|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Discussion Piece #3 News flash: Governments are corrupt. Poor people are marginalized.
Later tonight, darkness.
The ANC transformed itself into a coterie of corrupt, black frontmen for the Randlords. They gave up on the Freedom Charter, devoted themselves to the protection of the interests of the foreign multinationals, and sold out their own people. It all started in the talks the Nationalists held with Mandela while he was still in prison, continued under his presidency, and has blossomed into one of the most corrupt and inequal regimes on the planet.
While I am not in the least bit interested in communalist reprisals against the white South African community, it seems pretty clear to me that this much-touted "peaceful resolution" was, in fact, an agreement between the Randlords and the ANC elite to continue the grinding exploitation of the, primarily, black masses.
You made a comment above about Mandela being a Marxist terrorist. No, Mandela wasn't a Marxist terrorist, he was a brave, courageous martyr to the anti-apartheid cause who, in the end, sold out like a Stooge of the Plutocracy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What he wanted was equality. That last article you linked, about Cyril Ramaphosa, talks about (amongst other things) the continuing mismanagement of the mining industry. Seems like that would be an industry that should help build the nation yet somehow it's seen virtually no change. We're talking about a serious void in leadership at both the local and national level. It's depressing stuff, but folks forget that the industrial revolution didn't start off so well for the workers, in fact Karl Marx (whom you're no doubt familiar with, but for others I should explain that he was the least funny member of the Marx brothers) thought for certain that the unacceptable conditions he witnessed would lead to a worker's revolt. So ya, kind of funny, but not Duck Soup funny.
Anyways I'll repeat, things are bad in Africa in general, but things were worse in South Africa, and we're only one generation into life without apartheid. Most of these non violent revolutions and movements take a long time and it seems like most of the people in that last story you linked just have no idea what to do with their new found power and money. From the workers that blew their new living allowance on hookers and booze (they said second family in the story but I like my turn of phrase better), to the union leaders that sold out their fellow workers for cushy jobs on the surface. Seems like what we're seeing is the a low point in another revolution. Keep in mind that the industrial revolution was something like eighty year, or four generations, and so I'd guess that things are going to suck in South Africa for quite some time.
India and China are still a pretty crummy places to live as well if you're born in the wrong area or to the wrong caste or class. If anyone who thought Nelson Mandela becoming president of South Africa was going to fix some 350 years of colonial rule, then they were crazy.
Actually let me add a quote from that same article: “Could it have moved quicker in 18 years?” Ramaphosa asked. “My answer is no. Our expectations were far too high. To get education to sink deep into the minds of a nation takes a generation and more.”
Guy Hummal wrote: Peaceful =/= non-violent. Yes it does.
Quote: Living under a brutal dictatorship and doing nothing would qualify as a peaceful solution. Now you see the problem.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The violence was not a minor point in his life, it was the entire point of his life. It was not an indiscretion, it was not a one time thing, it is not a "distasteful" act. It was not a mistake he made, it was not an action he repudiated. It needed to be done and he did it, and he would have done it again if he hadn't been physically prevented from doing so.
Quote: The entire point of his life? Forgetting the 18 years or so he unsuccessfully tried non-violent protest before the year or so he was with a sabotage group Weren't you the one asking if violence works why it didn't work faster? Why did the non violence so long?
As to why violence took so long
Vaarsuvius: As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.
Not enough boom.
Quote: if he was so committed to violence, why didn't he call for violence from prison? "Shot while attempting to escape"
Quote: Why didn't he continue once he was out of prison? Because at that point enough violence had been used to bring the government to the table.
Quote: Saying violence was the entire point of Nelson Mandela's life is wrong on so many levels. As is leaving out the violence he did, and others did, so that a fairer peace was possible. This idea that you can negotiate with people in power who want to exploit you is disneyfied history.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Weren't you the one asking if violence works why it didn't work faster? Why did the non violence so long? In order for non violent measures to work you need have a negotiation and a dialogue. That takes a long time. Violence on the other hand should be far quicker, all you need to do is kill everyone that opposes you. Trouble is killing everyone usually creates more enemies. Violence is a viscous struggle.
As for dialogue, that didn't really start till 85, thanks to the presure placed on South Africa from western nations, and within 5 years of that Mandela was out of prison and apartheid was being abolished. The delay between 62-64 and 85 was likely caused because Mandela had been labeled a Marxist terrorist and there was a cold war going on. Gorbachev came into power in 85 though and the cold war was really starting to see a thaw.
BigNorseWolf wrote: me wrote: if he was so committed to violence, why didn't he call for violence from prison? "Shot while attempting to escape"
You're going to have to explain this one to me. I remember reading that there had been an escape planned, but the government got wind of it and they planned to shoot Mandela as he tried to escape, and as a result I don't think that plan went through.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Because at that point enough violence had been used to bring the government to the table. You're the one that claimed that violence was the entire point to Mandela's life. That less then a year and a half of sabotage being more important in defining him then the time before or after, so why does a man of violence talk, even when the government doesn't initially give him what he wants? Mandela spent 5 more years in prison before being released and another 4 after that helping to dismantle apartheid. Seems for a violent man he had an awful lot of patience.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quote: Saying violence was the entire point of Nelson Mandela's life is wrong on so many levels. As is leaving out the violence he did, and others did, so that a fairer peace was possible. This idea that you can negotiate with people in power who want to exploit you is disneyfied history.
Perhaps, but they're not wrong on the same levels. I should point out that saying Mandela was a man of peace is not the same as calling him a pacifist. The same as a protest can be non-violent but not peaceful.
Anyways, rather then get angry I'll leave you with a quote from Asimov on the relativity of wrong: ". . . when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Guy Humual wrote: In order for non violent measures to work you need have a negotiation and a dialogue. Really. THAT'S the problem? That's the cause of oppression? A lack of dialog?
Under what possible circumstances does someone get denied the right to vote, shot in the street, their homes bulldozed, forcibly confined to slums, kept out of school, kept from owning property, and treated like a piece of garbage without saying "Hey, stop that".
What could anyone possibly say to change the mind of someone that's engaged in that level of sociopathy against their fellow human beings that could possibly change their mind?
Talking alone has never worked, it doesn't work, its never going to work.
Quote: That takes a long time. Violence on the other hand should be far quicker, all you need to do is kill everyone that opposes you. Trouble is killing everyone usually creates more enemies. Violence is a viscous struggle. Oddly enough people object to being killed, and the first thing they tend to do with power is acquire the means to avoid being killed. Machete's vs helicopters tends not to go so well for the people with machetes.
Quote: As for dialogue, that didn't really start till 85, thanks to the presure placed on South Africa from western nations Although its creation predated apartheid, the African National Congress (ANC) became the primary force in opposition to the government after its conservative leadership was superseded by the organisation's Youth League (ANCYL) in 1949. Led by Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo, elected to the ANC's National Executive that year, the ANCYL advocated a radical black nationalist programme which combined the Africanist ideas of Anton Lembede with those of Marxism.
Vocal opposition to apartheid was there from the get go. The opportunity to dialog was there from the get go. The chance to negotiate was there from the get go.
Your problem is that you're assuming that the people in charge are rational and compassionate human beings like you and they're not: by and large that's how they get to be in charge. If you don't consider fellow human beings people(they didn't) and you have the power to take it from them then you just take it. There's nothing to negotiate. You're beating them up and taking their candy and there's nothing they can do about it.
Quote: You're going to have to explain this one to me. If you are a black man in a south african prison and you start preaching "death to the oppressors!" they shoot you, dump your body in the trash, dig at the wall with a spoon for a little while and then announce you were shot while attempting to escape.
Evil is a reaaaaly foreign mindset to you isn't it?
Quote: You're the one that claimed that violence was the entire point to Mandela's life. As a counterpoint. I know how wrong that statement is, but you don't seem to get how wrong the converse is.
Quote: Seems for a violent man he had an awful lot of patience. Again, because freedom did not come solely from the suffering of one man in prison.
Guy Humual wrote: What he wanted was equality. What he wanted was a matter of public record.
What he delivered was, according to that piece about the UNICEF report, was one of the most unequal societies on the planet today.
Quote: Seems like that would be an industry that should help build the nation yet somehow it's seen virtually no change. Oh gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be because the ANC left the mines firmly in the hands of the Randlords?
Quote: If anyone who thought Nelson Mandela becoming president of South Africa was going to fix some 350 years of colonial rule, then they were crazy. And yet, here it is 20ish years later, and the grinding exploitation and terrible living standards of the black masses hasn't changed much at all. In fact, according to some, it's gotten worse.
Quote: Actually let me add a quote from that same article: “Could it have moved quicker in 18 years?” Ramaphosa asked. “My answer is no. Our expectations were far too high. To get education to sink deep into the minds of a nation takes a generation and more.” Who, you mean the anti-apartheid and union leader ends up amassing a fortune of hundreds of millions and owning 9% of a company on who's behalf the South African cops carried out one of the worst massacres since Sharpeville? Yeah, I'm sure a couple more generations of education will smooth everything out, Cyril.
Quote: From the workers that blew their new living allowance on hookers and booze Well, to each their own, but I think your turn of phrase is probably just as disgusting as when you called the establishment of MK one of Mandela's "less idealistic moments."
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Guy Humual wrote: What he wanted was equality. What he wanted was a matter of public record.
What he delivered was, according to that piece about the UNICEF report, was one of the most unequal societies on the planet today. Too bad he didn't go the route of Angola then?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Quote: Seems like that would be an industry that should help build the nation yet somehow it's seen virtually no change. Oh gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be because the ANC left the mines firmly in the hands of the Randlords?
As opposed to what? Seizing them? I suppose that would have worked out real well.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Quote: If anyone who thought Nelson Mandela becoming president of South Africa was going to fix some 350 years of colonial rule, then they were crazy. And yet, here it is 20ish years later, and the grinding exploitation and terrible living standards of the black masses hasn't changed much at all.
So if I were to do some minimal digging I'd discover that life is the same in South Africa as it was back then?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Quote: Actually let me add a quote from that same article: “Could it have moved quicker in 18 years?” Ramaphosa asked. “My answer is no. Our expectations were far too high. To get education to sink deep into the minds of a nation takes a generation and more.” Who, you mean the anti-apartheid and union leader ends up amassing a fortune of hundreds of millions and owning 9% of a company on who's behalf the South African cops carried out one of the worst massacres since Sharpeville? Yeah, I'm sure a couple more generations of education will smooth everything out, Cyril.
Well it just goes to show you that you can't trust these union types huh? Although I am shocked to hear you coming out against education. Keep the masses ignorant?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Quote: From the workers that blew their new living allowance on hookers and booze Well, to each their own, but I think your turn of phrase is probably just as disgusting as when you called the establishment of MK one of Mandela's "less idealistic moments."
Just quoting from the article you linked. It explained how workers were given a living expense so they could move out of the ramshackle mining huts but instead they moved into other huts and spent the money on mistresses and second families. I have no idea how accurate that the article's claim is, like maybe the money they were given was insufficient for improved living conditions, but if it were true it seems like money that they'd earned to invest in themselves was squandered.
1) Seeing as how Mandela launched a guerrilla war that lasted 20 years, including in Angola, and refused to renounce the armed struggle, even though it would have let him out of prison...it's kinda hard to see how he didn't go the Angola route. "But he preached forgiveness! And peace!" Yeah, after he won.
I mean, you do realize that MK was the armed wing of the ANC, right?
2) Yes. Nationalizing the mines and redistribution of the land. It's what the ANC fought for for almost half a century. Check out the Freedom Charter.
3) Dig away, I'd be interested in seeing what you find.
4) If you take that as coming out against education, well, then I don't know what to say.
5) The article didn't say anything about hookers and booze. Read up on the South African migrant worker system (here is a decent starting place), the custom of South African polygamy (I believe the current president has three wives) and then see if you think it's the same as blowing your paycheck on hookers and booze.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Humual wrote: In order for non violent measures to work you need have a negotiation and a dialogue. Really. THAT'S the problem? That's the cause of oppression? A lack of dialog? That's not the cause of oppression, it's one of the symptoms of oppression, but not the cause. What causes oppression is an imbalance in power, usually as a result of violence.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quote: That takes a long time. Violence on the other hand should be far quicker, all you need to do is kill everyone that opposes you. Trouble is killing everyone usually creates more enemies. Violence is a viscous struggle. Oddly enough people object to being killed, and the first thing they tend to do with power is acquire the means to avoid being killed. Machete's vs helicopters tends not to go so well for the people with machetes.
which is why violence is often futile.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quote: As for dialogue, that didn't really start till 85, thanks to the presure placed on South Africa from western nations Although its creation predated apartheid, the African National Congress (ANC) became the primary force in opposition to the government after its conservative leadership was superseded by the organisation's Youth League (ANCYL) in 1949. Led by Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo, elected to the ANC's National Executive that year, the ANCYL advocated a radical black nationalist programme which combined the Africanist ideas of Anton Lembede with those of Marxism.
Vocal opposition to apartheid was there from the get go. The opportunity to dialog was there from the get go. The chance to negotiate was there from the get go.
Your problem is that you're assuming that the people in charge are rational and compassionate human beings like you and they're not: by and large that's how they get to be in charge. If you don't consider fellow human beings people(they didn't) and you have the power to take it from them then you just take it. There's nothing to negotiate. You're beating them up and taking their candy and there's nothing they can do about it.
This goes to my point earlier about how you're qualifying negotiations. At no point did the government negotiate with the ANC or Mandela. Vocal opposition is a start. By 1985 the crippling sanctions imposed upon the South African government were finally starting to take effect. For the first time they were willing to talk.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quote: You're going to have to explain this one to me. If you are a black man in a south african prison and you start preaching "death to the oppressors!" they shoot you, dump your body in the trash, dig at the wall with a spoon for a little while and then announce you were shot while attempting to escape.
Evil is a reaaaaly foreign mindset to you isn't it?
Except of course he was one of the most famous prisoners in the world. I'm sure the South African government would have preferred to have had him shouting "death to the oppressors" as it would have made it easier for them to justify having him locked up. Having him murdered would have just turned him into a martyr.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quote: You're the one that claimed that violence was the entire point to Mandela's life. As a counterpoint. I know how wrong that statement is, but you don't seem to get how wrong the converse is.
I see nothing wrong with calling him a man of peace. Calling him a pacifist would be different. What he accomplished in his lifetime were mostly achievements of ending conflict, negotiating peace, and encouraging forgiveness. He committed acts of violence in his lifetime but that doesn't alter or taint his achievements.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quote: Seems for a violent man he had an awful lot of patience. Again, because freedom did not come solely from the suffering of one man in prison.
And yet it was talks with Mandela that led to the scrapping of Apartheid. It was pressure from the outside that forced these talks. Most of the resistance violence in South Africa was pretty much background noise compared to the slowing of their economy.
"A vision of handing over the national wealth to the people along with the development of a prosperous bourgeoisie. Mandela repeated these commitments when he was released from jail: 'Nationalisation of the mines, banks and monopoly industry is the policy of the ANC and the change or modification of our views in this regard is inconceivable.'"
Discussion Piece #6
Guy Humual wrote: And yet it was talks with Mandela that led to the scrapping of Apartheid. It was pressure from the outside that forced these talks. Most of the resistance violence in South Africa was pretty much background noise compared to the slowing of their economy. While you're digging, see if you can find some substantiation of this, please. (Btw, American sanctions weren't put into place until 1986.)
I'll stake out a position now: the divestment campaigns were the background noise, the mass, militant COSATU-strike wave (not at all peaceful, btw) was the cause of capital flight and the slowing of the South African economy.
Uncited from the Australian commie website linked on the first page:
"In the 1980s, a sustained divestment campaign forced some big companies to pull out, but not before they had licensed their products to local distributors. And the pull-out was done slowly and only patchily: at the end of 1987, 410 European and North American companies had divested from South Africa but 690 still remained. Even as late as 1988, US companies invested $1.3 billion in South African industry, and held $4 billion in investments, or 14 percent of the total, in the crucial mining industry. US exports to South Africa actually rose by 40 percent between 1985 and 1988. While there were profits to be made, Western businesses and governments turned a blind eye to the oppression of black South Africans."
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: 1) Seeing as how Mandela launched a guerrilla war that lasted 20 years, including in Angola, and refused to renounce the armed struggle, even though it would have let him out of prison...it's kinda hard to see how he didn't go the Angola route. "But he preached forgiveness! And peace!" Yeah, after he won.
I mean, you do realize that MK was the armed wing of the ANC, right?
I assume you're getting the "refused to renounce the armed struggle, even though it would have let him out of prison" line from his quote: "What freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts."
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: 2) Yes. Nationalizing the mines and redistribution of the land. It's what the ANC fought for for almost half a century. Check out the Freedom Charter. While I don't have any problem with that, western governments like to call Communism or socialism at that sort of thing, and in 94 South Africa was far far worse economically then it is now. I don't think Mandela wanted to risk alienating any of his supporters. Buying out these miners would be a better option but I doubt that government coffers could afford that at the moment either.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: 3) Dig away, I'd be interested in seeing what you find. Well apart from someone like Cyril Ramaphosa getting fantastically wealthy "Between 1991 and 1996, the white middle class grew by 15% while the black middle class grew by 78%" and we have education reforms and a new constitution which gives blacks the same rights as whites. As to the rest of the economic mess, looks like they have the same problem we have here in North America, the rich are getting richer. Except in South Africa the rich are mostly white.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: 4) If you take that as coming out against education, well, then I don't know what to say. And what am I supposed to say? Regardless of how you feel about the man I don't disagree with his statement. Education about any number of things is necessary. If poor people win the lottery they're usually quickly poor again because they don't know how to handle their new money, which goes to the last point:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: 5) The article didn't say anything about hookers and booze. Read up on the South African migrant worker system, the custom of South African polygamy (I believe the current president has three wives) and then see if you think it's the same as blowing your paycheck on hookers and booze. Oh it's polygamy, and there's a tradition of it? That makes it okay then. Instead of bettering the lives of your current family, investing in a home, lets go out and get another wife and start another family. As far as Zuma having three wives, I don't approve of polygamy, but I'm sure he can at least afford three wives.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Guy Humual wrote: And yet it was talks with Mandela that led to the scrapping of Apartheid. It was pressure from the outside that forced these talks. Most of the resistance violence in South Africa was pretty much background noise compared to the slowing of their economy. While you're digging, see if you can find some substantiation of this, please. (Btw, American sanctions weren't put into place until 1986.)
from wiki: "Under pressure from an international lobby, multinational banks stopped investing in South Africa, resulting in economic stagnation. Numerous banks and Thatcher asked Botha to release Mandela – then at the height of his international fame – to defuse the volatile situation."
That would have been in 85, those talks went nowhere, and the economic situation got worse from there. As you point out you have the US comming on board by 86. The country was near collapse by 1990.
1) I'm getting it from the fact that Mandela refused to renounce violence, over and over again...until he won.
Link I forgot to add and then f&#*ed up my other link
3) Go back and look at our exchanges: Me: "And yet, here it is 20ish years later, and the grinding exploitation and terrible living standards of the black masses (emphasis added) hasn't changed much at all." You: "So if I were to do some minimal digging I'd discover that life is the same in South Africa as it was back then?"
I assumed you were going to dig into the living standards of the masses, not the middle classes or the union-leaders turned plutocrats.
4) Education's great, I'm all in favor of it. I do, however, take umbrage with a resistance leader who cashed in his credentials for an estate worth hundreds of millions saying "Our expectations were too high."
5) You're missing the migrant worker system. You also called their second wives "hookers", which is f%~$ing disgusting. Many miners live in shantytowns hundreds of miles from their home and family for months at a time. Maybe you would have the self-control to keep your pecker in your pants, but most people have a problem with that kind of chastity. Many South African miners keep two households. Whether that's smart, I wouldn't presume to judge, but it's a far cry from hookers.
Article I added to the previous post in an under-the-wire edit
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
3) Go back and look at our exchanges: Me: "And yet, here it is 20ish years later, and the grinding exploitation and terrible living standards of the black masses (emphasis added) hasn't changed much at all." You: "So if I were to do some minimal digging I'd discover that life is the same in South Africa as it was back then?"
I assumed you were going to dig into the living standards of the masses, not the middle classes or the union-leaders turned plutocrats. In fairness, the middle class growing usually means the masses are moving into it. Which is a good thing.
OTOH, those growth numbers are probably misleading: 78% growth in the black middle class doesn't really mean a lot if the black middle class was tiny to start with.
Guy Humual wrote: From wiki: "Under pressure from an international lobby, multinational banks stopped investing in South Africa, resulting in economic stagnation. Numerous banks and Thatcher asked Botha to release Mandela – then at the height of his international fame – to defuse the volatile situation."
That would have been in 85, those talks went nowhere, and the economic situation got worse from there. As you point out you have the US comming on board by 86. The country was near collapse by 1990.
Fair enough, but I'd still like to see some hard economic data like the comrades from Red Flag provided.
thejeff wrote: In fairness, the middle class growing usually means the masses are moving into it. Which is a good thing.
OTOH, those growth numbers are probably misleading: 78% growth in the black middle class doesn't really mean a lot if the black middle class was tiny to start with.
Yum yum, Irish coffee.
1) By won I assume you mean given equal rights?
3) So that 78% increase in the middle class came from rich black South Africans being knocked down rather then some of the "black masses" increasing their lot in life?
4) I'm not sure if I'm on his side or not but he is starting to give back to the community. I'm not sure I can fault someone for getting rich either. And as for his claims, I think he's pretty much saying what I've been saying, except he's living there, and that interview likely took place before this discussion ever started.
5) My brother is working in Northern Canada, he's away from home for months at a time, you're telling me that he should be allowed a second wife? The migrant worker situation really isn't all that strange to me.
As to the hookers and booze comment: it's a common idiom for wasting your money on nothing substantial. Pouring money down the drain or spending like a sailor are another two. I always liked the idiom but I suppose if you were to take it literally it would seem like I were calling the second wives hookers. I really can't judge the character of these ladies, perhaps they don't know they're being taken advantage of by a married man, perhaps they're fine with it, but it seems to me that fooling around on your girlfriend or wife just because you're away from home isn't a legitimate excuse. Polygamy being common isn't a good excuse either. If you have a girl at home you either stay true to her or else you've giving her permission to fool around on you as well. And I don't know about you but I wouldn't want my significant other fooling around on me. There are other ways of entertaining yourself that doesn't involve company.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Guy Humual wrote: From wiki: "Under pressure from an international lobby, multinational banks stopped investing in South Africa, resulting in economic stagnation. Numerous banks and Thatcher asked Botha to release Mandela – then at the height of his international fame – to defuse the volatile situation."
That would have been in 85, those talks went nowhere, and the economic situation got worse from there. As you point out you have the US comming on board by 86. The country was near collapse by 1990.
Fair enough, but I'd still like to see some hard economic data like the comrades from Red Flag provided. It's entirely possible that the banks pulled out because of the unrest in the area as well. I mean there would have been a threat to any investment they had in the country if there was a civil war. Perhaps we're both right?
Reading through that second link you provided about the migrant mine labour conundrum, seems like education is the biggest problem, the other is a lack of infrastructure and living conditions, but poorly educated migrant workers seem to be a problem all around.
1) Equal rights, legalization of the ANC, holding of elections, yes.
3) Without anything further to go on, I would presume it came about from what South Africans call the "gravy train"--i.e., corruption, government sinecures and the selling out of stooges like Ramaphosa. Care to provide any other data?
4) Haha, that's great. Ramaphosa is the poster boy of post-'94 ANC leaders selling out. What do you think it means that he and you are saying pretty much the same thing?
5) I don't presume to judge people on the basis of their consensual sexual relations or to speculate on how many partners someone should be "allowed" to have, but, interestingly enough, I've got a married cousin had a years-long affair with a married Canadian guest worker. Your brother ever been to Massachusetts?
So, I'll ask again, if "hookers and booze" is a common term for spending money on nothing substantial, then how does it apply to a miner's second family?
Guy Humual wrote: Reading through that second link you provided about the migrant mine labour conundrum, seems like education is the biggest problem, the other is a lack of infrastructure and living conditions, but poorly educated migrant workers seem to be a problem all around. Or maybe it's the shiznitty wages.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Reading through that second link you provided about the migrant mine labour conundrum, seems like education is the biggest problem, the other is a lack of infrastructure and living conditions, but poorly educated migrant workers seem to be a problem all around. Or maybe it's the shiznitty wages. Maybe, or maybe they should try spending that money on just one family?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: I've got a married cousin had a years-long affair with a married Canadian guest worker. Your brother ever been to Massachusetts? Has Massachusetts been moved to Northern Canada?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: So, I'll ask again, if "hookers and booze" is a common term for spending money on nothing substantial, then how does it apply to a miner's second family? Well I wouldn't call family of people insubstantial, but it's an investment that shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Haha, that's great. Ramaphosa is the poster boy of post-'94 ANC leaders selling out. What do you think it means that he and you are saying pretty much the same thing? Is he? Successful black leader makes it rich and he's a sell out?
As too why we're saying the same thing, that rebuilding a country and undoing a few hundred years of colonial rule takes time, while I'd assume we're saying the same thing because we're right. By the time Nelson Mandela took office the countries books couldn't have been all that balanced, South Africa gets a ton of it's income from foreign investment, so I imagine that he didn't have the money to make sweeping changes and seizing land and business would probably scared off foreign investment. So gradual changes have been implemented. Now the 90s are a bit hazy for me, but I don't recall mining being that solid of an investment, and there was a small crash with the .com bubble, then the 2000s had that catastrophic crash in 08, over all not a great time for governments anywhere in the world. Lots of places had massive cuts.
The one thing we found though were that the rich were getting richer. In South Africa the rich are almost exclusively white so we have a noticeable disparity there, but to make matters worse, without money it's not like there was a way to relieve the plight of the nation's poorest.
Not that I'm ruling out poor leadership of the ANC, I'm sure there's been corruption and cronyism, but the last two decades haven't exactly been stable models for economic growth either.
Guy Humual wrote: What causes oppression is an imbalance in power, usually as a result of violence. And what causes the violence to be a good idea on the part of the aggressor? The imbalance of power and the fact that humans are downright sociopathic in large groups. (monkeysphere)
The imbalance of power is the ultimate cause here. That's not something you can fix by talking to people.
Quote: which is why violence is often futile. and why talking alone is always futile.
Quote: This goes to my point earlier about how you're qualifying negotiations. At no point did the government negotiate with the ANC or Mandela. And seeing that, how do you not draw the conclusion that negotiations are a result of something else?
When A has the power, B talks to A
When B has the power, A talks to B
When they both have power, they both talk to each other.
Quote: Vocal opposition is a start. By 1985 the crippling sanctions imposed upon the South African government were finally starting to take effect. For the first time they were willing to talk. 45 years later...
Quote: Except of course he was one of the most famous prisoners in the world. I'm sure the South African government would have preferred to have had him shouting "death to the oppressors" as it would have made it easier for them to justify having him locked up. Having him murdered would have just turned him into a martyr. Martyr is better than an agitator.
Quote: I see nothing wrong with calling him a man of peace. I see a lot wrong with calling what is probably the most justified violent opposition in the history of humanity as distasteful, irrelevant, and dismissing it as useless based on some pretty wonky logic.
Quote: And yet it was talks with Mandela that led to the scrapping of Apartheid. No. Aparthied was on its way out from mostly internal forces, the question was HOW it was going to go out. Having an exit strategy certainly helps you get out of a system but its not a reason to leave.
Mandella or someone like him is probably why we didn't have a massacre at the end of aparthied, but one way or another it was going to end.
Quote: It was pressure from the outside that forced these talks. Most of the resistance violence in South Africa was pretty much background noise compared to the slowing of their economy. Turning power over to the blacks was running the real risk of a bloody revolution. I can't see them risking that for a slow economy but i'll look into it further
BigNorseWolf wrote: Mandella or someone like him is probably why we didn't have a massacre at the end of aparthied, but one way or another it was going to end. And that's probably the most important thing about him. Not the early peaceful resistance or the violent phase or anything else. The fact that he came out of prison willing to forgive and deal with those who put him there.
Without that, there probably would have been massacres. And without his assurances and without it being apparent that he had the influence and the presence to pull it off, the apartheid state would have fought on much longer. With much greater casualties both before and after it fell. And probably with a warlord taking power afterward.
OTOH, as the goblin would say, it was that very peaceful compromise that let the Randlords keep their cash and ownership and thus much of their power. All their ill-gotten gains, if you will. And thus kept South Africa on the path of inequality that it's still following today.
Was it worth it? Probably. If only because an all-out bloody civil war rarely leads to democracy and greater equality anyway. The worst tend to rise to the top in such cases.
Guy Humual wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Reading through that second link you provided about the migrant mine labour conundrum, seems like education is the biggest problem, the other is a lack of infrastructure and living conditions, but poorly educated migrant workers seem to be a problem all around. Or maybe it's the shiznitty wages. Maybe, or maybe they should try spending that money on just one family? How about the guy from the article then? Supporting his wife, his kids, his mother and his siblings? Maybe he should stop spending his money on hookers and blow, huh?
thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Mandella or someone like him is probably why we didn't have a massacre at the end of aparthied, but one way or another it was going to end. And that's probably the most important thing about him. Not the early peaceful resistance or the violent phase or anything else. The fact that he came out of prison willing to forgive and deal with those who put him there.
Without that, there probably would have been massacres. And without his assurances and without it being apparent that he had the influence and the presence to pull it off, the apartheid state would have fought on much longer. With much greater casualties both before and after it fell. And probably with a warlord taking power afterward.
OTOH, as the goblin would say, it was that very peaceful compromise that let the Randlords keep their cash and ownership and thus much of their power. All their ill-gotten gains, if you will. And thus kept South Africa on the path of inequality that it's still following today.
Was it worth it? Probably. If only because an all-out bloody civil war rarely leads to democracy and greater equality anyway. The worst tend to rise to the top in such cases. Btw, there were massacres. Just, you know, whites killing blacks (Bisho, the assassination of Chris Hani, I'm sure there were more.)
EDIT: Actually, it turns out, there were massacres on all sides.
Guy Humual wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Haha, that's great. Ramaphosa is the poster boy of post-'94 ANC leaders selling out. What do you think it means that he and you are saying pretty much the same thing? Is he? Successful black leader makes it rich and he's a sell out?
Yes. COSATU leader becomes Coca-Cola executive and platinum mine shareholder who sends off e-mails demanding "We've got to do something about these dastardly wildcat strikers"? Textbook example.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Mandella or someone like him is probably why we didn't have a massacre at the end of aparthied, but one way or another it was going to end. And that's probably the most important thing about him. Not the early peaceful resistance or the violent phase or anything else. The fact that he came out of prison willing to forgive and deal with those who put him there.
Without that, there probably would have been massacres. And without his assurances and without it being apparent that he had the influence and the presence to pull it off, the apartheid state would have fought on much longer. With much greater casualties both before and after it fell. And probably with a warlord taking power afterward.
OTOH, as the goblin would say, it was that very peaceful compromise that let the Randlords keep their cash and ownership and thus much of their power. All their ill-gotten gains, if you will. And thus kept South Africa on the path of inequality that it's still following today.
Was it worth it? Probably. If only because an all-out bloody civil war rarely leads to democracy and greater equality anyway. The worst tend to rise to the top in such cases. Btw, there were massacres. Just, you know, whites killing blacks (Bisho, the assassination of Chris Hani, I'm sure there were more.)
EDIT: Actually, it turns out, there were massacres on all sides. Granted (Though actually fewer than I'd expected, especially in the period under discussion, say '85 on).
Let's say "A lot more massacres" then.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Haha, that's great. Ramaphosa is the poster boy of post-'94 ANC leaders selling out. What do you think it means that he and you are saying pretty much the same thing? Is he? Successful black leader makes it rich and he's a sell out?
Yes. COSATU leader becomes Coca-Cola executive and platinum mine shareholder who sends off e-mails demanding "We've got to do something about these dastardly wildcat strikers"? Textbook example. Again, not to defend the man, but wildcat strikers aren't exactly easy to deal with. Regular union strikes have leaders and people you can negotiate with but with a wildcat strike you're sometimes dealing with nothing more then a mob. I could understand how a former union boss and now shareholder might be upset at workers protesting outside of what he considered the standard arrangement.
Now keep in mind I have no idea what his involvement was, maybe he ordered the shootings, maybe he helped buy out union leaders so that there wouldn't be a strike, but working for coca-cola and owning shares in a mine doesn't automatically make you a sell out does it? I mean being smart and successful shouldn't be criticized, and seeing as he was a leader prior to the fall of apartheid, maybe the only thing stopping him from becoming rich and successful before was the racist restrictions placed on him by the government. I mean I'm getting the feeling that you're suggesting that the only reason he's successful now is that he allowed himself to be bribed and bought off by "the man" rather then just being a natural leader and manager that companies always court and wisely investing his money. I'm not saying he's not corrupt as hell but do we have any evidence that he made his millions off the backs of others?
Ramaphosa's "concomitant action"
Ramaphosa, as leader of the NUMSA (miners' union and flagship of COSATU) came into contact with and became a protege of the Oppenheimers, a family of less racist Randlords who nevertheless had no qualms with amassing fortunes based on the superexploitation of black labor.
Not surprisingly, he was one of the main proponents within the ANC of your much-beloved "peaceful solution" that allowed his Randlord buddies to keep their fortunes intact.
Here he is arguing that successful wildcat strikes are "a bad and dangerous precedent."
Mail and Guardian profile
Random article found after google-searching "Ramaphosa sell out"
Anyway, after however many days this conversation has been going on, I'm done.
"We now return you to our canonization of Saint Nelson and our justification and pooh-poohing of the living hell that South Africa continues to be for the majority of its population."
Down with the ANC/SACP/COSATU Tripartite Alliance!
For a black-centered workers government!
Vive le Galt!
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Ramaphosa's "concomitant action"
Ramaphosa, as leader of the NUMSA (miners' union and flagship of COSATU) came into contact with and became a protege of the Oppenheimers, a family of less racist Randlords who nevertheless had no qualms with amassing fortunes based on the superexploitation of black labor.
Not surprisingly, he was one of the main proponents within the ANC of your much-beloved "peaceful solution" that allowed his Randlord buddies to keep their fortunes intact.
So after looking through some of the articles you've linked (I couldn't read them all, I do have other things to do besides argue on the internet) I have to say that my biggest problem with the man is that he was a union leader that never even worked in a mine. As far as I'm concerned you can't represent your worker's rights without having some idea of their plight. That to me is a problem with organized unions everywhere.
As to the comments that successful wildcat strikes are "a bad and dangerous precedent." I can see where he's cumming from, as a former union boss you want to have the ability to negotiate with management, and if you have people doing whatever they want you're not presenting yourself as someone that's capable of negotiating because you have no control over your members. From the management's point of view you need to deal with someone that represents all the workers and not just clusters within a mine. One deal is preferable then 3 or 4 small deals. And supposing that you settle one mine and get the workers back on board the last thing you want is to have to pay more then your competitors.
Things work better all around if the unions fight for the workers and management deals with the unions. The problem we seem to be having in South Africa at the moment is the unions are bought off by the companies and the workers are left to fend for themselves. Seems like the unions need better management.
|
