Zimbabwe and South Africa, this idea did not seem credible to me because even when farms were white-owned, the black majority population was responsible for the actual labor that maintained crops. There was a claim made that the majority of black beneficiaries of white expropriations were former members of the urban proletariat, which seems somewhat more credible as an explanation for failure, but perhaps someone can shed light on that also. Even this article did state that former farm hands on white-owned properties only constituted a small percentage of the new owners.

I've never met anyone with an overwhelmingly positive view of the Mugabe administration so much as a mixed positive view, so would the individuals here supporting that regime condemn Operation Murambatsvina?

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.

I don't believe many people here would object to the presence of whites as equal partners in socialist cooperatives, but their status is overwhelmingly that of capitalist landowners, as blacks' status is that of lower-class workers. If there is simply a general association between racial and economic background, then it's not surprising that some people would use rhetoric that targeted whites, because it simply is a fact that Western Europeans have been responsible for the majority of global colonialism in the past 500 years.

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.

Are there ethnic Germans that are severely disenfranchised by the presence of ethnic Poles in the region? Is there some residual distributive injustice that causes Poles to gain at the cost of Germans, with most Germans in East Prussia serving as peasant farm hands under Poles? I think not; Germany is rather affluent, not least because of the incorporation of quasi-cooperative elements into the Rhine capitalist economy.

[Robocommie]

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.

Cheers, that's my analysis as well.

[Robocommie]

residual distributive injustice

HOT. I like the term.

[ComradeOm]

I love how incredibly teleological Revleft gets with it's "regressive" and "progressive" labeling. The idea that development runs along a singular track, like some kind of rail car perpetually stuck on a single course, is so ridiculous. Marx himself rejected it. Historical materialism is not a bound progression of how things MUST be, but rather how things were. It's a tool for understanding history, not a recipe for revolution.

I suppose you have no time for class analysis either? This has nothing to do with 'stagism' and everything with a simple understanding of class interests

And if you want to show me just where Marx expressed a positive opinion of the peasantry...

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Applying a policy of "No one should be penalized based on race!" to the Zimbabwe situation is the most liberal nonsense I've ever heard. If I invade your home, take all of your shit into the best bedrooms, move my family in, and then decide I'll only give you your own home and shit back if you buy it gradually from me, wouldn't you be completely justified in kicking my ass? What if my kid grows up in the house after I leave and no serious transfer of property or possessions has taken place? My kid says "Hey man, I just live here. I've lived here my whole life. Sorry, but this shit's mine." In my view--and I would hope the entire view of the left--you would agree that you would be justified in kicking my kid out of your own house and taking back your own shit, especially because I violated our agreement that I would give the shit back in the first place.

Your analogy is flawed. The black people whose land was taken by whites in Zimbabwe in the 1800s are long dead, and that's why you are in error. It would be perfectly valid if the black people whose land was taken were alive now. In fact, some of the Zimbabwean whites' ancestors bought the land from other whites who obtained it from some blacks; your solution takes that away from the white families living there now and returns it to blacks whose ancestors need never have owned it in the first place.

At any rate, "this land was our ancestors' a long time ago, so it belongs to me, even though you and your family have been here for a very long time" is an argument made by the Zionists in 1948. It's still being made by the funamentalist Jews taking Arab land when settling the West Bank.

I agree with the idea that excess land should be expropriated from wealthy land-owning capitalists in order to promote the well-being of more farmers and, therefore, the nation as a whole, but this process should be undertaken regardless of the race or ancestry of the individuals involved.

White people born in Zimbabwe are as Zimbabwean as any black person. Their colonialist white ancestors did commit terrible wrongs against the native people in the past, but there is no temporal collective responsibility that passes down from generation to generation. If one of your ancestors raped a woman or killed a child, you do not bear the guilt and you do not face the penalty. This is an abstract principle that also makes a ton of practical sense -- else all of us we would be paying back on an individual basis for the wrongs committed generations ago right and left.

Zimbabwe should have expropriated its capitalist landowners (mostly rich whites, anyway) and given their land to the poor majority (mostly poor blacks, anyway).

Mugabe is not Marxist, but an unprincipled populist literally buying the continued loyalty of his old supporters in order to shore up his corrupt nationalist regime.

[Agnapostate]

Your analogy is flawed. The black people whose land was taken by whites in Zimbabwe in the 1800s are long dead, and that's why you are in error. It would be perfectly valid if the black people whose land was taken were alive now...White people born in Zimbabwe are as Zimbabwean as any black person. Their colonialist white ancestors did commit terrible wrongs against the native people in the past, but there is no temporal collective responsibility that passes down from generation to generation. If one of your ancestors raped a woman or killed a child, you do not bear the guilt and you do not face the penalty. This is an abstract principle that also makes a ton of practical sense -- else all of us we would be paying back on an individual basis for the wrongs committed generations ago right and left.

Theft is distinct from rape and murder in that it entails property transfer through unjust acquisition, and can result in the aforementioned residual distributive injustice even when later inheritors lack personal complicity. Reparations are a matter of compensatory relief, not punitive retaliation. The simplest analogy that I use is that if Smith steals Jones's valuables and passes them down to his grandson John, leaving Jones's grandson James poor, John's lack of personal complicity does not change the fact that James has been wronged, and should possess the valuables by right of inheritance.

It's no matter if expropriation would harm us or those close to us personally; it must be undertaken. My mother's cousin's family is among the Guatemalan upper class. She was on the Supreme Court, and her husband owns at least eighteen houses. Let me be the first to say that they ought to have their holdings expropriated by the Mayan majority.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Theft is distinct from rape and murder in that it entails property transfer through unjust acquisition, and can result in the aforementioned residual distributive injustice even when later inheritors lack personal complicity. Reparations are a matter of compensatory relief, not punitive retaliation. The simplest analogy that I use is that if Smith steals Jones's valuables and passes them down to his grandson John, leaving Jones's grandson James poor, John's lack of personal complicity does not change the fact that James has been wronged, and should possess the valuables by right of inheritance.

You're right, theft is distinct from rape, but I still think that the same principle is applicable in this kind of case. If James is still alive, he should take back the valuables, even if they have been passed down to Smith's son because they are his.

In the case where Smith and Jones are both dead, my position is that Jones' son should not claim the property from Smith's son.

Now -- you may disagree with the above evaluation, but you surely have to admit that in this case we do not even necessarily know whose ancestors had the land originally. You don't think that the people who got land from Mugabe actually had to prove that their ancestors owned it at some point? Not every Zimbabwean black person before the British colonization was a land owner, and no demonstration that you had land-owning black ancestors is now necessary -- the whole thing was a non-socialist (but nationalist) sham because race was the criterion.

Else Zionists indeed have every right to steal land from Palestinian Arabs, who have been there for centuries -- the land belonged to some Hebrews in Biblical times, didn't it? (The fact that there were Jews there in the BC years is very much accepted by historians.)

It's no matter if expropriation would harm us or those close to us personally; it must be undertaken.

Again, you're missing something. As I wrote:

The black people whose land was taken by whites in Zimbabwe in the 1800s are long dead, and that's why you are in error. It would be perfectly valid if the black people whose land was taken were alive now. In fact, some of the Zimbabwean whites' ancestors bought the land from other whites who obtained it from some blacks; your solution takes that away from the white families living there now and returns it to blacks whose ancestors need never have owned it in the first place.

Since things that are owned, whether individually or collectively, necessarily belong to actual individuals or multiple individuals, but cannot be said to belong to specific ethnic groups.

My mother's cousin's family is among the Guatemalan upper class. She was on the Supreme Court, and her husband owns at least eighteen houses. Let me be the first to say that they ought to have their holdings expropriated by the Mayan majority.

Anybody who owns eighteen houses should be expropriated -- no argument.

Whereas, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe --



At least 5% of the land went to business people -- Mugabe's allies in the business sector. And 15% went to Mugabe's full-time cronies (the civil servants).

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Isnt all the talk abou race just liberal medias way of portraiting this? The lanlords owns a lot of land and exploits farm workers/peasents, then Zuma confiscates the land and shares it among the landless, in a way to make the countrys agriculture sustainable. Then its just happens to be so that most of the landlords have european ancestory and the landless have different south african decents (mostly bantu?) and then its used by the loandlords to says thats its a racist thing and media buys it, when in fact is just class struggle.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Isnt all the talk abou race just liberal medias way of portraiting this? The lanlords owns a lot of land and exploits farm workers/peasents, then Zuma confiscates the land and shares it among the landless, in a way to make the countrys agriculture sustainable. Then its just happens to be so that most of the landlords have european ancestory and the landless have different south african decents (mostly bantu?) and then its used by the loandlords to says thats its a racist thing and media buys it, when in fact is just class struggle.

How is it just "liberal media" talking about race?

Mugabe explicitly talked about giving land back to the landless "natives" -- not poor landless people who happen to be black. Peeking at the OP's chart, a good chunk of the land went to black businesspeople (naturally, the ones supportive of Mugabe's rule). Those aren't poor blacks.

Jacob Zuma is in South Africa, not in Zimbabwe.

[Robocommie]

I suppose you have no time for class analysis either? This has nothing to do with 'stagism' and everything with a simple understanding of class interests

And if you want to show me just where Marx expressed a positive opinion of the peasantry...

Look, if we're going to get into this, can you give me your operating definition of "peasantry"?

[ComradeOm]

Look, if we're going to get into this, can you give me your operating definition of "peasantry"?

A peasant is a farmer who owns his own small plot of land. Typically geared towards subsistence farming and relying on primarily on family labour. Rough enough for our purposes

[Robocommie]

A peasant is a farmer who owns his own small plot of land. Typically geared towards subsistence farming and relying on primarily on family labour. Rough enough for our purposes

I frankly fail to see the problem - this distributes the national wealth more equitably, providing a wider consumer base which will likely go towards improving the development of the Zimbabwean economy overall. You may not find this very progressive at all, but the low income workers who were the recipients of 70% of that land certainly seem to.

Besides, what's your alternative? Collectivized agriculture? That's a fucking joke.

[NKVD]

How is it just "liberal media" talking about race?

Mugabe explicitly talked about giving land back to the landless "natives" -- not poor landless people who happen to be black. Peeking at the OP's chart, a good chunk of the land went to black businesspeople (naturally, the ones supportive of Mugabe's rule). Those aren't poor blacks.

Jacob Zuma is in South Africa, not in Zimbabwe.

Oh no some whites are losing their land. Boohoo.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Oh no some whites are losing their land. Boohoo.

Forceful logic.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

How is it just "liberal media" talking about race?

Mugabe explicitly talked about giving land back to the landless "natives" -- not poor landless people who happen to be black. Peeking at the OP's chart, a good chunk of the land went to black businesspeople (naturally, the ones supportive of Mugabe's rule). Those aren't poor blacks.

Jacob Zuma is in South Africa, not in Zimbabwe.

Sorry i meant Zanu-PF, not Zumba.

Yeah thats how (liberal)media here in Sweden have repported the last years "Mugabe hates white people, he takes theire land simply because theire white" Not so very correct or materialistic. I know that the situation in Zimbabwe isnt perfect, far frome. Still theive manage to do some progress, i mean ten years higher expecting living age, and western media likes to lie (as usual) over it.

[The Count]

Whether or not Mugabe's land reforms aren't as big of a failure as most think, we should still not be supporting him in the slightest. It would be the same as supporting the Taliban because they're 'fighting Imperialism'.

U.N. Condemns Zimbabwe for Bulldozing Urban Slums

The United Nations on Friday condemned the mass destruction of urban slums and shantytowns in Zimbabwe by the government of President Robert G. Mugabe as a "disastrous venture," saying the policy had left 700,000 people homeless and created a "humanitarian crisis of immense proportions."

Mr. Mugabe's Violence

Security forces and militia groups loyal to the 84-year-old autocrat have rampaged across the countryside for the past month, targeting opposition activists and whole villages suspected of having voted against the government in the March 29 elections. In some areas, torture camps have been established where victims are taken and beaten while their homes are looted and burned.

By the way, I was negatively repped by Palingenisis for this post; apparently facts are "Imperialist lies". The rep points don't bother me, but the cowardice does. If you actually support the tyrannical regime of Robert Mugabe, have the balls to respond to my message here, where everyone can see it.

[Palingenisis]

By the way, I was negatively repped by Palingenisis for this post; apparently facts are "Imperialist lies". The rep points don't bother me, but the cowardice does. If you actually support the tyrannical regime of Robert Mugabe, have the balls to respond to my message here, where everyone can see it.

Because this has been dealt with it in thread...You bring forth propaganda for the US media which isnt exactly known and for its fairness to progressive movements and than label the anti-colonial struggle "bad". Social change is always messy but the long term cost of just putting up with oppression and exploitation is generally far worse.

Im sure if you had been around at the time you would have condemned the French revolution for similar reasons that you condemn Zanu-PF now.

[The Count]

Because this has been dealt with it in thread...You bring forth propaganda for the US media which isnt exactly known and for its fairness to progressive movements and than label the anti-colonial struggle "bad". Social change is always messy but the long term cost of just putting up with oppression and exploitation is generally far worse.

Im sure if you had been around at the time you would have condemned the French revolution for similar reasons that you condemn Zanu-PF now.

I could show you sources from all over the world about why we shouldn't support Robert Mugabe. You can't totally disregard Bourgeois media in favour of Leftist media, because then you're just as biased as someone who watches Fox News 24/7. Also, when did I say that the "anti-colonial struggle" was bad? I am totally opposed to colonialism and imperialism.

What similar reasons are those? I definitely would've opposed Maximilien Robespierre if that's what you mean.

[Robocommie]

Because this has been dealt with it in thread...You bring forth propaganda for the US media which isnt exactly known and for its fairness to progressive movements and than label the anti-colonial struggle "bad". Social change is always messy but the long term cost of just putting up with oppression and exploitation is generally far worse.

Im sure if you had been around at the time you would have condemned the French revolution for similar reasons that you condemn Zanu-PF now.

It's crucial to be critical of western media because it's not nearly as neutral as it likes to portray itself, but at the same time, it's important to question even those we'd be inclined to support. It's not a disservice to question the revolution as long as you do so with the intention of being constructive. That was true in the French Revolution just as today - a lot of excesses were committed during la Terreur that would have been best avoided.