Mandela dead, so what?
- This topic has 58 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
pgb wrote: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.
I am afraid you are incorrect here. Marx begins with the wages system and explains oppression from it. Oppression is a direct consequence of the capitalist ownership of the means of production and control of the state machinery. Oppression is an inevitable consequence of the wages system. If oppression could be dealt with while a minuscule minority owns the world then we wouldn't need socialism. The fantasy of a 'liberal democracy' would do the job.
pgb wrote:BTW, what do you find objectionable in concepts such as rights, equality, freedom and peace?I don't think any Communist finds these concepts 'objectionable'.We'd like to see them. In the economy. Where they would actually count.The introduction of these concepts into the polity might be welcome, but it's not Communism.If you're arguing for 'fairer capitalism', pgb, that's fine by me. But I'm a Communist, and want to see the destruction of capitalism, markets, wage-labour, etc., and the emergence of a democratic control of the world economy. If that's 'reductionism', I plead guilty!
LBird wrote:pgb wrote:BTW, what do you find objectionable in concepts such as rights, equality, freedom and peace?I don't think any Communist finds these concepts 'objectionable'.We'd like to see them. In the economy. Where they would actually count.The introduction of these concepts into the polity might be welcome, but it's not Communism.If you're arguing for 'fairer capitalism', pgb, that's fine by me. But I'm a Communist, and want to see the destruction of capitalism, markets, wage-labour, etc., and the emergence of a democratic control of the world economy. If that's 'reductionism', I plead guilty!
Within the capitalist society we can use those capitalist legal rights to propagate socialist theories, but we do not advocate for any bourgeois rights, and those rights are not permanent , because they can be eliminated by the capitalist class. All those conception came from the French revolution which was the first political and economical revolution of the capitalist class, or the original left wingers: The French Jacobin *With the elimination of the capitalist production ( wage system and profits ) we are going to have real equality, real freedom, and the cause of war are going to be eliminated,The peace treaties signed between the capitalist class is a continuation of war, we are not going to have peace in the capitalist society, you can not remove the claws from a tiger, they need them in order to survive, capitalism can not exist without wars * PS Understanding the origin of left and right we can also understand that left and right are not relevant to the case of socialism, and that leftism has nothing to do with socialism or communism
Some info from The Independent:
Quote:The thing he did for us was to bring people together. White and black – we are not hating each other any more,” said 65-year-old Daniel Lethoalo, a retired driver who lives a couple of doors from where Mandela once lodged. “But the difference between rich and poor is still the same. That has not changed".[my bold]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-has-not-changed-as-south-africa-mourns-its-most-deprived-say-that-nelson-mandelas-vision-has-not-been-realised-8990868.html
pgb wrote:Yes, but what is the significance of this in light of the discussion on this thread?You must be on a different thread to me, pgb!
Mandela Dead – So WhatThe legacy of Mandela is that in August 2012 miners at the Marikana Mine in South Africa were on strike for higher wages. The striking miners were confronted by the South African police, who fired on the miners, using live rounds from automatic pistols, shotguns and assault rifles. 34 miners were killed and 78 seriously injured and many miners were shot in the back and whilst lying on the ground. The South African state has even charged 270 arrested miners with the Apartheid-era 'common purpose' murder of the miners massacred by the police.The South African capitalist state killing people at Sharpeville, Soweto, and Marikana. They all linked although the first two under apartheid. Ending apartheid allowed capitalism more free exploitation of the labour power of the working class.
Nelson Mandela denounced the racist conditions that existed in South Africa , but he did not denounce the class nature of racism, the same thing was done by Martin Luther King, in that aspect Malcolm X was way ahead of him.Malcolm X also indicated that he would never collaborate with the capitalist state, and Mandela did collaborate with the capitalist state. In some way Malcolm X was a threat to capitalism, but Mandela was not, that is reason why he has received a big ovation from some capitalist government including the USA
LBird wrote: You must be on a different thread to me pgb!The title of this thread is "Mandela Dead – So What?" Your post highlights the fact that nothing has changed in S.Africa today regarding the division between rich and poor. But unless you tell me what this means for Mandela's reputation as a "liberator" of his people, or what it might contribute to our understanding of the politics of change in a post-colonial African state, or some other related issue, then I am left only with a bit of information about wealth and income distribution in S. Africa today. The thread asks: So what? I already know about the facts you cite (and that's not because I also read The Independent) as I expect do most others on this Forum. So, again, what is the significance to you as a communist revolutionary of the facts as you stated them? In your previous posts you saw Mandela as "a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie" and a "class warrior" – for the rich. I found it difficult to avoid the impression from this that, for you, Mandela was a bit of a con-man, a bit of a fake, because although he presented himself as a liberator, and a "man of the people", etc, he was in fact acting in the interests of their oppressors – white capitalists and black capitalists (in waiting). Do you still hold that view?
pgb wrote:LBird wrote: You must be on a different thread to me pgb!The title of this thread is "Mandela Dead – So What?" Your post highlights the fact that nothing has changed in S.Africa today regarding the division between rich and poor. But unless you tell me what this means for Mandela's reputation as a "liberator" of his people, or what it might contribute to our understanding of the politics of change in a post-colonial African state, or some other related issue, then I am left only with a bit of information about wealth and income distribution in S. Africa today. The thread asks: So what? I already know about the facts you cite (and that's not because I also read The Independent) as I expect do most others on this Forum. So, again, what is the significance to you as a communist revolutionary of the facts as you stated them? In your previous posts you saw Mandela as "a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie" and a "class warrior" – for the rich. I found it difficult to avoid the impression from this that, for you, Mandela was a bit of a con-man, a bit of a fake, because although he presented himself as a liberator, and a "man of the people", etc, he was in fact acting in the interests of their oppressors – white capitalists and black capitalists (in waiting). Do you still hold that view?It looks like you do support the individualistic conception of history. There is not any historical evidence proving that an individual has been able to liberate another group of peoples, the so called liberators, and benefactors, is only a historical myth created by our rulers.Nelson Mandela did not liberate 'his peoples', the South African workers did not belong to him, he did not even liberate himself, and every president has his or her own boss, including Obama who is the president of the most powerful empire on earth Up to now mankind has not been liberated either, we have been liberated from one form of slavery into another form of slavery, but we have not obtained our true liberation, our new master is the capitalist class. The proletarian class is the only social class able to liberate itself without the need of leaders and liberatorsMandela was a puppet of the capitalist class of South Africa, and his government provided more benefits to the rich peoples than to the poor peoples, and it does not make any difference if the capitalist class is composed of peoples with black, white, yellow, or brown skins.Colonialism was replaced by the capitalist mode of production in Africa many years ago, and many Africans became the ruling class of the African workers, and Mandela was the president of a capitalist state and the president of a capitalist economy, therefore, there is not leader, or politician able to change, or alter, the interests of the economical base of any nation
John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die" can be viewed herehttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37035.htm
pgb wrote:In your previous posts you saw Mandela as "a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie" and a "class warrior" – for the rich. I found it difficult to avoid the impression from this that, for you, Mandela was a bit of a con-man, a bit of a fake, because although he presented himself as a liberator, and a "man of the people", etc, he was in fact acting in the interests of their oppressors – white capitalists and black capitalists (in waiting). Do you still hold that view?Never mind just 'me', don't all Communists hold this view?
mcolome1 wrote:It looks like you do support the individualistic conception of history.I share mcolome1's opinion of your ideology, and I agree with their ideology, as expressed in that post. We're Communists, employing class analysis, you're a Liberal, employing the 'Great Man Theory of History'.Fine by me, if you think that your method is more useful for building an understanding of South African socio-economics.
Quote:John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die"I can guess what he's arguing but, strictly speaking, the title is inaccurate. Apartheid, as the legal separation of the different so-called "races" in South Africa with jobs reserved for some of them, did die (and a good thing too). And it died because it had proved to be a barrier to the normal operation of capitalism and the process of capital accumulation in South Africa. What its death didn't do was to improve the economic situation of most "Africans", even though it did improve that of some of them, not just businesspeople and politicians (who were able to enrich themselves).but also skilled workers (who were able to move into jobs previously reserved for "Whites"). Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.
ALB wrote:Quote:John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die"I can guess what he's arguing but, strictly speaking, the title is inaccurate. Apartheid, as the legal separation of the different so-called "races" in South Africa with jobs reserved for some of them, did die (and a good thing too). And it died because it had proved to be a barrier to the normal operation of capitalism and the process of capital accumulation in South Africa. What its death didn't do was to improve the economic situation of most "Africans", even though it did improve that of some of them, not just businesspeople and politicians (who were able to enrich themselves).but also skilled workers (who were able to move into jobs previously reserved for "Whites"). Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.
I don't see any one here agreeing that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference or that it was not a welcome advance. What is being strongly argued is that the outcome made no essential difference to the situation – other than the introduction of representative democracy – and explaining why and how this major advance came about. A nuance perhaps but nontheless an important one to be considered when discussing the whole picture of capitalist development.
I think the word has now widened to apply to Zionist Apartheid Regime of Israel. The latest blog by our Zambian comrade makes your point , Brian, that Mandela did initiate multi-party democracy in neighbouring Southern African countries and a whole spate of elections took place but the backlash was that those parties then sought tribal/ ethnic support to gain political power. http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/12/mandela-his-political-legacy.html
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.