Mandela dead, so what?
- This topic has 58 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
pgb wrote:Mandela finished his law degree while in prison where he was locked up for 27 years. Does this incarceration redeem him in your eyes and thus give him a sort of "moral equivalence" to all those workers of the developed world who you suggest don't have the same opportunity as Mandela had to become lawyers (not true BTW in my part of the world)? And what are these "ill-gotten gains" you refer to? And what "class" are you referring to? He was born the son a a tribal chief (not wealthy by the standards of Whites in Apartheid South Africa). Surely you are not suggesting he was a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie!
Are you a Communist, pgb? I'm afraid I am.I use class analysis to try to understand the exploitative structures of society, rather than 'moral' categories.He wasn't 'incarcerated' for trying to smash exploitative structures – he was gaoled for trying to ensure that rich blacks had the same access to those structures that rich whites had. He succeeded, and is praised by bosses of all colours throughout the world for doing it.And 'Yes!', I am "suggesting he was a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie!". That suggestion is based upon class analysis, not 'moral equivalence'.As to your ignorance of the 'ill-gotten gains' of the South African bourgeoisie, and of the life-chances of workers 'in your part of the world', perhaps that's best left to other comrades to comment upon. I can only say that if you are a Communist, I'm surprised at your claims.
imposs1904 wrote:Maybe it's just me on the thread, but I'm glad he outlived Thatcher.Yes, I suppose the tone of this thread is a bit churlish considering the man spent 27 years in prison for something we wanted and welcomed. i.e. the end of apartheid and the coming of one person, one vote, even if this was because apartheid had become a barrier to capital accumulation in South Africa and even if he supported capitalism. If only Thatcher had spent 27 years in prison.
ALB wrote:Yes, I suppose the tone of this thread is a bit churlish considering the man spent 27 years in prison…I wouldn't call it 'churlish', ALB, more being realistic or accurate.I think we all accept he was a very brave man, who suffered and achieved more than any of us will as individuals, but I think it's important for Communists to challenge the myth that he was some sort of Socialist/Communist.He suffered for his class, and achieved for his class. He was a great class warrior, who has ensured the strengthening of class rule in South Africa. The great gold and gem magnates have slept sounder in their beds since 1990, whilst the workers are still shot by police officers for striking and peacefully protesting.Plus ca change…
LBird wrote:whilst the workers are still shot by police officers for striking and peacefully protesting.One of Mandela's great achievements : black miners are now shot dead by black police.
Vin Maratty wrote:One of Mandela's great achievements : black miners are now shot dead by black police.Oh, let's be fair, Vin! The black police would shoot white strikers, too!The police are now morally colourless in their treatment of workers!It's what liberals all over the world demand. Fair policing. Mandela Morality.
Something reasonably sensible (and comprehensible) from Zizek for a change:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/mandelas-socialist-failure/?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
Quote:Is this, however, the whole story? Two key facts remain obliterated by this celebratory vision. In South Africa, the miserable life of the poor majority broadly remains the same as under apartheid, and the rise of political and civil rights is counterbalanced by the growing insecurity, violence, and crime. The main change is that the old white ruling class is joined by the new black elite. Secondly, people remember the old African National Congress which promised not only the end of apartheid, but also more social justice, even a kind of socialism. This much more radical ANC past is gradually obliterated from our memory. No wonder that anger is growing among poor, black South Africans.South Africa in this respect is just one version of the recurrent story of the contemporary left. A leader or party is elected with universal enthusiasm, promising a “new world” — but, then, sooner or later, they stumble upon the key dilemma: does one dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms, or does one decide to “play the game”? If one disturbs these mechanisms, one is very swiftly “punished” by market perturbations, economic chaos, and the rest. This is why it is all too simple to criticize Mandela for abandoning the socialist perspective after the end of apartheid: did he really have a choice? Was the move towards socialism a real option?He means "towards state capitalism" of course but it's still a perceptive observatuion..
LBird wrote:At a SWSS meeting in 1987 about Apartheid at my Poly, we had a black guy from South Africa in attendance. He was (not surprisingly) very sympathetic to Mandela (and by implication Mandela's politics). I pointed out to him that Mandela wanted 'black capitalism' rather than workers' power, that the future would bear me out, and based my opinion on the historical development of other African states since the 'Winds of Change' started blowing in the late '50s.It is the same case of Malcolm X, Maurice Bishop, Jean Bertrand Aristides, and Patrice Lumumba, their intentions were to implement capitalism presided and conducted by leaders of African descent, and to develop black nationalism, and the creation of a black nationalist ruling class, using the same wage slaves that has been used, and exploited by others slaves masters.The so called national liberation movement, will just liberate one ruling class from another ruling class, and the new ruling class will take over and continue the economical exploitation, and then, in certain moment they will make alliances with others ruling class and others capitalists in others parts of the world, like the Vietcong in VietnamIt takes time to question the legacy of these idols because an sphere of sainthood has been built around them, and it is more difficult when they have became martyrs. Pretty soon we will hear the proclamation of the eternity of his legacy, like Che Guevara who was proclaimed a saint in Bolivia.Another typical case like Nelson Mandela is Lula DaSilva in Brazil, and the actual president Dilma Rosseauf who was a guerrilla fighter, both are leaders of a capitalist state and a capitalist economy, and they empowered the ruling class, the rich got richer and the poor are poorer, and they had used the repressive forces of the state against the workers, like Salvador Allende who ordered the military forces to disrupt the strikes of the mines workers in Chile .Most of these leaders were jailed, tortured, or killed, and came from different social background, but it does not mean that we must not see what they did against the working class from their respective countries, they did the same thing that has been done by any other capitalist leaders, therefore, Nelson Mandela was jailed, and tortured, like many others, but he also, was part of the oppression and exploitation of the South African workers Any leader who presides a capitalist state will be forced to act in favor of the capitalist class, and it does not make any difference the color of their skin, their ethnical origin, and their social class origin either, it doesn't make any difference if they were union leaders, shoe shiners, garbage pickers, toilet cleaners, rich, the social and economical reality will force them to change and act according to the wishes and interest of the ruling class
I read this comment Former Mandela cabinet member, Ronnie Kasrils: basically says that as a ruler Mandela gave in way too much to rich people. So he replaced racial apartheid with class apartheid."…South Africa's liberation struggle reached a high point but not its zenith when we overcame apartheid rule. Back then, our hopes were high for our country given its modern industrial economy, strategic mineral resources (not only gold and diamonds), and a working class and organised trade union movement with a rich tradition of struggle. But that optimism overlooked the tenacity of the international capitalist system. From 1991 to 1996 the battle for the ANC's soul got under way, and was eventually lost to corporate power: we were entrapped by the neoliberal economy – or, as some today cry out, we "sold our people down the river…What I call our Faustian moment came when we took an IMF loan on the eve of our first democratic election. That loan, with strings attached that precluded a radical economic agenda, was considered a necessary evil, as were concessions to keep negotiations on track and take delivery of the promised land for our people. Doubt had come to reign supreme: we believed, wrongly, there was no other option…"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/anc-faustian-pact-mandela-fatal-errorActually there was no other option,IMHO, but an accommodation with capitalism as a world system. Mandela was indeed a true Thatcherite.."There Is No Alternative" “I am sure that Cecil John Rhodes would have given his approval to this effort to make the South African economy of the early 21st century appropriate and fit for its time.” Nelson Mandela in 2003The Daily Telegraph's Osbourne…Mandela can be compared with Jesus Christ…!!!!http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100249502/few-human-beings-can-be-compared-to-jesus-christ-nelson-mandela-was-one/Certainly there is a big difference in tone in Mandela's obituary and the media's obituaries of Hugo Chavez…and i think it can be put down to who upset ( i won't say threatened, merely, annoyed) the international capitalist class the most. Whatever sympathies Mandela showed for oppressed people like the Palestinians are neutered by his contempt for other peoples well-being as in presenting the tyrant Sukarto of Indonesia a top award.
"South Africa is not a society of shared norms and ideas; it is, rather, a social formation still bound by need and greed and held together by new regulatory social institutions. The factual scales will have to decide on a more nuanced judgment, but they will have to weigh too the feeling that, alongside a remarkable transition, the Mandela decade left behind a profound sense of failure felt by the very people who struggled to create a nonracial and diverse nation."- Ari Sitas is a sociologist, poet based at the University of Cape Town. He is also author of The Mandela Decade and Theoretical parables: Voices that reasonhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/mandela-legacy-201371717017499138.html
alanjjohnstone wrote:Actually there was no other option,IMHO, but an accommodation with capitalism as a world system. Mandela was indeed a true Thatcherite.."There Is No Alternative"True, the post-apartheid government under Mandela did have "no alternative" but to accommodate with world capitalism. But if this makes him a Thatcherite it makes a lot more people one of them. Lenin, for instance, who said in 1921 that the development of capitalism under the control of the state was the only viable way forward for Russia. Even us, who said that Lenin was right given the continued existence of world capitalismOr perhaps that woman should be called a Marxist? Her mistake was to say simply "there is no alternative" when the real situation was "there is no alternative under capitalism". TINAUC.
L Bird: Mandela wasn't incarcerated for trying to smash exploitative structures – he was gaoled for trying to ensure that rich blacks had the same access to those structures that rich whites had. He succeeded and is praised by bosses of all colours throughout the world for doing it.Mandela was gaoled for life on charges of sabotage and treason against an apartheid State where only the white minority enjoyed political rights. His consistent aim was to build a democratic society where blacks and whites would have equal rights and opportunities and to live in harmony. I have seen no evidence that he was dishonest (lying) when he expressed those aims (eg. in his address to the court ) even if we might in hindsight consider them romantic idealism. Are you suggesting that the real (really real) reason for his life imprisonment was that white capitalists wanted to stop the emergence of black capitalism? Mandela was not himself a capitalist nor did he have as any aspirations at all to become one, nor as far as I know did the majority of his supporters in the ANC and elsewhere. All they wanted was political equality and if they saw this as a step towards economic equality, the fact that they didn't get that in the end doesn't negate the significance of Mandela's and their struggle for political freedom where they were eventually successful. Without Mandela, apartheid in South Africa would have been around much longer and while I believe it would in time have disappeared its end would have been bloody and violent. Mandela was the main reason why this didn’t eventuate and for that he deserves great praise IMO.And who are these “bosses of all colours” you speak of who supposedly praise Mandela for giving rich blacks “the same access to the structures” as rich whites? The only bosses I know in my part of the world have praised Mandela for the same reason as ordinary workers do: he brought political rights to an oppressed minority in South Africa and did it without violence. But true, that wouldn’t be many bosses. That’s because most bosses aren’t terribly interested in South African politics and history. And I don’t think they know or even care about the economic conditions of South African capitalism today. Why should they? The whole of sub-Saharan Africa is an irrelevance to capitalists in my part of the world. There have been prominent political supporters of capitalism who have heaped praise on Mandela, chiefly PM Fraser, a Tory grazier, who has a genuine concern for human rights in Africa, and Hawke the sometime Labor PM who had the solid support of the Australian TU movement behind Mandela in his struggles against Apartheid. It is simply false to say that these bosses supported Mandela simply because it served their capitalist interests. If this is where class analysis takes you, I humbly suggest you find a new method.
pgb wrote:I have seen no evidence that he was dishonest (lying)…No-one on this thread has suggested that Mandela was 'lying', pgb. By all accounts, he was a honest man.
pgb wrote:If this is where class analysis takes you, I humbly suggest you find a new method.And I humbly suggest that you re-read this thread, and follow up some of the links provided, and also go to other Communist sites to find out what other revolutionaries are saying about Mandela. I think you'll find that it is your 'analysis' that is out-of-step with the majority.I agree with you that 'this is where class analysis takes us', but, in contrast to you, I'm content with the findings of this method. I think its findings quite accurately describe the society of South Africa, for Communists.If you're not a Communist, no doubt you employ a different method (liberalism?), which will give you different results. For Communists, the concept of 'exploitation' plays a central part of understanding any society. You don't seem to agree with the importance of this concept, and focus on 'rights', 'equality', 'freedom' and 'peace'.In our opinion, there are no rights, equality, freedom or peace in the exploitative socio-economic structures of South Africa. The rich still take the wealth from the producers, by violence when necessary.Mandela did not change those structures; if anything, his political actions have strengthened them.
As with any Idolatry, the point is that millions of people have been murdered or imprisoned for fighting against apartheid and other forms of oppression. Workers should get off their knees.
L. Bird wrote: For Communists, the concept of ‘exploitation’ plays a central part in understanding any society. You don’t seem to agree with this concept, and focus on’rights’, ‘equality’, ‘freedom’, and ‘peace’.If you are a Marxist communist, you must know that exploitation has a specifically technical meaning within Marx's LTV. It relates solely to the wagelabour -capital relationship of a capitalist economy. It is not a concept which Marx used to give expression to political oppression of the kind experienced in apartheid South Africa. Marx spoke mainly about the despotism of capital, not the despotism of the state which is what Mandela and others fought against. This really draws attention to what I believe is the fundamental weakness in your analysis of Mandela's role in S Africa, and (much more emphatically) the posts submitted on this thread by MColome1 who holds the view that all oppression begins at the point of production – a crude reduc- tionist view IMO. In Apartheid South Africa oppression began not at the point of production (that's where exploitation begins) but at the point of political authority and ideology (racism) and was so inscribed in the statute books. Holding such a reductionist view of political power obscures the reality that people often fight for political rights (eg. the right to vote, the right of political assembly etc) without there being a specific class interest at stake. On your view Mandela wasn't really fighting for political freedom of his fellow black Africans, he was instead fighting for his class interest which you assumed was the interest of rich blacks. Elsewhere you speak as if the interests of rich whites and rich blacks were the same interest. When I suggested that your class analysis was faulty, it was because of the crude reductionism I read in these views and the fact that you gave no evidence to back up your claims re the alleged class character of Mandela's politics. I am not suggesting that class analysis is inherently weak or false, quite the contrary, but its utility can only be judged by how well it explains a complex reality. I didn't find it in your arguments I'm afraid. BTW, what do you find objectionable in concepts such as rights, equality, freedom and peace? I thought most socialists/communists would endorse these concepts. They were certainly important to Mandela and the black population of South Africa.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.