NationStates Jolt Archive

Zimbabwe's Communist dictator, Robert Mugabe, has started destroying urban areas, and forcing the people into their 'rural home'.

Most of the areas being evacuated voted against the bastard.

It appears that the urban areas remaining are being given to the Chinese.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/06/wzim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/06/ixhome.html)

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/654nqqde.asp)

I remember another Communist dictator, allied to China trying this. Look at how that turned out.

Nutjobs like that make the concept of "Justifiable Homicide" very appealing.

Yet we are spreading democracy to Iraq and not african countries like this......why?

The good old "Around the World in 80 Dictatorships" fallacy.

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.

They stole it from the Chinese?

Why do you keep saying, "communist"?
Lets not get into pointing out that the Khmer Rouge's foreign minister once had to state, "We are not communists" in a futile attempt to get the point across.

That aside, yes, this is really depressing. I read of perhaps a million homeless almost over night with no contingency plan evident? Why in the world an eighty-odd year old dictator would be concentrating on the long-term control he weilds over his people I really don't know, shouldn't he be trying to secure some sort of great legacy for his crazy self, by now? Targetting largely pro-opposition areas when the next election is presumably years away and engaging in forced ruralisation so as to make people more easily controllable seems like a waste of time for a man who might well die of natural causes before the next election is due.

Maybe it's just insane denial, but that sounds like the easy answer. I dunno.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

This sort of "land reform" BS is classic communism.

I can tell you now that if you stick to the communism thing and turn this into a debate on communism, you're turning your perfectly viable thread about a modern despot into a losing concern on your part. If Zimbabwe were communist it would be absolutely impossible for this to happen, and unless you knew him personally you would not even have heard of Robert Mugabe, even if he were the most committed communist of all.

I would hesitate to derail your thread by pointing these things out, because, well, far be it from me to waylay criticism of ZANU-PF, but you seem to want to make it something that it isn't.

He used to be a communist but he soon turned to pan-africanism which directly goes against the concept of racially equality

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

People have said that Adolf Hitler was a great host. Perhaps I should give that tid-bit to the Holocaust deniers?

As to the "grossly misunderstood" bit, it is interesting that you do nothing to refute it but say "my Daddy is ...".

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them

So, you think property rights should be based upon race. Credibility=0

Zimbabwe's Communist dictator, Robert Mugabe, has started destroying urban areas, and forcing the people into their 'rural home'.

Most of the areas being evacuated voted against the bastard.

It appears that the urban areas remaining are being given to the Chinese.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/06/wzim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/06/ixhome.html)

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/654nqqde.asp)

I remember another Communist dictator, allied to China trying this. Look at how that turned out.

Hmmm... would that be... Pol Pot?


And... Rotovia? It's Land Reform if the people being sent are going voluntarily. it's something else when they're going at gun-point, can you guess what that is?

If Zimbabwe were communist it would be absolutely impossible for this to happen, and unless you knew him personally you would not even have heard of Robert Mugabe, even if he were the most committed communist of all.

I would hesitate to derail your thread by pointing these things out, because, well, far be it from me to waylay criticism of ZANU-PF, but you seem to want to make it something that it isn't.

Communism is defined by 10 basic points:

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly
6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state
7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country
10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

How does Mugabe's Zimbabwe fit?

1) is the subject of this thread.

2) Top tax rate is 46.4%

3) Zimbabwe taxes estates

4) is the subject of this thread.

5) Done

6) No free press in Zimbabwe

7) is the subject of this thread.

8) is the subject of this thread.

9) is the subject of this thread.

10) Mugabe has moved against private education, but backed off.

You can debate what Marx really wanted until you're blue in the face, but the 10 points I have made are the essential requirements of a communist regime, and Mugabe fulfills them.

Please read this: Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html) (Its not the whole manifesto, it is an explaination of it, and its implementation)

Hmmm... would that be... Pol Pot?


And... Rotovia? It's Land Reform if the people being sent are going voluntarily. it's something else when they're going at gun-point, can you guess what that is?

Did you need to ask?

Mugabe calls it "land reform", but don't they all?

umm, I used to think Mugabe was some kind of @#%^*! but I don't know anymore, he's 81 years old, that was a bit of shock.ever think he's trying to restore the way of life the Zulu and other tribes had before the evil capitalist world forced them to change????? of course not, much as you people hate him you happily watch FOX news and take it up the butt from George W. Bush on a regular basis...AND YOU LIKE IT

Communism is defined by 10 basic points:

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly
6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state
7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country
10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

How does Mugabe's Zimbabwe fit?

1) is the subject of this thread.

2) Top tax rate is 46.4%

3) Zimbabwe taxes estates

4) is the subject of this thread.

5) Done

6) No free press in Zimbabwe

7) is the subject of this thread.

8) is the subject of this thread.

9) is the subject of this thread.

10) Mugabe has moved against private education, but backed off.

You can debate what Marx really wanted until you're blue in the face, but the 10 points I have made are the essential requirements of a communist regime, and Mugabe fulfills them.

Please read this: Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html) (Its not the whole manifesto, it is an explaination of it, and its implementation)


You know what's funny? I've always tended to think of Mugabe's regime as more Maoist...

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.

I understand it is a corrupt government but then perhaps it's the African way since they are certainly not unique in that continent.

The old Colonial land stealing excuse won't wash either.

These ex-colonial nations weren't nations prior to colonisation.
On independence all of them were left with an enormously value-added economy which they destroyed through corruption quicker than you can say "aids"

I say he's a autocrat, without clear economic direction.
Calling Mugabe communist is nothing more than a ploy to get people scared of evil soviets scared of the black man once more.

I think that there is no longer a need for white land owners in Africa. It is obvious that Mugabe is going at it the wrong way (ie there is not the expertise to actually work the land). He should have tried to get better education for the black quasi-slaves so they can actually take over the farms.

White Landowners in Africa are the sons and grandsons of some of the worst human rights abusers to ever have lived. You still get Jews sueing German companies about the Holocaust, which you support, yet when Black people demand their land back, that is somehow a bad thing?

I say he's a autocrat, without clear economic direction.
Calling Mugabe communist is nothing more than a ploy to get people scared of evil soviets scared of the black man once more.

No, it isn't. It is a reasonable categorisation based upon his policies. He does have economic direction, that all parts of the economy should be under state control.

You didn't actually read my post, and think about it, did you?

I think that there is no longer a need for white land owners in Africa.

Property rights should be determined by race? I don't listen to racists, neither should anyone else.

White Landowners in Africa are the sons and grandsons of some of the worst human rights abusers to ever have lived. You still get Jews sueing German companies about the Holocaust, which you support, yet when Black people demand their land back, that is somehow a bad thing?

There's a difference between the descentants of someone, and a company that was then and is now a going concern.

And again, you are basing property rights on race. The white-farmers who were expelled were Zimbabwean citizens born there. It is their home, they are Africans, regardless of the colour of their skin.

Their lands are not being given to dispossessed blacks who had things stolen from them personally, they are being given to Mugabe's cronies.

White Landowners in Africa are the sons and grandsons of some of the worst human rights abusers to ever have lived. You still get Jews sueing German companies about the Holocaust, which you support, yet when Black people demand their land back, that is somehow a bad thing?

I think there is a bit of a difference between suing companies through the court system, and the systematic rape, violence, terrorism and murder that is being perpetrated on the grounds of 'land reform'.
I *do not* believe that the way Africa was treated when it was colonised was a good thing in any way. But victimhood is not an excuse for violence and thuggery.

And, incidentally, the same applies for Israel.

Blessings
Cyber

I say he's a autocrat, without clear economic direction.
Calling Mugabe communist is nothing more than a ploy to get people scared of evil soviets scared of the black man once more.
I think that there is no longer a need for white land owners in Africa. It is obvious that Mugabe is going at it the wrong way (ie there is not the expertise to actually work the land). He should have tried to get better education for the black quasi-slaves so they can actually take over the farms.
"quasi-slaves"? Please find out what you are talking about.
The majority of farm workers, all the way up to the supervisors who actually ran the farms, were black.
None of them were given land, it was given to Mugabe's cronies in the military who didn't have a clue what they were doing and thereby destroyed Zimbabwe's economy.

White Landowners in Africa are the sons and grandsons of some of the worst human rights abusers to ever have lived. You still get Jews sueing German companies about the Holocaust, which you support, yet when Black people demand their land back, that is somehow a bad thing?
Most of the white farmers had little problem with land reform. They did object to something they had spent decades building up being destroyed by a despotic lunatic.
Also blaming someone for something their parent might have done is so immoral it cannot be expressed in words.

And, incidentally, the same applies for Israel

Don't hijack my thread. And, incidently, can you find the similarity between the thuggery of Mugabe's regime, and self-defence of a democratic nation surrounded by enemies?

The people don't own the means of production, distribution, or exchange, there's a head of steat, the society isn't organised along communal lines, and more simply than that, Marx isn't the be all and end all of communism.



Actually in relation to Zimbabwe, though, what're we doing with this thread? Talking about Israel? Oh.

I just hope that the people of Zimbabwe -including those with access to military equipment- can organise a decent revolution or other transition without ending up just making do with a little bit better than Mugabe.

Don't hijack my thread. And, incidently, can you find the similarity between the thuggery of Mugabe's regime, and self-defence of a democratic nation surrounded by enemies?

I'm sorry if you think my comment constituted my trying to hijack your thread. It certainly wasn't my intent. Most of my posts are written 'train of thought' stylee and that particular connection popped into my head when I was nearing the end.

And the similarity between Zimbabwe and Israel is that they both use victimhood as justification for unjustifiable actions.

Blessings
Cyber

Actually in relation to Zimbabwe, though, what're we doing with this thread? Talking about Israel? Oh.



*lol*
I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I can only assume you are referring to my wee post up there. It wasn't really talking about Israel, it was a one line comment that the terribly nice poster who started the thread has chosen to respond to, which is fair enough. I always find tho that the most interesting discussion start off on one topic and can end up somewhere entirely different :)

Blessings
Cyber

And the similarity between Zimbabwe and Israel is that they both use victimhood as justification for unjustifiable actions.

No, they don't. Zimbabwe does. Israel's actions (which you do not prove are unjustifiable) are justified by Israel's right to defend itself, and its people.

Another key difference is that Israel's actions are directed against the actual perpetrators of terrorist acts, and those who have given them help (example, people who let their homes be used as tunnel entrances, or bomb factories)

Israel's existance is partially justified by the Holocaust.

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.
*snrk* Ah, of course, that must be it. He's just grossly misunderstood. He managed to take a pretty well off country that produced a relatively large surplus of food and turn it into the shithole it is today. Now, while the whole diamond market bit did play into a major collapse of their economy, had he not nationalized all the farms and ejected the white farmers there would still be plenty of food for the country. Ah well, I guess an abundance of food isn't important to socialist dictatorships.

So many LABELS. So few insights into what can be done. Such a shame. I'm not better of course.

I've come to the conclusion that this is more of a Maoist government that we're seeing here. It has a lot in common with Mao's governmance, and the Nepalese Maoists as well. This "land reform" has much in common with the Maoist policies that lead to "The great leap foreward" and other travesties.

"Land reform" was also practiced by Russian, Korean, and Vietnamese communists.

One of the points I'd like to make against the land reform as a non-Fox news viewer is that while it might be morally alright to disown the ancestors of the colonial masters and return what they owned to ancestors of the original inhabitants it is practically very stupid. A problem that is showing up is that after some months of use, the farming machines are breaking down and the black farmers don't know how to fix them, since they didn't have the opportunities to learn it.

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.

Your family is prominent in South Africa, but you live in australia?

Now, why is that.

Zimbabwe's Communist dictator, Robert Mugabe, has started destroying urban areas, and forcing the people into their 'rural home'.

Most of the areas being evacuated voted against the bastard.

It appears that the urban areas remaining are being given to the Chinese.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/06/wzim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/06/ixhome.html)

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/654nqqde.asp)

I remember another Communist dictator, allied to China trying this. Look at how that turned out.


I've seen this movie before... :(

http://www.toucansolutions.com/oldfield/images/album_covers/KillingFields.jpg

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.

I find what you say a little frightening, considering the man is a murderer. Of course, I'm sure there are a lot of nice, friendly psycopaths. By the by, who decides that your land is not rightfully yours and should be taken away? And if it is just your friend "Mugabe" who makes that decision, how can there be any hope for due process?

- Libertistia

Your family is prominent in South Africa, but you live in australia?

Now, why is that.

Because lots of South Africans fled to Australia, Canada, and other nations when the country began to fall apart?

I'd be amazed if you hadn't heard about the... mass exodus.

I personally know a great many people who left South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia, they will say).

They took their money and relatives with them.

I can tell you now that if you stick to the communism thing and turn this into a debate on communism, you're turning your perfectly viable thread about a modern despot into a losing concern on your part. If Zimbabwe were communist it would be absolutely impossible for this to happen, and unless you knew him personally you would not even have heard of Robert Mugabe, even if he were the most committed communist of all.

I would hesitate to derail your thread by pointing these things out, because, well, far be it from me to waylay criticism of ZANU-PF, but you seem to want to make it something that it isn't.
How could it be impossible for a communist to be a despot? Perhaps you have never heard of this asshole named STALIN!!! Or perhaps Kim Il Jung, or Kim Sueng Il, or Mao Zhedung, or Lenin, or Fidel Castro, or a great many others-all of whom murdered and imprisoned thousands of innocent people IF NOT MILLIONS!!!
I want you to go to the library today and check out "Animal Farm" by George Orwell(An avowed socialist so don't you dare cry: bias.) You don't seem to realize that people will say or do anything. Even propose things that happen to be good for the people, such as looking out for the poor as communists say they do; but in the end their only goal is absolute power and the true definition of power is: One man's ability to turn another man into a corpse.
The fact is all communist governments have been dictatorships and in my humble opinion, the only good dictator is a dead one.

- Libertistia

"This misery shall pass and dictators die... And the power they took from the people shall return to the people. For so long a man is mortal, Liberty shall never perish..."
-Chaz Chaplin-

Because lots of South Africans fled to Australia, Canada, and other nations when the country began to fall apart?

I'd be amazed if you hadn't heard about the... mass exodus.

Yes, I am well aware of that. It just strikes me as a little odd that the should be such a supporter of Mugabe if that is indeed the case.

Also, it sort of belies any prominence in SA, does it not?

I've seen this movie before... :(
<image snipped>
That is a terrifying thought.
So many LABELS. So few insights into what can be done. <snip>
:sniper: 'Nuff said!

I personally know a great many people who left South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia, they will say).

They took their money and relatives with them.

New York City has quite a few.

I say he's a autocrat, without clear economic direction.
Calling Mugabe communist is nothing more than a ploy to get people scared of evil soviets scared of the black man once more.

I think that there is no longer a need for white land owners in Africa. It is obvious that Mugabe is going at it the wrong way (ie there is not the expertise to actually work the land). He should have tried to get better education for the black quasi-slaves so they can actually take over the farms.

White Landowners in Africa are the sons and grandsons of some of the worst human rights abusers to ever have lived. You still get Jews sueing German companies about the Holocaust, which you support, yet when Black people demand their land back, that is somehow a bad thing?

As you may note from the post I made here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424265

it's not just about land reform, or blacks getting their land back.

Now it's just horrific abuse.

I can tell you now that if you stick to the communism thing and turn this into a debate on communism, you're turning your perfectly viable thread about a modern despot into a losing concern on your part. If Zimbabwe were communist it would be absolutely impossible for this to happen, and unless you knew him personally you would not even have heard of Robert Mugabe, even if he were the most committed communist of all.

I would hesitate to derail your thread by pointing these things out, because, well, far be it from me to waylay criticism of ZANU-PF, but you seem to want to make it something that it isn't.

Hmmm... wasn't Stalin a Communist?

This guy sounds a lot like Stalin... Communism would not prevent this crap. Communism can't prevent a sociopath from killing his own people arbitrarily.

besides, what's wrong with ripping on Communism?

Hmmm... wasn't Stalin a Communist?

This guy sounds a lot like Stalin... Communism would not prevent this crap. Communism can't prevent a sociopath from killing his own people arbitrarily.

besides, what's wrong with ripping on Communism?

I've heard comments like the one from Beth from many a "Communist" who solve their moral dilemma by simply stating that the dictator in question was not a Communist. So, I've heard them say that Lenin was not a Communist, Stalin was not a Communist, Mao was not a Communist, Kim Jong-il is not a Communist...

It's like those Muslims who say that Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim - when we know very well that he is.

Mugabe is a Communist. Plain and simple. And he's gone the way that most Communist governments go - to commit atrocities against defenseless innocents in the name of the Party.

it is my opinion that The ones who started should go back and sort them out, with internationaly collaboration as a part of the war on terror, Britain and her allies should return to Africa, so those countries demanded their independance, it shouldn't have been given, brits left, power vacuum, homicides like mugabe in power, africa needs to be taught the merits of democracy and all the dictators should be put in charge of a virtual country instead inside a nice cosy stone prison cell

I am a big fan of Adolf Hitler! Does anyone else feel the same way?? Let me know! " Crush the weak, trample the Dead!!!

Since Stalin only ever created a deranged form of socialism I think it's fairly clear he's not commie. And Lenin took over the Soviets who were perfectly comunist and took them BACK down the path to socialism.

Mao was communist to start with and then he betrayed it in the so called 'cultural revolution'.

Since Stalin only ever created a deranged form of socialism I think it's fairly clear he's not commie. And Lenin took over the Soviets who were perfectly comunist and took them BACK down the path to socialism.

Mao was communist to start with and then he betrayed it in the so called 'cultural revolution'.

Excuses, excuses. They called it the "Communist Party".

You sound like a Muslim saying that Osama isn't a Muslim. Pfft.

I'm a black man!!!

What? my skin is white and my eyes are blue?

According to Whispering Legs, I'm black!!

It appears that the urban areas remaining are being given to the Chinese.


I remember another Communist dictator, allied to China trying this. Look at how that turned out.
The Chinese? Not those interfering little bastards! Sometimes they make you support waht the Japanese were doing there in WW2

I've heard comments like the one from Beth from many a "Communist" who solve their moral dilemma by simply stating that the dictator in question was not a Communist. So, I've heard them say that Lenin was not a Communist, Stalin was not a Communist, Mao was not a Communist, Kim Jong-il is not a Communist...

It's like those Muslims who say that Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim - when we know very well that he is.

Mugabe is a Communist. Plain and simple. And he's gone the way that most Communist governments go - to commit atrocities against defenseless innocents in the name of the Party.

Going by your logic, that also makes Jim Jones and David Koresh Christians.

:rolleyes:

Going by your logic, that also makes Jim Jones and David Koresh Christians.

:rolleyes:

Yes it does.

The Chinese? Not those interfering little bastards! Sometimes they make you support waht the Japanese were doing there in WW2

They provide Mugabe the arms

He used to be a communist but he soon turned to pan-africanism which directly goes against the concept of racially equality
Pan-Africanism, as with MOST -isms is NOT simply cut and dried one thing. It is not inherently against racial equality, just as feminism is not inherently against gender equality.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/P/PanA1fric.asp

I honestly don't see what the point is in trying to find a 'good' label for Mugabe. He violates human rights. Period. Who cares if he is capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, racist, stupidist or whatever? We can not condemn an entire philosophy (whatever you decide he fits into) based on the actions of one person, one government, one nation, or one GROUP of nations. So forget the labels, and let's talk about what needs to change!

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

This sort of "land reform" BS is classic communism.

Do you even know what communism means?

Do you even know what communism means?

I do, you don't apparantly.

Communism requires the elimination of property rights, and what do we see in Zimbabwe, and what have we seen in China, the USSR, Vietnam, Cuba? We see land being seized by the government arbitrarily.

Yet we are spreading democracy to Iraq and not african countries like this......why? LOL, I'm sure the rightwingers have a whole host of excuses for you....the truth is that Africa is the forgotten continent, full of poverty, disease, and very little money...henceforth, it fails to capture rightwing interest.

I do, you don't apparantly.

Communism requires the elimination of property rights, and what do we see in Zimbabwe, and what have we seen in China, the USSR, Vietnam, Cuba? We see land being seized by the government arbitrarily.

But that's not something inherently communist. "Communism" looks at getting the land and giving it to everyone.
Other Absolutist dictatorships have been seizing land (and other stuff) and giving it to single people (ie party people).
I would say the second part is more like a description.

Now, I said I don't think it's being implemented properly, but that doesn't mean the idea is a bad one.
"Africa to Africans" how is that different from "Only buy American!" or the constant anti-immigration voices in the US?
I don't say that killing or mistreating white (I'm not anti-white, they might as well be green) farmers is the way to do it at all. I'd prefer them to be compensated and sent on their way.
These people are the children of some of the worst racists who ever have walked the Earth. Especially in what is today Zimbabwe. They have profited directly from that racism.
A German ex-farmer from Namibia with whom I have spoken once was in fact the worst racist I have ever seen. I cannot see how other people from the same background are any different.
----------
But calling me a racist is a much more convenient way of disposing of the uncomfortable fact that this guilt has not been repaid yet.
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth...

Communism was the 'Big Evil' for *such* a long time that I think it has become ingrained in the most seemingly sensible people. As a philosophy, it has it's merits. I have discussed these many times with people of varying political persuasions.
One of the absolute essentials of communism (as described and set down by Marx and Engel) is a free press. Most seemingly 'communist' countries never had this. It was mainly about taking the means of production out of the hands of the wealthy few landowners and putting it in the hands of the people. It was about equality and fair treatment. Although Marx wasn't the one who said, ''property is theft" (that was Proudhon-whom Marx had a wee bit of a feud with), it is an idea that holds some resonance in the Communist Manifesto. Communism is not the politics of envy as some have stated. Indeed, Engels came from a wealthy family.

So although many dictators have called themselves, or been called by others, communist, by definition, a situation where there is no free press and where there is only the Dictator, *cannot* be communist, in terms of what Marx and Engels said.

Blessings
Cyber
See, I didn't mention Isra.......oops *grins*

But that's not something inherently communist. "Communism" looks at getting the land and giving it to everyone.

In theory in practice, Communists take land from its owners and give it to the government.

These people are the children ...

Stop right fucking there. Why should people be punished for the alleged crimes of their ancestors?

The farmers are African, your racism blinds you to this. They were born there, it is all they know.

Besides, the fact that they were feeding the nation before they were thrown out is ample compensation for past alleged crimes.

One of the absolute essentials of communism (as described and set down by Marx and Engel) is a free press. Most seemingly 'communist' countries never had this.

That is contradictory, Marx advocated "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state"

Marx also advocated "Confiscation of the property of all ... rebels."

In other words, Communism requires the seizure of all media outlets by the state, especially those which disagree with the regime.

Another point, the economies of Communist are usually in a shambolic state, and the people are repressed. If the media, in Communist countries were allowed to report what was really happening, the Communists would collapse.

North Koreans are told that they live in a paradise, and the rest of the world starves.

The lack of a free press is essential to Communism, and to the maintenance of the Communist state.

It was mainly about taking the means of production out of the hands of the wealthy few landowners and putting it in the hands of the people.

Rubbish, what Marx did was this: he takes an aspect of society, falsely claim that it is hopelessly broken and cannot possibly be fixed under capitalism, and then leap headlong into the assumption that the solution is state control. Of course, he never justifies his assumption that the state can do everything best, nor does he explain how, and why such an all-powerful state won't abuse its powers, and become tyrannical. The fact that every attempt at Communism has ended in destitution and tyranny ought to convince anyone with eyes and brain-cells. Except, perhaps the sophists who twist Marx every time a Communist is in the news.

Perhaps you ought to read this. It is an explaination of the Communist Manifesto: Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html)

<<That is contradictory, Marx advocated "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state"

Marx also advocated "Confiscation of the property of all ... rebels."

In other words, Communism requires the seizure of all media outlets by the state, especially those which disagree with the regime.>>

Communication. As in the post and the telephone. TV and Newspapers are not a means of communication.

I'd be interested in what's in that there gap too, care to give a pagereference?

Yes it does.

Watching from the sidelines, I think you're trying to make a point, but not spelling it out for the rest of us.

Is it something along the lines of; "All groups have their nutjobs and extremists, and its everyone's responsibility to own up to and take responsibility for them; rather than simply disavow them and ignore the problem of extremism in their group"?

'cause that's what I'm getting from your statements, but I'm not sure if that's what you're intending.

Watching from the sidelines, I think you're trying to make a point, but not spelling it out for the rest of us.

Is it something along the lines of; "All groups have their nutjobs and extremists, and its everyone's responsibility to own up to and take responsibility for them; rather than simply disavow them and ignore the problem of extremism in their group"?

'cause that's what I'm getting from your statements, but I'm not sure if that's what you're intending.

Exactly. Although it is not the intent of the greater body of Christians to create Jim Jones, and not the intent of the greater body of Communists to create Stalin, and not the intent of the greater body of Moslems to create Osama, those people were creations of the original philosophies - taken to an extreme.

As such, people need to take responsibility for this. They need to review their own philosophical underpinnings and ask how such an extremism can be permanently removed from their belief system.

And for people to say, "well, he's not really one of us" is a major cop-out.

Communication. As in the post and the telephone. TV and Newspapers are not a means of communication.

BAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's see a few definitions of "communication" from Dictionary.com:

-The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.

-The art and technique of using words effectively to impart information or ideas.

-A system, such as mail, telephone, or television, for sending and receiving messages

What are newspapers and TV but communication?

That's weak, even by the standards of the "there's never been a Communist government" sophists.

No one in their right mind could argue that newspapers, and other forms of media are not communication.

I honestly don't see what the point is in trying to find a 'good' label for Mugabe. He violates human rights. Period. Who cares if he is capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, racist, stupidist or whatever? We can not condemn an entire philosophy (whatever you decide he fits into) based on the actions of one person, one government, one nation, or one GROUP of nations. So forget the labels, and let's talk about what needs to change!
MODS! MODS! SHE'S TRYING TO BE REASONABLE!

Why do you keep saying, "communist"?
Lets not get into pointing out that the Khmer Rouge's foreign minister once had to state, "We are not communists" in a futile attempt to get the point across.

That aside, yes, this is really depressing. I read of perhaps a million homeless almost over night with no contingency plan evident? Why in the world an eighty-odd year old dictator would be concentrating on the long-term control he weilds over his people I really don't know, shouldn't he be trying to secure some sort of great legacy for his crazy self, by now? Targetting largely pro-opposition areas when the next election is presumably years away and engaging in forced ruralisation so as to make people more easily controllable seems like a waste of time for a man who might well die of natural causes before the next election is due.

Maybe it's just insane denial, but that sounds like the easy answer. I dunno.

The Khmer Rouge were communists. Why not ask some people who survived their reign, who had to go through their indoctrination programs? Just because one of them said "we are not communists," doesn't mean a goddamn thing. That's one of the oldest communist tricks in the book. Simply say "we are not communists," and the idiots of the West are guaranteed to come to their aid.

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.

The land was never stolen from them. In point of fact, just the opposite; under white rule, the blacks received the best land. Because the natives didn't have the proper equipment for agriculture, most of the land they weren't able to use. The settlers, however, did have the right stuff, and they were able to make use of the lower quality land.

I say he's a autocrat, without clear economic direction.
Calling Mugabe communist is nothing more than a ploy to get people scared of evil soviets scared of the black man once more.

I think that there is no longer a need for white land owners in Africa. It is obvious that Mugabe is going at it the wrong way (ie there is not the expertise to actually work the land). He should have tried to get better education for the black quasi-slaves so they can actually take over the farms.

White Landowners in Africa are the sons and grandsons of some of the worst human rights abusers to ever have lived. You still get Jews sueing German companies about the Holocaust, which you support, yet when Black people demand their land back, that is somehow a bad thing?

Don't forget, Mugabe's seizure of the white-owned land cost a lot of black Africans their jobs.

Pan-Africanism, as with MOST -isms is NOT simply cut and dried one thing. It is not inherently against racial equality, just as feminism is not inherently against gender equality.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/P/PanA1fric.asp

Most Pan-Africans are racist. Those who are not (like Steve Biko) are mostly dead.

These people are the children of some of the worst racists who ever have walked the Earth. Especially in what is today Zimbabwe. They have profited directly from that racism.

That's more bullshit propaganda promulgated by the Soviets. The hypocritical gangsters who run Africa claim to hate colonialism, yet they welcome Soviet colonialism with open arms. The Soviets do everything to can to instigate racism, foment racial violence, etc., to create mass chaos and set the stage for communism.

Most Pan-Africans are racist. Those who are not (like Steve Biko) are mostly dead.
I'd like to know where you got the facts to back up that statement. Was there some sort of survey done on pan-Africanists? (check yes for racist and no for non-racist?)

It's like saying most feminists hate men. That's an opinion. It doesn't make it reality.

That's more bullshit propaganda promulgated by the Russians. The hypocritical gangsters who run Africa claim to hate colonialism, yet they welcome Russian colonialism with open arms. The Russians do everything to can to instigate racism, foment racial violence, etc., to create mass chaos and set the stage for communism.
Mr Roach-Busters, I'm afraid I'm going to be a kind of nosy parker, but where do you get cocaine that pure?

Mr Roach-Busters, I'm afraid I'm going to be a kind of nosy parker, but where do you get cocaine that pure?

Replace the word "Russians," with "Soviets."

Zimbabwe's Communist dictator, Robert Mugabe, has started destroying urban areas, and forcing the people into their 'rural home'.

Most of the areas being evacuated voted against the bastard.

It appears that the urban areas remaining are being given to the Chinese.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/06/wzim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/06/ixhome.html)

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/654nqqde.asp)

I remember another Communist dictator, allied to China trying this. Look at how that turned out.



Erm, what? Mugabe is many things, communist is not one of them, the guy is just an arsehole trying to stay in power, he's not an idealist, he doesn't believe in anything, calling him a communist is an insult to the communist ideology.

Replace the word "Russians," with "Soviets."
There are no Soviets anymore. The Soviets do not 'do' anything now.

Erm, what? Mugabe is many things, communist is not one of them, the guy is just an arsehole trying to stay in power, he's not an idealist, he doesn't believe in anything, calling him a communist is an insult to the communist ideology.

Who isn't? :p

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a duck.

There are no Soviets anymore. The Soviets do not 'do' anything now.

I know, but they did during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Russia or her people. Her people are among the gentlest and most cordial in the world. I have nothing but respect for the country. It's the Soviets who ruled over the people that I hate.

There are no Soviets anymore. The Soviets do not 'do' anything now.

Consider the possibility that some people haven't watched the news or read a newspaper since the 1980s...

Consider the possibility that some people haven't watched the news or read a newspaper since the 1980s...

President Putrid was a KGB agent, was he not? And was not Yeltsin a member of the Communist Party?

Communism is defined by 10 basic points:

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly
6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state
7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country
10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

How does Mugabe's Zimbabwe fit?

1) is the subject of this thread.

2) Top tax rate is 46.4%

3) Zimbabwe taxes estates

4) is the subject of this thread.

5) Done

6) No free press in Zimbabwe

7) is the subject of this thread.

8) is the subject of this thread.

9) is the subject of this thread.

10) Mugabe has moved against private education, but backed off.

You can debate what Marx really wanted until you're blue in the face, but the 10 points I have made are the essential requirements of a communist regime, and Mugabe fulfills them.

Please read this: Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html) (Its not the whole manifesto, it is an explaination of it, and its implementation)



1) Not really, hes taken land from white farmers and given it to blacks who support him, thats hardly equitable

2) 46.6% really isnt all that high, in the UK our top rate is 40% and one of the three major political parties wants it up to 50%. Are we communist? alas no.

3) In the UK inheritance tax is around 40%

4) Thats not communism thats called being a dick head

5) Yes but in communism this is done for the good of the many as opposed to the good of the one and his friends

6) Its called socialism get used to it.

7,8 and 9) are all common sense and social progression, you'll see this in all but the most conservative societies

10) I'd call that a basic human right, but hell I'm a socialist so I would wouldnt I?

Consider the possibility that some people haven't watched the news or read a newspaper since the 1980s...

For your information, I do watch the news and read newspapers. :rolleyes:

President Putrid was a KGB agent, was he not? And was not Yeltsin a member of the Communist Party?
If Yeltsin and Putin are Communists, then I'm a Chinese emperor. They were party members - when the party membership was the sole way to power and cushy jobs.

You'd better not insult Mr Putin, or the KGB will hoo-doo you... ;)

Erm, what? Mugabe is many things, communist is not one of them, the guy is just an arsehole trying to stay in power, he's not an idealist, he doesn't believe in anything, calling him a communist is an insult to the communist ideology.

Read the rest of the thread. By the by, is not 100 million corpses an insult to Communism too.

Next thing you'll be telling me is that referring to Auschwitz is an insult to the Nazi ideology.

1) Not really, hes taken land from white farmers and given it to blacks who support him, thats hardly equitable

And this could happen in a country where property rights are upheld by the government? The answer is no. The land seizures, and reallocations by the state constitute the abolition of property in land.

2) 46.6% really isnt all that high, in the UK our top rate is 40% and one of the three major political parties wants it up to 50%. Are we communist? alas no.

It is is a country so poor, and in such need of economic development. The fact that certain British politicians are tax-obsessive doesn't make them Communists (do they fulfill all the rest opf the criteria). In other words, you've not refuted me.

3) In the UK inheritance tax is around 40%

Bully for the UK, doesn't make Mugabe less a communist.

4) Thats not communism thats called being a dick head

In other words, you can't make a cogent argument, and are too much of a shite to admit it. Seizure of the property of people who leave the country, or oppose the regime is a part of Communism. Live with it, or kill some Commies.

5) Yes but in communism this is done for the good of the many as opposed to the good of the one and his friends

No-brain semantics. Since when was a monopoly good. Is Microsoft's (almost) monopoly position good for the software business? NO!

6) Its called socialism get used to it

In other words, you can't make a cogent argument, and are too much of a shite to admit it. How many Communist nations have a free press? (answer rhymes with "Nero")

7,8 and 9) are all common sense and social progression, you'll see this in all but the most conservative societies

No, they aren't, and if they were, that would make them non-Communist.

7) means a centrally planned economy, which is a great way to make and keep a dictator all powerful, however, if the aim is to provde enough prosperity to keep the people fed, and provide for all other needs. It fails miserably

8) is civil conscription. A blantantly totalitarian measure, which is necessary in Communism because there can be no economic incentive to work because whatever you take home from work for the state, the state takes away.

9) see "Great Leap Forward"

10) I'd call that a basic human right, but hell I'm a socialist so I would wouldnt I?

Conscripting children to work in Government-run sweatshops a human right? Bollocks.

What Marx advocates persuant to 10) is the following:
a) the elimination of any and all private providers of education, including home schooling
b) "children's factory labor in its present form" when Marx wrote his rubbish meant children working for private enterprise, which Marx seeks to eliminate anyway
c) "Combination of education with with industrial production, etc" means that Children work in state-run factories under the guise of 'education'

What you've produced, Tograna, is a circular argument. Meaning that your premise (that Communism is good, and anything which is bad, like Mugabe's regime, is not Communism) is the same as your conclusion. It also happens to be the only evidence, apart from irrelevant UK examples.

Can you please answer the following questions on the UK:

1) Has HMG abolished all private property rights?

2) Does HMG seize the peoperty of anyone who opposed HMG, or attempts to leave the UK?

3) Has the UK shut down all non-Government owned banks?

4) Has HMG seized all means of transport and communication in the UK?

5) Does HMG force all Britons to work?

6) Has HMG closed all private schools in the UK, and banned home schooling?

7) oes HMG arbitrarily combine agriculture, and manufacuring industries?

I believe the answer to all these questions is no.

Still, I shouldn't be so hard on you, at least you are not trying to tell me that newspapers and TV aren't forms of communication.

1. Read the rest of the thread. By the by, is not 100 million corpses an insult to Communism too.

2. Next thing you'll be telling me is that referring to Auschwitz is an insult to the Nazi ideology.

3. In other words, you can't make a cogent argument, and are too much of a shite to admit it. Seizure of the property of people who leave the country, or oppose the regime is a part of Communism. Live with it, or kill some Commies.

4. No-brain semantics. Since when was a monopoly good. Is Microsoft's (almost) monopoly position good for the software business? NO!

5. In other words, you can't make a cogent argument, and are too much of a shite to admit it. How many Communist nations have a free press? (answer rhymes with "Nero")

6.
a) the elimination of any and all private providers of education, including home schooling
b) "children's factory labor in its present form" when Marx wrote his rubbish meant children working for private enterprise, which Marx seeks to eliminate anyway


Or for fucks sake, will you get off your high horse and engage in a discussion?
All Autoritatian states do the things Mugabe does! It is a way of getting more control over what happens, ie you are less likely to be replaced.

1. Yes, yes they are. Not that Stalin was a communist (Please, accept that communism, in its pure academic form has never existed and never will. Every country that has called itself communist, most called themselves socialist which is different, was actually a totalitarian state, not a communist state, which wouldn't even have a government by definition)

2. Communism does not provide for the annihilation of peoples. National Socialism does. Why do you think such an argument would give you any more sympathy?

3. Your skill with words is astounding. Seizure of private property is not an exclusive communist thing.

4. Are you arguing for Government involvement in the market? Maybe the seizure of some of Microsoft's property (ie splitting it and redistributing)?
You god-damned commie bastard!

5. Ahem, zero. But as I said above, there only ever were totalitarian states, never communist states.

6.
a)Since there is nothing private in a communist society, there would be no private schooling, yes.
Please show me however, the part in which Marx referred to Education for the kiddies.
b)His "rubbish" is a major part of modern economic thinking. Prior to him, there was no concern for the worker (ie you). Child Labour was one of the things that he saw as unfair. The conditions back then really were bad, read it up.
But you wouldn't care, if I conscripted a child from your family and made it work in my uranium mine, you'd be fine with that.

7. Now for the third time! I am not a racist. I don't give a shit whether they are black or white. As a German, I am still paying for the mistakes my great grandfather may have made. That is considered normal and fair by you.
The settlers and farmers in colonial Africa killed more people than the Nazis did. And yet the locals are supposed to be happy they are being fed by their masters and not say a word, or risk being fed to the lions.
These farmers (bad word, maybe we call them "land lords", for they are not the ones doing the farming) are Africans, but only as long as they live the good life. I point to South Africa, were after the Apartheid ended many thousands of white families "fled to Perth", to a country in which the black native population is still being treated badly, an in which a black child has a ridiculously much higher chance of dying than a white one, and in which a black man has a life expectancy of 56 years (1998-2000), 21 years shorter than a white man.
Just like Home, then!

Zimbabwe's Communist dictator, Robert Mugabe, has started destroying urban areas, and forcing the people into their 'rural home'.

Most of the areas being evacuated voted against the bastard.

It appears that the urban areas remaining are being given to the Chinese.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/06/wzim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/06/ixhome.html)

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/654nqqde.asp)

I remember another Communist dictator, allied to China trying this. Look at how that turned out.
Where is the U.N. Why hasn't Kofi Anan denounced this tyrant? Wait, he's still trying to figure out what to do about Ruwanda.

I'm a black man!!!

What? my skin is white and my eyes are blue?

According to Whispering Legs, I'm black!!
Are you any relation to Bill Clinton, the first black President?

Where is the U.N. Why hasn't Kofi Anan denounced this tyrant? Wait, he's still trying to figure out what to do about Ruwanda.

I don't think it's Kofi Annan's job to denounce anyone on the basis that some people on this planet don't like certain policies, even if they're from the US or Europe.
There may very well be people on this planet who
a) don't care about what Mugabe is doing
b) agree with what he is doing
and those peole may be in the majority

Since Kofi Annan is an individual, not the UN, he can't meaningfully condemn anyone either.

Or for fucks sake, will you get off your high horse and engage in a discussion?

Style over substance. Just cry to Mummy, and get on with the rebuttal.

All Aut[h]oritatian states do the things Mugabe does! It is a way of getting more control over what happens, ie you are less likely to be replaced.

Strawman. The fact that other people do something doesn't mean the Mugabe is not a Communist.

1. Yes, yes they are. Not that Stalin was a communist (Please, accept that communism, in its pure academic form has never existed and never will. Every country that has called itself communist, most called themselves socialist which is different, was actually a totalitarian state, not a communist state, which wouldn't even have a government by definition)

Marxist sophistry.

You, and others quite readily talk of the non-existance or a pure Marxist state, yet you do nothing to define it, nor do you refer to Marx. The only one who has referred to Marx is ... me.

The fact that a Marxist state cannot exist (as you say) is due entirely to flaws in Marx's theory.

Marx never explained why the state is guaranteed to do a better job of providing for societies needs.

Marx never explained how a Marxian state, with a government having total power over society, would not become tyrannical.

He creates a false dilemma by saying that the only two models of society are capitalism as he sees it (a grossly distorted, counter-factual picture), and his half-baked 'solution'.

2. Communism does not provide for the annihilation of peoples. National Socialism does. Why do you think such an argument would give you any more sympathy?

Clearly you didn't read my point. Torgana claimed that suggesting that a particular bad person (Mugabe) was a Communist would insult the Communist ideology, and is therefore a bad thing that I should never do. I asked him is mentioning Auschwitz insults Nazism.

Communist states have always killed thousands, or even millions of their own citizens because Communism is an inheriently weak system. It has to be sustained by total and constant application of government power because there is no incentive among the people to support communism. A capitalist, democratic system is inheriently stonger, and can be self-regulating. There is direct, and real incentive for people to make it work.

3. Your skill with words is astounding. Seizure of private property is not an exclusive communist thing.

The point being?

Fact: Direct quote from Marx "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Fact: Of the 10 points, lifted directly from Marx, 8 deal, in one way or another, with the seizure of private property.

4. Are you arguing for Government involvement in the market? Maybe the seizure of some of Microsoft's property (ie splitting it and redistributing)?
You god-damned commie bastard!

Put less coffee in the mug. Calm down. Communism is about making a monopoly, a state monopoly.

5. Ahem, zero. But as I said above, there only ever were totalitarian states, never communist states.

Yet more Marxist circular arguments. I'll explain it again, you and Torgana are doing the same thing, you have the same premise (Communism is good, anything which is bad is not communism), and come to the same conclusion (good things are a part of communism, any bad thing is merely totalitarian).

6.
a)Since there is nothing private in a communist society, there would be no private schooling, yes.
Please show me however, the part in which Marx referred to Education for the kiddies.
b)His "rubbish" is a major part of modern economic thinking. Prior to him, there was no concern for the worker (ie you). Child Labour was one of the things that he saw as unfair. The conditions back then really were bad, read it up.
But you wouldn't care, if I conscripted a child from your family and made it work in my uranium mine, you'd be fine with that.

a) "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production" Chapter 2

b) You obviously don't read too well. You have this idea that Marx was concerned with the worker, and was against child labour, an idea which is entirely baseless.

If he were truely against child labour, this phrase : "Combination of education with industrial production" would not have gotten in there.

Yes, he was against child labour "in its present form" (when he wrote the Manifesto). Of course he was against it. Regardless of the conditions, he would have been against children working in privately owned factories precisely because those factories were privately owned.

So what did he mean by this "Combination of education with industrial production" when taken in combination with the rest of his agenda.

He wanted children to be kept in the factories (which would be state-owned), which would also be their schools.

7) <ranting snipped>

The fact that other people make you pay for the crimes of your ancestors doesn't mean that it should happen to African families. Are you so twisted by hatred, that whenever you're in adversity, the only thing that can make you feel better is to see others in a worse situation?

I don't think it's Kofi Annan's job to denounce anyone on the basis that some people on this planet don't like certain policies, even if they're from the US or Europe.
There may very well be people on this planet who
a) don't care about what Mugabe is doing
b) agree with what he is doing
and those peole may be in the majority

Since Kofi Annan is an individual, not the UN, he can't meaningfully condemn anyone either.
I think you are wrong there. If the United Nations wants to say something, it is the Secretary General that is going to make it known. Now, possibly the United Nations doesn't have any objection to what is happening. That only re-enforces the argument that they are irrelevant. If they are interested in any world-wide justice, this action would be a place to make that known.

I think you are wrong there. If the United Nations wants to say something, it is the Secretary General that is going to make it known. Now, possibly the United Nations doesn't have any objection to what is happening. That only re-enforces the argument that they are irrelevant. If they are interested in any world-wide justice, this action would be a place to make that known.

True, and very well said. Annan is the public face of the UN.

Since Kofi Annan is an individual, not the UN, he can't meaningfully condemn anyone either.

Unless it is something to do with the US, then his condemnation and claims of violations of international law become suddenly legitimate.

Okay. I'm not a communist. I am Social Democrat on economic, Green on social issues.
Nonetheless, without Marx's Theories, as flawed as they may have been (since they were largely philosophical) no capitalist (ie entrepreneur) would ever have seen the need to improve the worker's conditions.
Without a semi-organised communist movement, there would not have been such a thing as a social-democratic party. Conditions would probably still be as bad as during the industrial revolution. That is provided Capitalism wouldn't have destroyed itself...
-------------
Communism (as from Wikipedia):
As a social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production, no money and no social classes. All property is owned cooperatively and collectively, by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status and rights. Human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of resources as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the problem of the capitalist poverty cycle.
-------------
Socialism (same source):
....
In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed capitalism, and in some cases develop further into communism. Marxism and communism are both very specific branches of socialism. The two do not represent socialism as a whole.
....
-------------
Call it what you want, but there has never been a communist state as Marx defined it. If you disagree, you may either have read Marx only with the idea of refuting it in mind, or you have read some form of "Marx for Capitalists" condensed version.
As I said, all "communist" states so far were totalitarian states, more concerned with providing for their own ruling classes rather than moving towards Marx's utopia.
It is therefore not a state-monopoly, nor a philosophy providing for the murder of millions. And don't start with defining monopolies with me, I'm an Economics Student, I hear about that every day. It is also because I study Economics that I know that Marxism cannot work as such.
-------------
Well, if you say so, yes I guess I am "twisted by hatred". All I see is a white upper class, and a black lower class. The reason these classes are the way they are is because of past wrongs.
I'm not asking for today's land lords to be punished for those wrongs, in a previous post I said they should be getting some form of compensation.
And yet I do believe the wrongs in themselves should be righted. A class of landless workers will naturally earn less of any profit made than the land owner.
How do you expect a third world country to improve its situation if the very reason they are a third world country remains: The work they do benefits a white upper class?
I cannot guarantee that a black land lord will do any better, but why not split up the large farms and distribute them to many smaller people, be they black or white? That would be more efficient too (coming back to the monopolies).
Do you see my logic? Or do you prefer to stick with "Capitalist good, Communist bad!", while somehow reversing the argument to "Good = Capitalist, Bad = Communist!"
------------
As for the UN. It is in a bad shape right now. It is in that shape because everyone uses it for their own advantage, ignoring the reason the UN was created in the first place. But while you, presumably, agree with the UN holding back from condemning the Iraq War honestly, you go apeshit over the fact that Kofi Annan (mentioning the individual, thus making him the object of your scorn, not the organisation he works for) not condemning whatever you happen to disagree with in the world.

Nonetheless, without Marx's Theories, as flawed as they may have been (since they were largely philosophical) no capitalist (ie entrepreneur) would ever have seen the need to improve the worker's conditions.

Proof?

As a social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production, no money and no social classes. All property is owned cooperatively and collectively, by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status and rights. Human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of resources as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the problem of the capitalist poverty cycle.

How does this stateless condition come about? Marx doesn't explain, except through his half-baked "class-struggle" rubbish.

Marx assumes, without any reason to do so, that Communism will be supported by the people, and that it will be an economically sustainable, therefore there will be no need for a state apparatus to govern. In practice, no attempt at Communism has ever been supported, nor has it been economically sustainable, so the totalitarian state apparatus is necessary to Communism.

Marx's basic premise, which you, though you say you are not a Communist, blindly accept, is bollocks. Capitalist society is not composed to two warring classes.

It consists of 3 basic classes, working, middle, and upper.

The differences are as follows:

Working class works for a living

Upper class lets their money do the working (investment)

Middle class works for a living, but also have money working for them (investment)

There is no class struggle, there are class interests, working class wants the best compensation for their work, upper class wants to protect their investments, and the fruits of their investment, and middle class want to do both. Of course, if they fought each other all the time, the whole structure would collapse, so they are forced to find balance.'

Marx's idea that people can be force-engineered by the government is bollocks. Never worked once in the real world, it only ever created resentment.

Call it what you want, but there has never been a communist state as Marx defined it. If you disagree, you may either have read Marx only with the idea of refuting it in mind, or you have read some form of "Marx for Capitalists" condensed version.

Strawman attack.

And don't start with defining monopolies with me, I'm an Economics Student, I hear about that every day. It is also because I study Economics that I know that Marxism cannot work as such.

Appeal to authority fallacy. I don't care if you named your cat Milton or Maynard, you're still wrong.

you go apeshit over the fact that Kofi Annan (mentioning the individual, thus making him the object of your scorn, not the organisation he works for) not condemning whatever you happen to disagree with in the world.

Another straw man, are you sure you're not studying agriculture? Not to mention another ad hominem.

Do you see my logic? Or do you prefer to stick with "Capitalist good, Communist bad!", while somehow reversing the argument to "Good = Capitalist, Bad = Communist!"

We'll have a whole field of strawmen soon!

All I see is a white upper class, and a black lower class.

All you see is race.

A class of landless workers will naturally earn less of any profit made than the land owner.

And the problem with that is? The landowner is taking the financial risks, why should he not get the financial rewards, perhaps because he is white?

How do you expect a third world country to improve its situation if the very reason they are a third world country remains: The work they do benefits a white upper class?

I thought you were worried about whether the situation of the blacks. It seems to be that whether whites benefit or not isn't necessarily relevant, and you've not shown how it is. The blacks who worked the white owned farms did benefit from it, they were paid for their work, and even housed.

I cannot guarantee that a black land lord will do any better, but why not split up the large farms and distribute them to many smaller people, be they black or white? That would be more efficient too (coming back to the monopolies).

Short people are better at farming?

Why should the farms be split up? What of property rights?

You've been expressing property rights as though it should be based upon race, as a German, you should be aware of your countries previous experiences.

German Jews had their property seized, business, religious, residential, and personal property. This was justified by the 'crimes' Jews had committed. Of course, the seizures were used by thrNazis to improve their own position. Jewish businesses were given to party loyalists, their residences were given to Aryans who had lost their own homes in demolitions for Hitler's new Berlin, and in air raids. Jewish personal property seized at the camps made a cash asset for the SS, and Synagogues became a part of pogroms designed to give the Aryans a chance to vent their frustrations, just as Mugabe's land seizures are used to benefit ZANU-PF loyalists, and as payment to China for arms (land is given to Chinese traders)

What I find somewhat funny, is the historical ignorance of the African Whites in this situation-they accepted (blindly) the promises of the Revolutionaries that these exact things that are happening now, would not happen.


Zimbabwe was held up in the 1980's as proof that the South Africans should abandon Apartheid and release Mandela-that the fears of Africakaners were without basis.

In any situation where you have a Revolution driven primarily by pie-promises, your best bet upon losing, is to liquidate your assets (if you have the time) and get the hell out while the 'revolutionaries' are trying to talk reconciliation. Ask the Kulaks how well the "New Econonomic Program" worked after Stalin realized he wasn't being watched anymore.

There are so many historical parallels between what's happening now in Zimbabwe, and what has happened repeatedly in Central Europe and Southeast Asia in the 20th Century that you could reach into a grab-bag and come up with one-and it (Provided it was negative) would stick.

the funniest bit, is that the defenders of the Mugabe regime seem to have no concern over the lives and welfare of the Black-Africans who ran those farms, worked 'em, and were paid by the owners- those folks were being and are being displaced and burnt out too-by the same 'Reforms'. (see, they're not benefitting one damn bit from Mugabe's actions, they're instead being hurt by them...)

Apparently, you're not Really Black unless you're also a Marxist Pan-African thug who has no useful skills besides burning, looting, and killing.

Damn, that is a good post! :)

...yet when Black people demand their land back, that is somehow a bad thing?
Whose land? Before the white settlers created the nation of Rhodesia, the majority of the land was low quality scrub, not farmland at all. In a large part, those settlers created farms; they did not steal them from others. Further, a significant proportion of the black population of Zimbabwe is descended from people who followed the white settlers there. And the tribes who did live there before the evil whites showed up had at some point conquered that land for themselves from other tribes - it is not as if they had been peacefully living there since the dawn of time.

Damn, that is a good post! :)

Thank you. It's so easy to get shrill and cross the Godwin line in these issues, that it gets crossed a mite too often, and when the real thing shows up, nobody notices, because they think they've heard it before... and they have, only like the wolf being cried, this time it's really chewing on the livestock.

Zimbabwe was held up as an example of coexistence in the 1980's, I had a teacher who was quite taken with the whole thing in 7th grade, where the differences between Zimbabwe and South Africa were actually part of our social-studies class.

Funny how that worked out, isn't it?

Proof?
All I can say is that Marxism was the first properly established theory that actually was used as a practical basis for a worker's rights movement.

How does this stateless condition come about? Marx doesn't explain, except through his half-baked "class-struggle" rubbish.
-snip-
Marx's basic premise, which you, though you say you are not a Communist, blindly accept, is bollocks. Capitalist society is not composed to two warring classes.
Listen, just for argument's sake, assume I have no opinion on Communism whatsoever. I told you, I do not accept the ideologies, I am not a communist. Marx's Theory is flawed because individuals are jealous of what other's have, because they will always strive to do better for themselves, even if that means hurting others. They are individuals, not ants.
The stateless condition comes about when the workers overthrow capitalism. A socialist society follows, in which the property is taken away from the capitalists. When there is no more threat from the outside (ie all other nations have also become socialist) communism can follow. In Theory.


It consists of 3 basic classes, working, middle, and upper.

The differences are as follows:

Working class works for a living

Upper class lets their money do the working (investment)

Middle class works for a living, but also have money working for them (investment)
Quotes please, or is that just your definition. I would say that today classes as such are beginning to disappear. Everyone becomes middle class to some extent.
Had you lived in Marx's time though, you would've realised there were classes, everyone acknowledged that. Rich people were proudly calling themselves upper class, and poor people were unified by their plight as the lower class. It is what our society evolved from.


Marx's idea that people can be force-engineered by the government is bollocks. Never worked once in the real world, it only ever created resentment.
We finally found something we agree on. Nice isn't it?
But that wasn't Marx's idea though. He believed people were like that from the start. It's the basis for his philosophy, that everyone is born good and benevolent, not greedy and competitive. He was wrong.


Strawman attack.
Appeal to authority fallacy. I don't care if you named your cat Milton or Maynard, you're still wrong.
Another straw man, are you sure you're not studying agriculture? Not to mention another ad hominem.
We'll have a whole field of strawmen soon!

What do you expect from such attacks? You found words like ad hominem at google, and use them to try and discourage people who disagree with you? The fact that I know what a monopoly is, apparently better than you do, has nothing to do with anything other than this is my specialisation and you cannot tell me anything about monopoly-related inefficincies that I don't already know.
Fact is also that mentioning "Kofi Annan" instead of "the UN" had a clear reason, to which I object.


All you see is race.

If you say so. I prefer to take things in context. Fact is that White people and black people in countries like Zimbabwe and Namibia are not the same, socially. Which is what I object to. Once there is a country in which black land lords have armies of white workers working for them, I will be against that too.
Call it affirmative action.



And the problem with that is? The landowner is taking the financial risks, why should he not get the financial rewards, perhaps because he is white?

Refer to the big utilitarianism vs objectivism showdown. It will explain where I come from philosophically and were you come from.
Me being a Social Democrat, I cannot possibly hope to explain or convince you the reason why a financial risk is not enough reason for me to be the (almost) sole beneficiary of an action.


I thought you were worried about whether the situation of the blacks. It seems to be that whether whites benefit or not isn't necessarily relevant, and you've not shown how it is. The blacks who worked the white owned farms did benefit from it, they were paid for their work, and even housed.

My point is that the majority of the earnings do not go to the majority of the people, be they black, white or green. Such inequality is in my opinion a shortcoming in social infrastructure and thus harmful to long term economic growth, apart from the fact that it is bad for the standard of living of said majority.


Short people are better at farming?

I should have said "little people", as in poor people, mister average, smaller economic agents since they have smaller wealth.


Why should the farms be split up? What of property rights?

You've been expressing property rights as though it should be based upon race, as a German, you should be aware of your countries previous experiences.

German Jews had their property seized,
-snip-
(land is given to Chinese traders)
Again, property rights are an issue that comes down to my convictions and I refer you to said philosophical thread.
A Monopoly by definition creates a "dead-weight loss" to society. It, since it can set price freely, produces less and charges a higher price than a firm (or farm) in perfect competition. A large farm, such as one owned by one land lord, may not be a perfect monopoly, but it is in monopolistic competition. That means the dead-weight loss may be smaller, but it exists nonetheless. Splitting a monopolistic competitor such as this up into smaller, farms with less monopoly power, causing every farm to have less power over the market and thus decreasing the loss to society.
That has nothing to do with race.
And as you said, one is not responsible for one's ancestors' actions, and I therefore fail to see how depicting Holocaust-related issues can strengthen your stance and weaken mine. Apart from the fact that you are now comparing Zanu to the NSDAP rather than to a communist party.


the funniest bit, is that the defenders of the Mugabe regime seem to have no concern over the lives and welfare of the Black-Africans who ran those farms, worked 'em, and were paid by the owners- those folks were being and are being displaced and burnt out too-by the same 'Reforms'. (see, they're not benefitting one damn bit from Mugabe's actions, they're instead being hurt by them...)
It is a good post, for I didn't know that before either.
As I said a number of times, I do not agree with the way the reforms are handled, all I said is that in theory I agree with the idea of redistributing wealth from a few privileged people to many more unfortunate ones, regardless of race. Those people could have been the first to take over parts of the farms, and could have tought others on how to effectively manage a farm.
---------
PS: I am not Black. There are many black Germans, but I am not one of them.

All I can say is that Marxism was the first properly established theory that actually was used as a practical basis for a worker's rights movement.


Listen, just for argument's sake, assume I have no opinion on Communism whatsoever. I told you, I do not accept the ideologies, I am not a communist. Marx's Theory is flawed because individuals are jealous of what other's have, because they will always strive to do better for themselves, even if that means hurting others. They are individuals, not ants.
The stateless condition comes about when the workers overthrow capitalism. A socialist society follows, in which the property is taken away from the capitalists. When there is no more threat from the outside (ie all other nations have also become socialist) communism can follow. In Theory.


Quotes please, or is that just your definition. I would say that today classes as such are beginning to disappear. Everyone becomes middle class to some extent.
Had you lived in Marx's time though, you would've realised there were classes, everyone acknowledged that. Rich people were proudly calling themselves upper class, and poor people were unified by their plight as the lower class. It is what our society evolved from.


We finally found something we agree on. Nice isn't it?
But that wasn't Marx's idea though. He believed people were like that from the start. It's the basis for his philosophy, that everyone is born good and benevolent, not greedy and competitive. He was wrong.


What do you expect from such attacks? You found words like ad hominem at google, and use them to try and discourage people who disagree with you? The fact that I know what a monopoly is, apparently better than you do, has nothing to do with anything other than this is my specialisation and you cannot tell me anything about monopoly-related inefficincies that I don't already know.
Fact is also that mentioning "Kofi Annan" instead of "the UN" had a clear reason, to which I object.


If you say so. I prefer to take things in context. Fact is that White people and black people in countries like Zimbabwe and Namibia are not the same, socially. Which is what I object to. Once there is a country in which black land lords have armies of white workers working for them, I will be against that too.
Call it affirmative action.



Refer to the big utilitarianism vs objectivism showdown. It will explain where I come from philosophically and were you come from.
Me being a Social Democrat, I cannot possibly hope to explain or convince you the reason why a financial risk is not enough reason for me to be the (almost) sole beneficiary of an action.


My point is that the majority of the earnings do not go to the majority of the people, be they black, white or green. Such inequality is in my opinion a shortcoming in social infrastructure and thus harmful to long term economic growth, apart from the fact that it is bad for the standard of living of said majority.


I should have said "little people", as in poor people, mister average, smaller economic agents since they have smaller wealth.


Again, property rights are an issue that comes down to my convictions and I refer you to said philosophical thread.
A Monopoly by definition creates a "dead-weight loss" to society. It, since it can set price freely, produces less and charges a higher price than a firm (or farm) in perfect competition. A large farm, such as one owned by one land lord, may not be a perfect monopoly, but it is in monopolistic competition. That means the dead-weight loss may be smaller, but it exists nonetheless. Splitting a monopolistic competitor such as this up into smaller, farms with less monopoly power, causing every farm to have less power over the market and thus decreasing the loss to society.
That has nothing to do with race.
And as you said, one is not responsible for one's ancestors' actions, and I therefore fail to see how depicting Holocaust-related issues can strengthen your stance and weaken mine. Apart from the fact that you are now comparing Zanu to the NSDAP rather than to a communist party.


It is a good post, for I didn't know that before either.
As I said a number of times, I do not agree with the way the reforms are handled, all I said is that in theory I agree with the idea of redistributing wealth from a few privileged people to many more unfortunate ones, regardless of race. Those people could have been the first to take over parts of the farms, and could have tought others on how to effectively manage a farm.
---------
PS: I am not Black. There are many black Germans, but I am not one of them.

Forcible redistribution almost never results in positive outcomes. Check your history of Mexico, most African Nations (Particularly nations like Liberia for precursors...) etc. etc.

It's Orwell's "Some animals are more equal than others" principle.

You should also google "Rhodesian Civil War", "Zimbabwe" (Not the newer stuff, look for historical overviews), and "South Africa" (again, look for older material, pre-1995 or earlier sources).

True Land Reform would take into account compensation as a base principle-because without it, you're just robbing someone you don't like, and giving it to your supporters. This is not 'reform', it's "Looting".
Zimbabwe's plunge (less than five years) from nearing-first-world-status to "BASKET CASE" is a glaring example of what's wrong with trying to top-down redistribute wealth without building the infrastructure to accomodate it. Post-1865, there were still plantations. As the economy changed, the owners had to sell off. The process isn't neat and clean, but you'll notice, I think that farming is still going on in the former Confederate States of America. Farming is NOT going on in Zimbabwe right now-and with a Centralized economy, even throwing bodies at it (at gunpoint) and telling them to farm won't be enough.

I'll point out the Kulaks, again-not everyone has to Godwin to find a reprehensible act that matches point for point. I expect, without some form of intervention, that the Blacks who managed and ran those farms will find themselves either virtually, or actually, enslaved by Mugabe to support his power-base.

All I can say is that Marxism was the first properly established theory that actually was used as a practical basis for a worker's rights movement.

Again, proof?

Listen, just for argument's sake, assume I have no opinion on Communism whatsoever. I told you, I do not accept the ideologies, I am not a communist. Marx's Theory is flawed because individuals are jealous of what other's have, because they will always strive to do better for themselves, even if that means hurting others. They are individuals, not ants.
The stateless condition comes about when the workers overthrow capitalism. A socialist society follows, in which the property is taken away from the capitalists. When there is no more threat from the outside (ie all other nations have also become socialist) communism can follow. In Theory.

In theory, it is entirely possible for Winona Ryder to knock on my door right now, and say "I'm all yours big boy".

Quotes please, or is that just your definition. I would say that today classes as such are beginning to disappear. Everyone becomes middle class to some extent.

You can't be serious, I am the only one in the thread who has quoted Marx.

I wouldn't say that class is disappearing, however, class mobility is becoming greater, and the working class is becoming wealthier, some to the point where they can invest.

But that wasn't Marx's idea though. He believed people were like that from the start. It's the basis for his philosophy, that everyone is born good and benevolent, not greedy and competitive. He was wrong.

That is the very basis of social engineering, that people are corrupted by society, so reorder society, eliminate corruption.

Of course, cynics might say that social engineering is merely a way to more and more state power

What do you expect from such attacks? You found words like ad hominem at google, and use them to try and discourage people who disagree with you? The fact that I know what a monopoly is, apparently better than you do, has nothing to do with anything other than this is my specialisation and you cannot tell me anything about monopoly-related inefficincies that I don't already know.

Your response to being accused of strawman attacks ... is to create yet another strawman.

The fact that you are an economics student doesn't lend any weight to your arguments. So why did you bring it up?

If you say so. I prefer to take things in context. Fact is that White people and black people in countries like Zimbabwe and Namibia are not the same, socially. Which is what I object to. Once there is a country in which black land lords have armies of white workers working for them, I will be against that too.
Call it affirmative action.

Affirmative action? You mean racism.

Refer to the big utilitarianism vs objectivism showdown. It will explain where I come from philosophically and were you come from.
Me being a Social Democrat, I cannot possibly hope to explain or convince you the reason why a financial risk is not enough reason for me to be the (almost) sole beneficiary of an action.

(almost), an attempt to weasel out of the fact that you don't want to admit that workers benefit from enterprise. If you are getting your knickers in a knot about the owners getting more of the profits, remember, it was them who made the work possible, and also, if the business goes belly up, the workers would be able to find another farm, however, the owner is left with nothing.

My point is that the majority of the earnings do not go to the majority of the people, be they black, white or green. Such inequality is in my opinion a shortcoming in social infrastructure and thus harmful to long term economic growth, apart from the fact that it is bad for the standard of living of said majority.

The profits are going to be spent in the economy anyway. "Equalising" wages won't have the effect you want, it will be detrimental to growth because it reduces incentive to start up, and stay in business.

A large farm, such as one owned by one land lord, may not be a perfect monopoly, but it is in monopolistic competition.

How is it in 'monopolistic competition'?

Apart from the fact that you are now comparing Zanu to the NSDAP rather than to a communist party.

The National Socialists aren't far removed from Communists, and both the ZANU-PF and the NSDAP lack respect for property rights, specifically property held by the wrong race.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.
Yeah. The opposition, who has alot of supporters in those townships, took that land from them illegally. Go Mugabe.

Since Kofi Annan is an individual, not the UN, he can't meaningfully condemn anyone either.

Unless it is something to do with the US, then his condemnation and claims of violations of international law become suddenly legitimate.

<DING!> Number one answer!!

<DING!> Number one answer!!

For a superpower America sure get crippled by this persecution complex.

:rolleyes:

Again, proof?
http://www.spd.de/servlet/PB/menu/1009506/index.html
I'm afraid it is in German, but it's all I can do without searching. It basically says that in 1848 two worker's movements were first formed in Germany, the worker's botherhood and the Communist Party, under Marx and Engels. Unions were also firstly formed. Since these later combined with others to form the SPD, and people like Liebknecht openly said they were socialists, I argue that Marxism is the fundamental basis for early left movements, and that therefore Marx's theories are an integral part of why today's social and economic structure is the way it is.


In theory, it is entirely possible for Winona Ryder to knock on my door right now, and say "I'm all yours big boy".
And yet theory was the topic here. You misrepresented Communist Theory and I spelled out how it would work if it could work.



You can't be serious, I am the only one in the thread who has quoted Marx.
Point is that is not the definition of a class as Marx saw it. It is your own definition. Not that that is invalid, but please make a clear distinction.
I would say that there is always a latent class struggle. If there is an employer (presumably of a higher class)and an employee, then these two have directly opposed interests.


I wouldn't say that class is disappearing, however, class mobility is becoming greater, and the working class is becoming wealthier, some to the point where they can invest.
At which point they are no longer working class, but middle class according to your definition. Were I live here (Brisbane, Oz), I cannot find a "worker" who is not investing. My plumber has a share portfolio for example, and bricklayers are building investment homes.
Here at least the working class is disappearing and everyone is moving into the middle class. The Upper Class however stay were they are, I grant you that.


Your response to being accused of strawman attacks ... is to create yet another strawman.
But is not reducing my posts down into categories a form of a strawman attack? Is not reducing my posts down to "all you see is race" a strawman attack, apart from the fact that it is clearly aimed at the person rather than at the argument (ad hominem)?


The fact that you are an economics student doesn't lend any weight to your arguments. So why did you bring it up?

From Wikipedia once again:
Sometimes, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This is the case when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not an expert on dental hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy; for example when Michael Winner promotes car insurance, despite having no expertise in the field of car insurance.

Citing a person who is an authority in the relevant field should carry more weight, but given the possibility of mistake, should not be compelling.
So I should not be compelling. Fair enough, I may be wrong, and wikipedia also says that even quoting from a peer reviewed journal is a logical fallacy.
And yet I believe my knowledge in the field does add weight to my argument.


Affirmative action? You mean racism.
Stra...No, I won't. ;)


The profits are going to be spent in the economy anyway. "Equalising" wages won't have the effect you want, it will be detrimental to growth because it reduces incentive to start up, and stay in business.
I refer you to Growth Accounting Theory.
Since these land lords are not in the same social class as the workers, and the few white land owners from Africa I have spoken to always referred to themselves as different from them, it is unlikely that their money is spend in "the worker's economy". Much of the money saved will go overseas, it will not be invested in Zimbabwe and will therfore not benefit the Zimbabwean Economy.


How is it in 'monopolistic competition'?
I should have said "Oligopoly", for there is a small but important difference. In an oligopoly there is some barrier to entry in the market (here the limited amount of farmland),in a monopolistic competition there is not.
Nonetheless, in perfect competition firms/farms have no control over price. They accept the market price for a good and produce an appropriate quantity. In an Oligopoly, the firms have some control over price. They have a limited amount of land, so they cannot produce an unlimited quantity of goods. Thus, every farm may control its price a little. That way there still is a loss compared with what could have been in perfect competition, but less so than in a monopoly,where the farm can control both price and quantity completely.
Generally, the more players there are in the market, the better the outcome for society as a whole.


The National Socialists aren't far removed from Communists, and both the ZANU-PF and the NSDAP lack respect for property rights, specifically property held by the wrong race.
Does that mean you now accept that just because it flies like a duck, it may very well be a swan?

I'm afraid it is in German

I don't speak or read German.

You misrepresented Communist Theory and I spelled out how it would work if it could work

I certainly did not misrepresent communist theory. You did not spell out how it could work, you merely spouted the theory. The practical reality of applying communism is tyranny.

If there is an employer (presumably of a higher class)and an employee, then these two have directly opposed interests.

No, they don't. Their interests coincide.

The employer wants to keep the company in business, and productive. This is in the employee's interests because it keeps in a job.

The employee wants the best compensation for his work. This is in the employer's interests because if he underpays, the employee will be tempted to look for someone who pays more competatively.

But is not reducing my posts down into categories a form of a strawman attack?

Nope.

Since these land lords are not in the same social class as the workers, and the few white land owners from Africa I have spoken to always referred to themselves as different from them, it is unlikely that their money is spend in "the worker's economy".

Leap in logic, which you've justified with "... I have spoken to ...".

Spouting rubbish, and justifying it by saying you are an economics student is an appeal to authority fallacy.



Stra...No, I won't.

Racism, is the idea that race is the defining aspect of humans. Affirmative action is the policy of giving certain races concessions, ergo, affirmative action is racism, it just happens to be a form of racism that many people don't find obnoxious, so it doesn't get called racism.

I should have said "Oligopoly", for there is a small but important difference. In an oligopoly there is some barrier to entry in the market (here the limited amount of farmland),in a monopolistic competition there is not.
Nonetheless, in perfect competition firms/farms have no control over price. They accept the market price for a good and produce an appropriate quantity. In an Oligopoly, the firms have some control over price. They have a limited amount of land, so they cannot produce an unlimited quantity of goods. Thus, every farm may control its price a little. That way there still is a loss compared with what could have been in perfect competition, but less so than in a monopoly,where the farm can control both price and quantity completely.
Generally, the more players there are in the market, the better the outcome for society as a whole.

You neglect the fact that smaller farms have a greater production cost.

You further neglect that if a domestic oligopoly sets its prices too high, importers can move in.

Also, I can't accept your oligopoly argument until you show me some data relating to the rate of arable land utilisation.

In any case, the main barrier in Zimbabwe to entering the agriculture market is that any thug with a party badge can take everything away.

Does that mean you now accept that just because it flies like a duck, it may very well be a swan?

You don't believe that communism and national socialism are far removed from each other?

I don't speak or read German.
In that case you will have to do your own research, or trust me with my translation.


No, they don't. Their interests coincide.

The employer wants to keep the company in business, and productive. This is in the employee's interests because it keeps in a job.

The employee wants the best compensation for his work. This is in the employer's interests because if he underpays, the employee will be tempted to look for someone who pays more competatively.
The Goal of any economic agent is to maximise utility/profit.
If an employer makes a greater profit by leaving the business, he will do so. Therefore, staying in business is not the goal of the Employer.
An employer seeks to maximise profit by minimising costs (wage) and maximising revenue (price).
An employee seeks to maximise profit by minimising effort (cost) and maximining wage (revenue).
The two are therefore in a conflict of interest, which forces them to find an equilibrium.
Additionally, this goes for all employers and all employees in the world. It therefore doesn't matter whether an employee leaves one employer for another one, since the new pairing will face the same conflict of interest.


Leap in logic, which you've justified with "... I have spoken to ...".

Spouting rubbish, and justifying it by saying you are an economics student is an appeal to authority fallacy.
I didn't make it up, it is what they said. Nonetheless, you are right when you say I cannot tell you how much of their savings gets invested in the local economy, so we'd either have to do some research or accept that much of it probably goes overseas as a given.
But I was not "spouting rubbish". I was telling you that I know what a monopoly is, and that I know most of the economic principles behind my argument or yours. That would make me somewhat of an authority in the field, which then according to Wiki negates your appeal to authority accusation.


Racism, is the idea that race is the defining aspect of humans. Affirmative action is the policy of giving certain races concessions, ergo, affirmative action is racism, it just happens to be a form of racism that many people don't find obnoxious, so it doesn't get called racism.
My views on affirmative action are found on different threads. I know that not all people are equal, because some are born into positions of inferior status in society. Helping these people make up for this shortcoming, which was not their fault, is a legitimate thing to do in my view.


1.You neglect the fact that smaller farms have a greater production cost.
2.You further neglect that if a domestic oligopoly sets its prices too high, importers can move in.
3.Also, I can't accept your oligopoly argument until you show me some data relating to the rate of arable land utilisation.
4.In any case, the main barrier in Zimbabwe to entering the agriculture market is that any thug with a party badge can take everything away.
5.You don't believe that communism and national socialism are far removed from each other?
1. How does that change anything, though? Even if there was such a thing as meaningful economics of scale, which is highly doubtful in the case of a farm, a firm still produces where Marginal Cost equals Marginal Revenue. In perfect competition, with lots of small farms, MR = Price, leading to a deadweight loss to society of zero. I wish I could draw diagrams here...
2. Yes, but barriers to entry remain. Especially with a country like Zimbabwe, in which political interests interfere with import. If those didn't exist, that would be great. Nonetheless, imports will not be able to adjust immediatly to an oligopolist's output and price decision, and thus some monopoly power remains. The only way to prevent that is to have more (out of necessity smaller) farms, so that each has less influence over price and quantity.
3. Then start searching.
If there is low utilisation, some force outside the market prevents them from being efficient, warranting government intervention to remove it, or some arable land is unprofitable, in which case it is not a resource that matters in this discussion.
If there is high untilisation,then that supports my argument that available land is limited. Take your pick.
These are not my ideas. These are general microeconomic theories, and if you will be able to refute them, I'll be surprised and humbled. (now there's an appeal to authority for you)
4. Yes, but I am supporting the view that there shouldn't be party thugs and that the redistribution happens democratically and peacefully.
5. Totalitarian systems that call themselves Communist are very similar to totalitarian systems that call themselves national socialist.
Some totalitarian systems however are just totalitarian, with no ethical or moral goals other than to stay in power. Like Mugabe.

It seems not matter how many times communists point out the fact that socialist nations are not communist, (HINT: they are socialist!) or that communist society is defined as inherently stateless and classless, they still rattle on calling opportunistic dictators like Mugabe and Pol Pot communist (Where did Marx, Engels, Proudhoun or any other theorist of note condone the murder of spectacles wearers because they are 'intellectuals'? Nowhere.)

And they accuse the communists of sophistry.

It is pointless arguing because whenever there are dictators the right only seem to see the dreaded 'communists'.

In that case you will have to do your own research, or trust me with my translation.

I'm not doing your research for you. How about an English link, please.

My views on affirmative action are found on different threads. I know that not all people are equal, because some are born into positions of inferior status in society. Helping these people make up for this shortcoming, which was not their fault, is a legitimate thing to do in my view

In other words, you're a racist, you're just not the Death Camp sort of racist. Obnoxious, but not frightning.

1. How does that change anything, though? Even if there was such a thing as meaningful economics of scale, which is highly doubtful in the case of a farm, a firm still produces where Marginal Cost equals Marginal Revenue. In perfect competition, with lots of small farms, MR = Price, leading to a deadweight loss to society of zero.

I actually looked this up. Small farms have greater costs than larger farms. In the West, that's not much of a problem for the farmer because the smaller farms also tend to have greater non-farming income, but in Zimbabwe, the lack of jobs gets in the way if that.

2. Yes, but barriers to entry remain. Especially with a country like Zimbabwe, in which political interests interfere with import. If those didn't exist, that would be great. Nonetheless, imports will not be able to adjust immediatly to an oligopolist's output and price decision, and thus some monopoly power remains. The only way to prevent that is to have more (out of necessity smaller) farms, so that each has less influence over price and quantity.

The main problem with importing to Zimbabwe is that their currency is toilet paper.

Why won't importers be able to adjust quickly to the pricing decisions?

3. Then start searching.

Fuck you, do your own research. Post it.

4. Yes, but I am supporting the view that there shouldn't be party thugs and that the redistribution happens democratically and peacefully.

"Political interests" in Zimbabwe interfere with not having party thugs.

When has "redistribution" ever happened democratically, and peacefully? It seems to me that "democratic" redistribution is about 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

5. Totalitarian systems that call themselves Communist are very similar to totalitarian systems that call themselves national socialist.
Some totalitarian systems however are just totalitarian, with no ethical or moral goals other than to stay in power. Like Mugabe.

Horseshit. I posted the 10 tenets of Communism, from your mate Marx, Chapter II, and then outlined how Mugabe's regime fulfills all of them.

It seems not matter how many times communists point out the fact that socialist nations are not communist, (HINT: they are socialist!) or that communist society is defined as inherently stateless and classless, they still rattle on calling opportunistic dictators like Mugabe and Pol Pot communist (Where did Marx, Engels, Proudhoun or any other theorist of note condone the murder of spectacles wearers because they are 'intellectuals'? Nowhere.)

Balderdash. Chapter II of Marx's rubbish lays out 10 tenets of a communist state. Mugabe follows them all.

Since Kofi Annan is an individual, not the UN, he can't meaningfully condemn anyone either.


Unless it is something to do with the US, then his condemnation and claims of violations of international law become suddenly legitimate.

<DING!> Number one answer!!

For a superpower America sure get crippled by this persecution complex.

:rolleyes:

If Kofi applied the same ruler to the rest of the world he applies to the US, we'd not only take them more seriously, but the UN would get a LOT more done.

Darfur is not genocide? Nothing about Falung Gong in China? How about the Eastern-Euro sex slaves? The mess in West Sahara? Zimbabwe?

I'm sorry, but Kofi seems happier to push aspersions on some nations (notably, the US & UK), and let the rest of the planet go to hell in a handbasket. :p

I'm not doing your research for you. How about an English link, please.
You would be doing the research for your own benefit, so that you may learn something you didn't know earlier. I can't force you. How about you print the German and get someone else to translate it for you if you don't trust me.
Very good site: http://www.marxists.org/


In other words, you're a racist, you're just not the Death Camp sort of racist. Obnoxious, but not frightning.
It's a matter of interpretation I suppose. I would call it a realist, since people of different races are not with equal opportunities, if only for stereotyping by employers.


I actually looked this up. Small farms have greater costs than larger farms. In the West, that's not much of a problem for the farmer because the smaller farms also tend to have greater non-farming income, but in Zimbabwe, the lack of jobs gets in the way if that.
Of course they have higher costs. Just not economies of scale like other firms would have. The labour invested remains proportional, a bigger farm cannot reduce the amount of physical effort spent on producing one thing (maybe an apple?)


Why won't importers be able to adjust quickly to the pricing decisions?
There are certain physical limitations to perfect variability and responsiveness in price setting. Especially in a country like Zimbabwe, in which roads and the like are not exactly perfect, a higher price by a domestic farm one day means weeks of planning for an importer to actually have his goods on a market in Zimbabwe at a cheaper price.


Fuck you, do your own research. Post it.
My point is that it's not worth the effort. It doesn't matter how efficient the big farms are right now at usage of arable land. A perfect competition is still going to be more efficient.


"Political interests" in Zimbabwe interfere with not having party thugs.
We may have a central misunderstanding here.
I am not condoning the violent and foolish policies Mugabe is implementing.
I am condoning a land redistribution from few upper class land owners to many working class workers for reasons of economic efficiency and social equality. Just assume Zimbabwe is just an example, we may as well be talking about Namibia.


When has "redistribution" ever happened democratically, and peacefully? It seems to me that "democratic" redistribution is about 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Taxation for the purposes of transfer payments is the most common form of redistribution. That usually works democratically and peacefully.
And the majority of Humanity is apparently in favour of transfer payments.


Horseshit. I posted the 10 tenets of Communism, from your mate Marx, Chapter II, and then outlined how Mugabe's regime fulfills all of them.
Don't call him "my mate". Marx is my homie, my bro, I'm down with him. That's much more than just a mate. :p
And you're gonna love this one:
Correlation implies causation is a logical fallacy.
:D

It's a matter of interpretation I suppose. I would call it a realist, since people of different races are not with equal opportunities, if only for stereotyping by employers.

Affirmative action could do nothing counteract stereotypes, and it does hold to the notion that race is the important characteristic.

Of course they have higher costs. Just not economies of scale like other firms would have. The labour invested remains proportional, a bigger farm cannot reduce the amount of physical effort spent on producing one thing (maybe an apple?)

Assuming both large farms and small farms are worked the same way.

We may have a central misunderstanding here.
I am not condoning the violent and foolish policies Mugabe is implementing.
I am condoning a land redistribution from few upper class land owners to many working class workers for reasons of economic efficiency and social equality. Just assume Zimbabwe is just an example, we may as well be talking about Namibia.

When you initially advocated redistribution, you justified it on the grounds of crimes committed by white people.

You're also assuming the new owners will have the skill to work the land efficiently, a skill the existing owners have already demonsrated.

Taxation for the purposes of transfer payments is the most common form of redistribution. That usually works democratically and peacefully.
And the majority of Humanity is apparently in favour of transfer payments.

Really? I never found it worthwhile to speak on behalf of the majority of humanity.

Has forced land redistribution ever worked peacefully, and democratically?

Correlation implies causation is a logical fallacy.

Like Pol Pot, and Ho Chi Minh, Mugabe took to communism in University (though your bro studied in South Africa, Ho and Pol studied in France)

scholarship to Fort Hare University College in South Africa. This is where he was introduced to communist literature and ideas.

Affirmative action could do nothing counteract stereotypes, and it does hold to the notion that race is the important characteristic.
And yet it could do much to include other races in the average working day, which would do much to reduce stereotyping. Once people of other races will be hired in proportional numbers, affirmative action is no longer necessary. At this point it could serve to prevent the exclusion of people of other races from certain parts of society.


Assuming both large farms and small farms are worked the same way.
Yes. Once a farm is big and rich enough it could afford machines and so on which will reduce physical labour required. And put people out of work...


When you initially advocated redistribution, you justified it on the grounds of crimes committed by white people.

You're also assuming the new owners will have the skill to work the land efficiently, a skill the existing owners have already demonsrated.
I did, but that only works with someone who has the same moral standards as me, that a wrong that still is with us now should be righted, regardless of who may have committed it, or whether that person is still alive.
You have different standards, so I tried to justify it with economical arguments, hoping that you would respond better.
And yes, there is the assumption that there is some form of training provided for those that take over the land. That that is lacking is one of the most central failures of Mugabe's policy.


Has forced land redistribution ever worked peacefully, and democratically?
The end of feudalism comes to mind. As the land became less important for the feudal lords, they gave it up.
Obviously, it can only work if some sort of compensation is paid. The only entity that could do that would be the state.
Similar things happen now too. If a company wants to build a shopping mall where you live, they may have to pay the compensation to people who live there to smash their houses in.



Like Pol Pot, and Ho Chi Minh, Mugabe took to communism in University (though your bro studied in South Africa, Ho and Pol studied in France)
from the same site:
young Robert had to be was brought up, nurtured and cultured by an Irish Jesuit, father O'Hea....
...This is where he was introduced to communist literature and ideas. This is also were he was familiarized with Mahatma Gandhi's ideals and the means to achieve them.

So we have an Irish Jesuit, communist, non-violent resistance totalitarian ruler.

And yet it could do much to include other races in the average working day, which would do much to reduce stereotyping. Once people of other races will be hired in proportional numbers, affirmative action is no longer necessary. At this point it could serve to prevent the exclusion of people of other races from certain parts of society.

Or applicants could be judged on their character, attitude, and ability to do the job.

Yes. Once a farm is big and rich enough it could afford machines and so on which will reduce physical labour required. And put people out of work...

In the pursuit of the most efficient economy, you advocate arbitrarily increasing the costs of production?

You have different standards, so I tried to justify it with economical arguments, hoping that you would respond better.

I suppose you could put it that way. But you are still going to have to justify basing property rights on race.

The end of feudalism comes to mind. As the land became less important for the feudal lords, they gave it up.

So they weren't forced, they gave it up.

young Robert had to be was brought up, nurtured and cultured by an Irish Jesuit, father O'Hea....
...This is where he was introduced to communist literature and ideas. This is also were he was familiarized with Mahatma Gandhi's ideals and the means to achieve them.

Which only proves that Mugabe prefers Marx to Gandhi, so he became a Communist dictator.

Or applicants could be judged on their character, attitude, and ability to do the job.
In a perfect world...

In the pursuit of the most efficient economy, you advocate arbitrarily increasing the costs of production?
Yes indeed I do. Many small farms, even when they have higher costs of production will still sell more product than one (or a few) large farm(s). That is because you do not pay the high mark-up that a monopolist creates by producing less quantity.

I suppose you could put it that way. But you are still going to have to justify basing property rights on race.
I want them based on social standing and actual wealth. To me personally, the fact that they are the descendands of criminals also makes a difference. In this specific case that correlates with race, but as I said before, correlation does not imply causation.
I'm not basing property rights on race.

Oh please, everyone knows that textbook Communism never works on a national scale. It works best in a small non-governmental crowd, hence Commune-ism.

Oh please, everyone knows that textbook Communism never works on a national scale. It works best in a small non-governmental crowd, hence Commune-ism.
I agree, but Disraeliland here would probably tell you about the USSR and so on and then tell you that that's communism, igonoring my attempts to convince him otherwise.
We define Communism differently.
I think of Communism as a theoretical concept as I outlined in an earlier quote from Wikipedia. Therefore there never has been a communist state.
He thinks of Communism as the totalitarian states that existed during the 20th century. Even though those usually claimed to be socialist (which is closer to the theory), he is not interested in acknowledging a difference.

One could say that this whole argument is pointless if we both insist on keeping our different definitions.

I agree, but Disraeliland here would probably tell you about the USSR and so on and then tell you that that's communism, igonoring my attempts to convince him otherwise.
We define Communism differently.
I think of Communism as a theoretical concept as I outlined in an earlier quote from Wikipedia. Therefore there never has been a communist state.
He thinks of Communism as the totalitarian states that existed during the 20th century. Even though those usually claimed to be socialist (which is closer to the theory), he is not interested in acknowledging a difference.

One could say that this whole argument is pointless if we both insist on keeping our different definitions.

If he does, then he's a willing dupe for labels and generalizations. Going by that logic, he would have to consider North Korea and East Germany to be Democracies simply because both nations used the word "Democratic" in their title. "Looks Like A Duck Quacks Like A Duck" is fine if you're hunting for ducks but not when you're looking for something much deeper.

Oh please, everyone knows that textbook Communism never works on a national scale. It works best in a small non-governmental crowd, hence Commune-ism.

Agreed. The average family could be called communist, and they've worked pretty well.

This is ironic because Marx called for the elimination of the traditional family.

If he does, then he's a willing dupe for labels and generalizations.

Utter bollocks. If you'd read the thread, you would have read the 10 policies Marx called for in Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto. You would have then read that Mugabe has implemented them all.

In a perfect world...

And making people consider race a relevant critereon will stop racism :rolleyes:

Yes indeed I do. Many small farms, even when they have higher costs of production will still sell more product than one (or a few) large farm(s). That is because you do not pay the high mark-up that a monopolist creates by producing less quantity.

They're monopolists now?

You've still not proven the rate of arable land utilisation, and in the case of it being small, you've not shown that there is some other barrier to entry imposed by the farmers.

If you're going to make arguments, prove them.

From here, it looks like the main barriers to entering the agriculture market in Zimbabwe are imposed by government (repressive taxation, and the government's violations of property rights, $Z being almost worthless)

In any case, uneconomical increases in production costs will reduce the wealth of a society.

Besides, you justified it be referring to unemployment created by automation.

You ought to read Hazlitt. He explains it better than I can. Download his book here: Economics in One Lesson (http://www.fee.org/~web/Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson/Economics%20In%20One%20Lesson.pdf)

To quote yourself: You would be doing the research for your own benefit, so that you may learn something you didn't know earlier.

I think of Communism as a theoretical concept as I outlined in an earlier quote from Wikipedia. Therefore there never has been a communist state.
He thinks of Communism as the totalitarian states that existed during the 20th century. Even though those usually claimed to be socialist (which is closer to the theory), he is not interested in acknowledging a difference.

The theoretical end that Marx speaks of doesn't interest me because Marx proceeds from a faulty premise, through a disasterous set of solutions without explaining how the state that must be given all power to enforce these solutions doesn't become tyrannical, to the final, impossible, state that you define as the Communist state.

Why place the emphasis on the destination, and neglect the route?

You are simply uninterested in looking at what the practical requirements of communism are because they paint your homie in a bad light.

And yet it could do much to include other races in the average working day, which would do much to reduce stereotyping. Once people of other races will be hired in proportional numbers, affirmative action is no longer necessary. At this point it could serve to prevent the exclusion of people of other races from certain parts of society.


Yes. Once a farm is big and rich enough it could afford machines and so on which will reduce physical labour required. And put people out of work...


I did, but that only works with someone who has the same moral standards as me, that a wrong that still is with us now should be righted, regardless of who may have committed it, or whether that person is still alive.
You have different standards, so I tried to justify it with economical arguments, hoping that you would respond better.
And yes, there is the assumption that there is some form of training provided for those that take over the land. That that is lacking is one of the most central failures of Mugabe's policy.


The end of feudalism comes to mind. As the land became less important for the feudal lords, they gave it up.
Obviously, it can only work if some sort of compensation is paid. The only entity that could do that would be the state.
Similar things happen now too. If a company wants to build a shopping mall where you live, they may have to pay the compensation to people who live there to smash their houses in.



from the same site:
young Robert had to be was brought up, nurtured and cultured by an Irish Jesuit, father O'Hea....
...This is where he was introduced to communist literature and ideas. This is also were he was familiarized with Mahatma Gandhi's ideals and the means to achieve them.

So we have an Irish Jesuit, communist, non-violent resistance totalitarian ruler.


Who incites his followers to commit violence and whose government uses techniques and tactics similar to those of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao to achieve his 'nonviolent' ends? Do you know what they used in Zimbabwe for light before Candles were introduced? Electricity.

Mugabe's actions look a lot like Pol-Pot's opening moves in returning "Kampuchea" to "Year Zero", including property seizures based on ethnicity, Government siezure of agricultural land and forced-'redistribution' of the population.

The big difference is, when Bob gets around to his final-solution and starts up the Killing Fields, there's no Vietnam to be horrified and invade to put an end to it.

Mugabe's moves aren't just 'marxist', they're Maoist in the style of a moderated Khmer Rouge.

Like I said a page ago, the targeted minority should have seen the writing on the wall, and pulled their investment in the 1970's, when they still had the chance to get out with more than their skins.

1. And making people consider race a relevant critereon will stop racism
2. They're monopolists now?
3. You've still not proven the rate of arable land utilisation....-snip-....In any case, uneconomical increases in production costs will reduce the wealth of a society.

4. Besides, you justified it be referring to unemployment created by automation.

5. You ought to read Hazlitt. He explains it better than I can. Download his book here: Economics in One Lesson (http://www.fee.org/~web/Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson/Economics%20In%20One%20Lesson.pdf)

6. The theoretical end that Marx speaks of doesn't interest me because Marx proceeds from a faulty premise, through a disasterous set of solutions without explaining how the state that must be given all power to enforce these solutions doesn't become tyrannical, to the final, impossible, state that you define as the Communist state.

1. Having more people of different race involved in public life will. If you define racism as simply recognising that there are people of different races and that those may have societal differences, then I am a racist.
I'd prefer defining it as treating someone negatively because of race.

2. In real life there are pretty much never perfect monopolists or competitions. But the larger a farm is, the larger its market share and the larger its monopoly power.

3. Have a look at this. Call me a racist, will you?
http://www.spearhead.com/0102-db.html
Also
http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~aep01kbl/Why%20African%20governments%20redistribute%20land,%20evidence%20of%20its%20successes%20and%20failure s.htm
And as to how a perfect competition is more efficient than a monopoly, despite production costs
http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/pa723/lectures/723lct17_18.html

4. I referred to unemployment as a side note. I didn't think it was of any importance to my argument, that if machines are used, physical effort per apple is reduced.

5. Sorry.
a) my download limit is getting close and this looks like a huge pdf-file.
b) I've got about a dozen economics textbooks, I'd be surprised if he knows anything they don't

5. Communist Theory does spell out how you would get there (communes rather than "the state" play a big role). I already said however that Marx was indeed wrong in his most basic assumption.

Utter bollocks. If you'd read the thread, you would have read the 10 policies Marx called for in Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto. You would have then read that Mugabe has implemented them all.

And if Mugabe is implementing textbook Marxism at even the scale of Zimbabwe, his government is doomed to failure. The only real chance he has would be to modify it into some pseudo-Communist entity that deviates from the canon greatly.

Who incites his followers to commit violence and whose government uses techniques and tactics similar to those of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao to achieve his 'nonviolent' ends? Do you know what they used in Zimbabwe for light before Candles were introduced? Electricity.

Mugabe's actions look a lot like Pol-Pot's opening moves in returning "Kampuchea" to "Year Zero", including property seizures based on ethnicity, Government siezure of agricultural land and forced-'redistribution' of the population.

The big difference is, when Bob gets around to his final-solution and starts up the Killing Fields, there's no Vietnam to be horrified and invade to put an end to it.

Mugabe's moves aren't just 'marxist', they're Maoist in the style of a moderated Khmer Rouge.

Like I said a page ago, the targeted minority should have seen the writing on the wall, and pulled their investment in the 1970's, when they still had the chance to get out with more than their skins.

I do see Mugabe's move as being more Maoist than Marxist.

And if Mugabe is implementing textbook Marxism at even the scale of Zimbabwe, his government is doomed to failure. The only real chance he has would be to modify it into some pseudo-Communist entity that deviates from the canon greatly.

Agreed his government is doomed.

In terms of his "only" chance, are you proposing something along the lines of China, economic liberalisation, while maintaining a repressive dictatorship? If so, you could be on to something, though I'd still like to see Mugabe hang.

3. Have a look at this. Call me a racist, will you?

The first two sources support the argument I made before that the present owners of the farms are them are the more efficient.

The third source is general economic theory, its doesn't prove that there is a monopoly, or an oligopoly, nor does it take into account the specific realities of farming.

5. Sorry.
a) my download limit is getting close and this looks like a huge pdf-file.

7.96MB

5. Communist Theory does spell out how you would get there (communes rather than "the state" play a big role). I already said however that Marx was indeed wrong in his most basic assumption.

Marx constantly refers to "the state" as the agent through which his ideas will be implemented.

I’m going to go for a point by point refutation of these things. Admittedly something that was done already, but hopefully you will be able to argue with these points, as some of them are actually points and not “Communism is good” statements. Please note, I have edited the order of your post only for clarity.
Communism is defined by 10 basic points: (and how they relate to Mugabe)
1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (This is the subject of this thread.)
Actually, it isn’t, unless you misunderstand what Mugabe is actually doing. What he is doing is kicking poor people who are, basically, squatting because they are too poor to afford rent off their land. He may be saying he is trying to nationalise land, but what Mugabe says and does are totally different things. And as for what he did to the white farmers? This is wrong undoubtedly, but not Communism. The land was given to black Zimbabweans. Meaning they own it and have property rights to it.
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax (Top tax rate is 46.4%)
The top tax rate in Ireland is 48%. Does that make us a communist country?
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Zimbabwe taxes estates)
Again, so does Ireland. And taxation of estates is not an abolition of the rights of inheritance by any means. It’s the taxation of a transferral of property. Most transferrals of property are taxed – sales tax, capital gains tax, etc.
4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (This is the subject of this thread.)
Fair point. However, is the seizure of property of rebels not relatively common? In Ireland, we have the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize the assets of criminals. (I know this is stretching things a bit, so I’m not going to hold on to this point.)
5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Done)
Also done in America. The Federal Bank ring any bells?
6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.(No free press in Zimbabwe)
There is a minor free press in Zimbabwe – the Daily News is still publishing, despite many attacks. Again, not a strong point. But is this any better than the concentration of media in the hands of an individual?
7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
This is a bad thing how? I fail to see the problem here, perhaps you could explain how this is a bad thing.
8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country
10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc
I don’t feel qualified to comment on these points apart from number ten, so I won’t. Should free education not be allowed for children? Making them work, however, is wrong, undoubtedly.
You can debate what Marx really wanted until you're blue in the face, but the 10 points I have made are the essential requirements of a communist regime, and Mugabe fulfils them.
Please read this: Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html) (Its not the whole manifesto, it is an explanation of it, and its implementation)
That’s not an explanation of it, it’s a critique of it. There’s a difference between the two. I have not read the Communist Manifesto fully as of yet, I just don’t have the time, but it is something I plan to do during the summer. However, Marx is not the only source of Communist thought.
I will agree with you, however, that the lack of any form of plan of the progression to the communist society, and what form this will take, is a major complaint with all Communist theory.

But back to Mugabe. In summary, he bad. His land seizure policy is wrong, and it’s led to the collapse of the Zimbabwean agricultural system. Zimbabwe used to be able to feed southern Africa. Now it can’t feed itself.

Actually, it isn’t, unless you misunderstand what Mugabe is actually doing. What he is doing is kicking poor people who are, basically, squatting because they are too poor to afford rent off their land. He may be saying he is trying to nationalise land, but what Mugabe says and does are totally different things. And as for what he did to the white farmers? This is wrong undoubtedly, but not Communism. The land was given to black Zimbabweans. Meaning they own it and have property rights to it.

This requires the abolition of property in land. If the government can just take your land away, and give it to someone else, they clearly did abolish property in land.

The top tax rate in Ireland is 48%. Does that make us a communist country?

Not by itself, though it does suggest that your politicians need to get fired.

Again, so does Ireland.

Bully for Ireland.

Your Ireland tangent is fallacious. It is based upon the idea that saying a good country has some communist policies proves that the bad country is not communist.

Fair point. However, is the seizure of property of rebels not relatively common? In Ireland, we have the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize the assets of criminals. (I know this is stretching things a bit, so I’m not going to hold on to this point.)

Marx doesn't explicitly define rebels, but since he doesn't say criminals, whom a rebel who acts violently to remove the government would be anyway (murder is murder, whether you murdered your neighbour because his dog crapped on your lawn, or killed police officers and soldiers to remove the government), Marx means anyone who opposes the government, regardless of how they oppose.

Your Criminal Assests Bureau is explicitly intended to confiscate the assets of criminals, not people who merely oppose the government. Their 2003 Annual Report to the Commissioner of the An Garda Síochána refers to:

target[ing] the assets deriving from drug trafficking and also assets which derived from corruption, international VAT carousel fraud and smuggling.

and:

strategic response, coordinated by the National Support Services of An Garda Síochána, to organised criminal activity in this country.

Of course, the area's Mugabe is razing are areas which voted strongly for the MDC.

Also done in America. The Federal Bank ring any bells?

Red herring, in any case, the Federal Reserve is not the same as nationalising the entire banking system, which is clearly what Marx means by "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

But is this any better than the concentration of media in the hands of an individual?

Red herring.

This is a bad thing how? I fail to see the problem here, perhaps you could explain how this is a bad thing.

Nationalisation is not only a direct assault on property rights, but is notoriously inefficient.

I don’t feel qualified to comment on these points apart from number ten, so I won’t. Should free education not be allowed for children? Making them work, however, is wrong, undoubtedly.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding of point 10.

Marx doesn't simply advocate the institution of a publically funded school system, nor does he simply advocate the removal of child labour.

It is necessary to make a more careful analysis of his words. Let us take Point 10 bit by bit.

Free education for all children in public schools.

"All children in public schools" is the key bit, and this clearly means the elimination of the private education system, and the banning of home-schooling. essentially, the parent loses the right to determine the child's education.

Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.

"In its present form" is the key bit here. Child labour, as it existed, meant children working for private enterprise, which Marx wanted eliminated. So of course Marx opposed child labour "in its present form". This leads onto the final part of point 10.

Combination of education with industrial production, etc

As you can see, Marx didn't oppose as such the hideous institution that child labour was at the time. He merely wanted that labour to be in the nationalised industries, and agriculture he advocated, therein also the children would receive their basic education.

Point 10 is therefore one of the most obnoxious provisions. Conscripting children into factories.

This requires the abolition of property in land. If the government can just take your land away, and give it to someone else, they clearly did abolish property in land.
No. It means they ignored the property rights of a certain group, which is also wrong. Others still have property rights.

Not by itself, though it does suggest that your politicians need to get fired.

Bully for Ireland.

Your Ireland tangent is fallacious. It is based upon the idea that saying a good country has some communist policies proves that the bad country is not communist.
The point I was trying to make is that high taxes do not equal communism. I’m saying that having communist policies does not equal communism. For example, social welfare. Are you saying that America is a communist country because it has social welfare? I’m assuming you’re American, so if you’re not, please change that to whatever country you are from, unless, of course, that country does not have social welfare.

Marx doesn't explicitly define rebels, but since he doesn't say criminals, whom a rebel who acts violently to remove the government would be anyway (murder is murder, whether you murdered your neighbour because his dog crapped on your lawn, or killed police officers and soldiers to remove the government), Marx means anyone who opposes the government, regardless of how they oppose.

Your Criminal Assests Bureau is explicitly intended to confiscate the assets of criminals, not people who merely oppose the government. Their 2003 Annual Report to the Commissioner of the An Garda Síochána refers to: <snip>
Of course, the area's Mugabe is razing are areas which voted strongly for the MDC.
Fair enough, I said it wasn’t a good point. I was going along the lines that a rebel was a criminal, yeah… True about the areas he’s razing being MDC supporting.

Red herring, in any case, the Federal Reserve is not the same as nationalising the entire banking system, which is clearly what Marx means by "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
Zimbabwe has not nationalised its banks, see the following links:
http://www.portalino.it/banks/_zw.htm
http://www.standardchartered.com/zw/
So how is this a red herring?


But is this any better than the concentration of media in the hands of an individual?
Red herring.
That was probably my media-related prejudices coming through. Also, see the BBC, state-controlled and probably the best media organisation on the planet.

Nationalisation is not only a direct assault on property rights, but is notoriously inefficient.
What you described originally sounds less like nationalisation than state capitalism to me. I understand nationalisation to mean the government taking over industries from private/public ownership. And could you provide examples of where nationalisation decreased efficiency or vice versa? Preferably in a First World nation. I know that water privatisation in Africa has resulted in reduced efficiency in water supply and increased prices.


This seems to be a common misunderstanding of point 10.

Marx doesn't simply advocate the institution of a publically funded school system, nor does he simply advocate the removal of child labour.

It is necessary to make a more careful analysis of his words. Let us take Point 10 bit by bit.

"All children in public schools" is the key bit, and this clearly means the elimination of the private education system, and the banning of home-schooling. Essentially, the parent loses the right to determine the child's education.
Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.
"In its present form" is the key bit here. Child labour, as it existed, meant children working for private enterprise, which Marx wanted eliminated. So of course Marx opposed child labour "in its present form". This leads onto the final part of point 10.

As you can see, Marx didn't oppose as such the hideous institution that child labour was at the time. He merely wanted that labour to be in the nationalised industries, and agriculture he advocated, therein also the children would receive their basic education.

Point 10 is therefore one of the most obnoxious provisions. Conscripting children into factories.
And how does this apply to Mugabe? Also, please note, the only part of Marx’s theories I agreed with on this point was all children to have the right to a free education in public schools. (I realise I didn’t make this particularly clear.)

You ignored my point that your ‘summary’ was a critique, and therefore biased, or that rights of inheritance exist despite taxation.

No. It means they ignored the property rights of a certain group, which is also wrong. Others still have property rights.

That's rather like saying Stalin ignored the property rights of the Kulaks.

The point is that where a particular group's rights are ignored, there are no rights.

The point I was trying to make is that high taxes do not equal communism. I’m saying that having communist policies does not equal communism. For example, social welfare. Are you saying that America is a communist country because it has social welfare? I’m assuming you’re American, so if you’re not, please change that to whatever country you are from, unless, of course, that country does not have social welfare.

By themselves they do not. I'm not American, I'm Australian.

Australia does not fulfill all 10 points, but it does some, most nations do to some extent. Zimbabwe fulfills them all.

Zimbabwe has not nationalised its banks, see the following links:
http://www.portalino.it/banks/_zw.htm
http://www.standardchartered.com/zw/
So how is this a red herring?

That was a whole lot of nothing.

See this link: Mugabe grabs control of Zimbabwe’s banks (http://www.businessinafrica.net/features/banking/393615.htm)

What you described originally sounds less like nationalisation than state capitalism to me. I understand nationalisation to mean the government taking over industries from private/public ownership. And could you provide examples of where nationalisation decreased efficiency or vice versa? Preferably in a First World nation. I know that water privatisation in Africa has resulted in reduced efficiency in water supply and increased prices.

Here's an article about nationalisation in South Africa

http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/briefingpapers/nationalisation.htm

British Leyland, and British Steel didn't do well out of nationalisation.

And how does this apply to Mugabe? Also, please note, the only part of Marx’s theories I agreed with on this point was all children to have the right to a free education in public schools. (I realise I didn’t make this particularly clear.)

Mugabe attempted to seize private schools, but had to back down.

You ignored my point that your ‘summary’ was a critique, and therefore biased

Is that a point? Can you show that it is wrong?

rights of inheritance exist despite taxation.

Death taxes are an attack on property rights because that wealth had been taxed already one or more times.

Also it punishes the prudent (the ones who saved and invested while alive, and therefore have something to leave) for their prudence, while effectively rewarding the spendthrifts.

I say he's a autocrat, without clear economic direction.

His economic policies are all based on a sort of racist socialism (I know, oxymoron, but it's happening.)

That's rather like saying Stalin ignored the property rights of the Kulaks.
The point is that where a particular group's rights are ignored, there are no rights.
Stalin didn’t only take land from the kulaks. He took it from everyone. I wouldn’t agree with your statement that if one group’s rights go, everyone’s do. Let’s take the example of the US during World War II. Japanese-Americans, including American citizens, were placed in internment camps. Does that mean all American citizens lost their rights? (The same argument also goes for Nazi Germany, but I chose that example because America was a democracy.)

By themselves they do not. I'm not American, I'm Australian.
Australia does not fulfil all 10 points, but it does some, most nations do to some extent. Zimbabwe fulfils them all.
Apologies. I wouldn’t agree that Zimbabwe fulfils them all, or that those ten are the best markers for defining a communist state – just because they are the ones Marx suggested doesn’t mean they are the best. Not all are necessary, it omits some I would feel are, and if you are just going by those points, you could argue the Soviet Union wasn’t Communist (labour armies weren’t really part of the Soviet system – depends on your definition of them of course).


That was a whole lot of nothing.
See this link: Mugabe grabs control of Zimbabwe’s banks (http://www.businessinafrica.net/features/banking/393615.htm)
It says Mugabe has created an organisation that controls eleven banks. There are more than eleven banks in Zimbabwe, and those he took control of were unable to pay out money. It certainly does smack of an attempt to take control of the banks, but to be sure, we’ll have to wait until 2007 or he grabs for more banks.

Here's an article about nationalisation in South Africa
http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/briefingpapers/nationalisation.htm
British Leyland, and British Steel didn't do well out of nationalisation.
D’oh. Nationalisation of resources, of course, I should have connected that. Me stupid. Then again, most nations own the rights to their mineral wealth, and sell/rent it to others. The development of waste land and improvement of the soil I don’t see as a bad thing. Question: would you disagree with the state owning companies, as long as they had to compete with others?
Also, that paper comes from a free market advocacy group, so its neutrality is questionable – I’m not an economist, I haven’t read much on economics since I was about eleven, but I certainly believe that the free market is not the solution. First world countries had decades or centuries to build up their industries behind tariffs, whereas third world countries have not had this luxury. That is not an argument, of course, just a point tangential to this discussion.

Mugabe attempted to seize private schools, but had to back down.
Meaning, point ten doesn’t apply and it’s not a communist country! I win! Ya-boo-sucks!
(Joking. That’s just cheap point scoring, and if you look up there, I already said that I don’t think those ten points are the be-all and end-all of Communism.)

Is that a point? Can you show that it is wrong?
Well, it’s not a good idea to get all your information from a biased source, and, having read the author’s comparisons between Star Wars and Star Trek, I don’t think he’s the most neutral person. Opinions can’t be wrong, and that is more or less an opinion (albeit backed up with some economics). I’m more so bringing it to your attention than anything else.

Death taxes are an attack on property rights because that wealth had been taxed already one or more times.

Also it punishes the prudent (the ones who saved and invested while alive, and therefore have something to leave) for their prudence, while effectively rewarding the spendthrifts.
The same would go for sales tax, or indeed any form of tax apart from income tax and corporation tax.

Also, just being all nitpicky and stuff, but fulfil has one L at the end. (I'm a stickler for spelling and punctuation.)

I wouldn’t agree with your statement that if one group’s rights go, everyone’s do. Let’s take the example of the US during World War II. Japanese-Americans, including American citizens, were placed in internment camps. Does that mean all American citizens lost their rights? (The same argument also goes for Nazi Germany, but I chose that example because America was a democracy.)

The rights taken away in the US were rights that applied to all citizens. If the government turns around and decides that rights that once applied to all, now only apply to a select group, how can you say that those rights existed at all (remembering that a right is a guarantee)

Apologies. I wouldn’t agree that Zimbabwe fulfils them all, or that those ten are the best markers for defining a communist state – just because they are the ones Marx suggested doesn’t mean they are the best. Not all are necessary, it omits some I would feel are, and if you are just going by those points, you could argue the Soviet Union wasn’t Communist (labour armies weren’t really part of the Soviet system – depends on your definition of them of course).

Which points would be better. Its all very well to pick at something, but what alternative do you offer?

The Soviet Union used gulag prisoners as a labour army for massive projects.

Also, that paper comes from a free market advocacy group, so its neutrality is questionable – I’m not an economist, I haven’t read much on economics since I was about eleven, but I certainly believe that the free market is not the solution.

Whether you think they have a bias or not is irrelevant, whether they are right or wrong.

I'd say your lack of belief in the free market comes from your ignorance of economics. In any case, with you admitted ignorance, are you in a place to make a comment either way?

Meaning, point ten doesn’t apply and it’s not a communist country! I win! Ya-boo-sucks!

Wrong, it means that Mugabe wished to apply point 10. That, and the other 9 points makes Mugabe a communist dictator.

Well, it’s not a good idea to get all your information from a biased source, and, having read the author’s comparisons between Star Wars and Star Trek, I don’t think he’s the most neutral person. I’m more so bringing it to your attention than anything else.

You've still not in any way made a real critique of the source. Sources are right, or wrong. The real question is why be neutral about a philosophy that has filled 100 million graves?

No one expects neutrality on Nazism, everyone expects total condemnation. And they filled half as many graves.

The same would go for sales tax, or indeed any form of tax apart from income tax and corporation tax.

True. People should only be taxed once, though I tend to believe that it should be either income, or sales.

Also, multiple taxation tends to make the tax system, and how much of your money really goes to the government, about as clear as mud on a foggy day to a very short-sighted person who's forgotten his glasses. Alll the separate taxes get proposed and discussed separately, passed separately, and accepted separately, but increasing just the income by the same amount would have people out in the streets, what I mean is this, in 2000, Australia introduced a 10% GST (VAT to you) on everything except fresh food. That passed relatively easily, but a 10% across the board increase in income tax would have been much harder to pass.

The first two sources support the argument I made before that the present owners of the farms are them are the more efficient.
The first source is a demonstration of the Afrikaners innocence when it comes to racial discrimination:
"The black man naturally is not a farmer!"
The second source starts off with the rationale behind land redistribution.
You try finding a source that doesn't end up with "the failures of Mugabe's policy". Hell, I end up with that.


The third source is general economic theory, its doesn't prove that there is a monopoly, or an oligopoly, nor does it take into account the specific realities of farming.
But now you do accept that competition is better than a monopoly. That's a good start.
As I said before, an oligopoly is a form of market where there is a number of sellers, each large enough to influence price somewhat, and where there are barriers to entry into the market (eg limited land, high initial costs to set up a farm). If one farm in Zimbabwe decides not to produce anything, will that drive up the price of the product, locally and/or nationally? I believe so.
Thus, it is a monopoly, and as the economic theory suggests, the more farms there are (even if they are smaller and have higher production costs), the smaller the loss to society caused by market power.
The specific realities of farming? All it talks about is Marginal Cost, Average Cost, Marginal Revenue and Average Revenue (Price). How is a farm different from that?


Marx constantly refers to "the state" as the agent through which his ideas will be implemented.
It seems like now I am no longer the only one who doubts your knowledge of Marx's Theory. Your bit there is a critique, or as I said earlier:
"...Some sort of summarised "Marx for Capitalists" version..."
And may I also add that you do not speak or read German.
German can be a complicated language, there are many nuances in how to say things (moreso than in English), and unless you have read Marx in German, you will be prone to misinterpretations. Even if you can get your hands on a version where Marx helped the translators, you will still lose some of the meaning.


http://www.freemarketfoundation.com...onalisation.htm
You do realise that "the free market foundation" is hardly an unbiased source in a question such as this?

The first source is a demonstration of the Afrikaners innocence when it comes to racial discrimination:
"The black man naturally is not a farmer!"

Is there any precedent to black African's farming.

You try finding a source that doesn't end up with "the failures of Mugabe's policy". Hell, I end up with that.

What successes has Mugabe's policy had, apart from increasing his power?

As I said before, an oligopoly is a form of market where there is a number of sellers, each large enough to influence price somewhat, and where there are barriers to entry into the market (eg limited land, high initial costs to set up a farm). If one farm in Zimbabwe decides not to produce anything, will that drive up the price of the product, locally and/or nationally? I believe so.

You've still not provided proof that such a situation exists in Zimbabwe, nor have you shown that a government has the mandate to redistribute land owned by people who've committed no crime (and don't give me any of that descendents of criminals BS, there's no legal or ethical precedent)

It seems like now I am no longer the only one who doubts your knowledge of Marx's Theory. Your bit there is a critique, or as I said earlier:
"...Some sort of summarised "Marx for Capitalists" version..."

Address the source, whether it is right or wrong.

And may I also add that you do not speak or read German.
German can be a complicated language, there are many nuances in how to say things (moreso than in English), and unless you have read Marx in German, you will be prone to misinterpretations. Even if you can get your hands on a version where Marx helped the translators, you will still lose some of the meaning.

Some evidence, please?

You do realise that "the free market foundation" is hardly an unbiased source in a question such as this?

Address the source, whether it is right or wrong.

The rights taken away in the US were rights that applied to all citizens. If the government turns around and decides that rights that once applied to all, now only apply to a select group, how can you say that those rights existed at all (remembering that a right is a guarantee)
I’m assuming by this you think that the rights that were taken away were taken away from all, which is totally wrong. I’m talking about internment of JUST Japanese people, including many Japanese-Americans. And if you’re saying that it’s ok to take the right to freedom away from a group, but not its right to property… I know I’d prefer to be free than rich.

Which points would be better? It’s all very well to pick at something, but what alternative do you offer?
The Soviet Union used gulag prisoners as a labour army for massive projects.
Hmm… that’s a good question. I’ve never really tried to quantify what makes a state communist, but… universal state ownership of the means of the production, a small differential between rich and poor, lack of a political system or politics, and authoritarian rule are probably my defining criteria of a communist state (with the proviso that communist theory envisages the abolition of the state, but that’s irrelevant at this point).


Whether you think they have a bias or not is irrelevant, whether they are right or wrong.
I'd say your lack of belief in the free market comes from your ignorance of economics. In any case, with you admitted ignorance, are you in a place to make a comment either way?
Opinions can’t be right or wrong. Theories can’t be right; they can only be the best explanation we have for things. Free market capitalism does work, true, but does it work in the best interests of the human race, as opposed to the best interest of the investors? And if it does, why does the privatisation of water supplies in Africa lead to a reduction in water quality and an increase in the price? And why does only a few percent of the price of the finished product stay in the home country? And why can’t they build factories to process the stuff themselves? And so on…


Wrong, it means that Mugabe wished to apply point 10. That, and the other 9 points, makes Mugabe a communist dictator.
If wishes and buts were clusters of nuts we'd all have a bowl of granola. He might have wanted to put them into practice, but if those are the essential characteristics of communism and he hasn’t implemented that one, it can’t be communist.


You've still not in any way made a real critique of the source. Sources are right, or wrong. The real question is, why be neutral about a philosophy that has filled 100 million graves?
No one expects neutrality on Nazism, everyone expects total condemnation. And they filled half as many graves.
But perhaps there should be neutrality on the philosophy of fascism – without, of course, the racist parts? The part of Nazism everyone condemns is the Holocaust. Fewer condemn the communist democides. A philosophy should not be judged on the actions of its adherents. After all, if that was the case, capitalism would be unacceptable as a system – how many people were killed by colonialism, for example?


True. People should only be taxed once, though I tend to believe that it should be either income or sales.

Also, multiple taxation tends to make the tax system, and how much of your money really goes to the government, about as clear as mud on a foggy day to a very short-sighted person who's forgotten his glasses. All the separate taxes get proposed and discussed separately, passed separately, and accepted separately, but increasing just the income by the same amount would have people out in the streets, what I mean is this, in 2000, Australia introduced a 10% GST (VAT to you) on everything except fresh food. That passed relatively easily, but a 10% across the board increase in income tax would have been much harder to pass.
Agreed. I’d go with income taxes, because they are fairer – they hit the poor less than they hit the rich. Sales taxes are the opposite – poor people pay more of their income in sales taxes than the rich.

I’m assuming by this you think that the rights that were taken away were taken away from all, which is totally wrong. I’m talking about internment of JUST Japanese people, including many Japanese-Americans. And if you’re saying that it’s ok to take the right to freedom away from a group, but not its right to property… I know I’d prefer to be free than rich.

I'm saying that if a right (which is a guarantee) can be taken away from a group (other than a criminal conspiracy that has been convicted in a court of law), then the guarantee never existed in the first place.

As for preferring to be rich than free, all freedoms are equally important because they support each other.

Free market capitalism does work, true, but does it work in the best interests of the human race, as opposed to the best interest of the investors? And if it does, why does the privatisation of water supplies in Africa lead to a reduction in water quality and an increase in the price? And why does only a few percent of the price of the finished product stay in the home country? And why can’t they build factories to process the stuff themselves? And so on…

Who defines the best interests of the human race? And what gives them the right to define it?

Another question you fail to ask is if, how, and why do the interests of the human race clash with the interests of investors?

Perhaps you ought to consider Friedman

Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.

Capitalism has worked better than any other system. It has created the highest standards of living on Earth,

If wishes and buts were clusters of nuts we'd all have a bowl of granola. He might have wanted to put them into practice, but if those are the essential characteristics of communism and he hasn’t implemented that one, it can’t be communist.

My point, which Mugabe's attempt to implement Point 10 proved, was that he is a communist. He's not a totally successful communist (but who could be?), but he is still a communist.

But perhaps there should be neutrality on the philosophy of fascism – without, of course, the racist parts? The part of Nazism everyone condemns is the Holocaust. Fewer condemn the communist democides. A philosophy should not be judged on the actions of its adherents. After all, if that was the case, capitalism would be unacceptable as a system – how many people were killed by colonialism, for example?

Fewer condemn them because less has been said about them, and also there are prominent people who committ themselves to carrying out Communism's ideas.

For someone who admits little/no knowledge of economics, you have some firm opinions of capitalism.

The most frustrating aspect of any economic discussion is that.

Agreed. I’d go with income taxes, because they are fairer – they hit the poor less than they hit the rich. Sales taxes are the opposite – poor people pay more of their income in sales taxes than the rich.

May be. Here's a link about it: www.fairtax.org

they hit the poor less than they hit the rich.

Envy =/= fairness.

Lets look at Joe Bloggs. He would start in our narrative in his mid 20's and poor, and the government would be nice to him by taxing him less, or not at all.

Joe Bloggs proceeds to develop skills that are in demand, and he works hard, spends wisely, saves.

By his 50's, he owns his own successful business. The government then comes back and says "you've done well, now give us half of your profits, or your arse is behind bars".

Repressive (progressive most call it) punishes success.

I'm saying that if a right (which is a guarantee) can be taken away from a group (other than a criminal conspiracy that has been convicted in a court of law), then the guarantee never existed in the first place.
As for preferring to be rich than free, all freedoms are equally important because they support each other.
Therefore, you’re saying that human rights do not exist in America, because they have been taken away from internees. Hell, they don’t exist in Australia or Ireland either, because the right to freedom is taken away from prisoners.
An important thing I learned during my Transition Year (dunno if there’s anything similar in Australia – basically a break between examination courses in high school) Legal Studies module – no right is absolute, because if it were it would impinge on the rights of others.

Who defines the best interests of the human race? And what gives them the right to define it?

Another question you fail to ask is if, how, and why do the interests of the human race clash with the interests of investors?

Perhaps you ought to consider Friedman:
Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.

Capitalism has worked better than any other system. It has created the highest standards of living on Earth.
It’s also created the biggest disparity between the rich and the poor ever seen. The best interests of the human race? I don’t know who defines it. Personally I believe it is that which brings the greatest amount of good to the world. I do not see the privatisation of public services like water supply, with the inherent requirement for profit, as bringing good to the world.
As to the clash of interests, well, the existence of a clash is obvious – if there were no clash, there would not be an anti-globalisation movement or people starving. How they clash? The difference between what brings profit and what brings happiness is what they clash over, I believe. For example, feeding five million starving children doesn’t do much for your bottom line, but it’s a nice thing to do. And why is sorta covered by that same answer. These are only my opinions, of course. And they probably matter very little to you – I’m just a high-school kid with no economics degree, just broad reading on the subject.

My point, which Mugabe's attempt to implement Point 10 proved, was that he is a communist. He's not a totally successful communist (but who could be?), but he is still a communist.
This is a point we’re not going to agree on. I’m willing to let you have it – it’s not important to me, I was merely arguing it for the sake of arguing. I quite like the whole arguing thing, in case you didn’t guess…

Fewer condemn them because less has been said about them, and also there are prominent people who commit themselves to carrying out Communism’s ideas.
For someone who admits little/no knowledge of economics, you have some firm opinions of capitalism.
The most frustrating aspect of any economic discussion is that.
I condemn it. Stalin tops my list of bastards, above that Hitler chap by a fair deal. And I despise Lenin too. And this from someone who you obviously think of as a pinko commie bastard (joking. But I am an ex-communist.)
I have firm opinions on capitalism, true. I also have firm opinions on communism, racism, genocide, war, religion… pretty much everything. But I am open-minded enough to change if I am wrong, even if I will deny it for a while. Perhaps, instead of denouncing my lack of economics knowledge (and I didn’t say that I had little knowledge of economics, I said it had been a while since I read much in that field), you could provide some explanation from yours of where I’m wrong.

May be. Here's a link about it: www.fairtax.org

Envy =/= fairness.

Lets look at Joe Bloggs. He would start in our narrative in his mid 20's and poor, and the government would be nice to him by taxing him less, or not at all.

Joe Bloggs proceeds to develop skills that are in demand, and he works hard, spends wisely, saves.

By his 50's, he owns his own successful business. The government then comes back and says "you've done well, now give us half of your profits, or your arse is behind bars".

Repressive (progressive most call it) punishes success.
Don’t agree with this, but I don’t have time to go through my position, or read all of that. Strangely enough, I came across that link in a thread about thirty seconds before checking back on this one… Although their plan of providing rebates for people below the poverty line makes me like it more. I will be away til Wednesday (doing my Leaving Cert), but after then I will be back, and I will read that and formulate my opinions.

Therefore, you’re saying that human rights do not exist in America, because they have been taken away from internees. Hell, they don’t exist in Australia or Ireland either, because the right to freedom is taken away from prisoners.

Nope. I accounted for criminals in the post. Codes of rights include provision for punishing those who violate the rights of others. Why? Because this is how the government charged with guaranteeing rights does it.

It’s also created the biggest disparity between the rich and the poor ever seen.

The disparity is irrelevant.

Here's a site on the topic:

http://freedomkeys.com/gap.htm

What matters is how wealthy society is, and how much wealthier people are.

Although the line "rich are getting richer, and poor are getting poorer" sounds good from a politicians appealing to the base instincts of the voters, where is the evidence?

Sure, the gap widens, the poor have gotten richer, and the rich have gotten richer at a higher rate.

As to the clash of interests, well, the existence of a clash is obvious – if there were no clash, there would not be an anti-globalisation movement or people starving.

Another fallacy. Evidence of opposition does not mean there is necessarily a clash of interests.

As for starving people, can you prove that capitalism caused that (rather than third world corruption and wars)?

The difference between what brings profit and what brings happiness is what they clash over, I believe.

What brings profit is very easy to pin down.

What brings happiness? There are over 6 billion different answers, many of which you coudn't understand.

For example, feeding five million starving children doesn’t do much for your bottom line.QUOTE]

That's debatable, though history has shown that if there's a way to make money of something, it will be found. In the case of feeding the children, its a good thing that profit would be involved, provides an incentive to do a good thing.

[QUOTE=Kalmykhia]I condemn it. Stalin tops my list of bastards, above that Hitler chap by a fair deal. And I despise Lenin too. And this from someone who you obviously think of as a pinko commie bastard (joking. But I am an ex-communist.)

Ex-communists are the best sort of Communists. The second best are dead communists. :D :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Perhaps, instead of denouncing my lack of economics knowledge (and I didn’t say that I had little knowledge of economics, I said it had been a while since I read much in that field), you could provide some explanation from yours of where I’m wrong.

Some links to read. They put it better than I can.

http://www.fte.org/capitalism/introduction/index.php

Freedomkeys again (http://freedomkeys.com/gap.htm)

The little quotes in freedom keys point to the source, wherein the argument is developed further. A lot to get through, but worth your while.

Don’t agree with this, but I don’t have time to go through my position, or read all of that.

The effects of repressive taxation are self-evident.

Yet we are spreading democracy to Iraq and not african countries like this......why?

And what will the useless UN do? :(

I come from a prominent South African political family and as such have met Zimbabwe's Ambassidor to Australia on many occasions. My aunty has also met Mugabe. He is a lovely man personally and runs a government that is grossly miss-understood.

God forbid that an African nation should take back the land that was stolen from them.

I don't call the total destruction of agriculture and now the destruction of industry a gross miss understanding. I call it a total destruction of the country’s economy, which will further impoverish all citizens, especially the poor who will now have fewer jobs.

Taking back the land is one thing, destruction of the country is another.

I understand it is a corrupt government but then perhaps it's the African way since they are certainly not unique in that continent.

The old Colonial land stealing excuse won't wash either.

These ex-colonial nations weren't nations prior to colonisation.
On independence all of them were left with an enormously value-added economy which they destroyed through corruption quicker than you can say "aids"

It sounds like you are saying the nations on that continent are incapable of governing themselves. Humm...may not be far from the truth.

White Landowners in Africa are the sons and grandsons of some of the worst human rights abusers to ever have lived.


Point is they are the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons. They are not the ones who may have abused the Africans. These "white" people are also Africans and citizens of the countries they live in. What is happening is nothing but pure racism.
If they want the land back, fine but there are better ways to do it. However, to destroy the economic base of the country and drive all the citizens further into poverty is very stupid. That country had great potential at one time, now it is being driven back to a subsistence economy.

-snip-

Well, here we are at the end of a long and pointless discussion. I'll summarise my views, and then get on with my life, since I have four exams this week.
I will not return to this thread, so don't bother replying.

1. There is a lot of racial inequality in African countries. The Afrikaners, many of which still do not accept that their genes are the same as black people's, live a good life in wealth. They personally did little to gain this wealth, the headstart they enjoyed comes from a time of racism and oppression.

2. I believe past wrongs should be righted, even if the people who originally commited the wrongs are no longer alive. Taking some (not all) land away from Afrikaners and giving it to the descendands of the oppressed natives is a viable solution in my opinion.

3. Land Redistribution can only work if the Afrikaners are compensated appropriatly by the state. Violence is not a viable solution.

4. There are barriers to entry into the market:
-There is limited land available, since the best land is taken by Afrikaners.
-There are significant costs associated with starting a farm, which in economic theory constitutes a barrier to entry.
Therefore, there is a limited (at the moment very small) number of suppliers, and there are barriers to entry. That defines an Oligopoly.

5. Splitting up the large farms into smaller pieces that compete with each other will lessen the influence of each farm on price and quantity of food supplied, and will therefore increase economic efficiency.

6. Communism is a theoretical construct, developed hundreds of years ago. It describes a utopian society without classes, without money and without greed. The way to this society was then believed to be through revolution and a time (called Socialism) of societal upheaval in which private property and so on would be abolished. Sometimes, Marx argued, this society would move on to Communism.
I personally believe a fundamental assumption on Marx' part is wrong, that people are naturally good and will not be greedy or jealous of other's success or wealth.

7. There therefore never has been a communist state. There have been a number of socialist states, which failed in their endeavours and became totalitarian dictatorships. To my knowledge, no country actually called itself "communist", this name was given to them by others. The USSR for example was a Union of Socialist Soviet (ie ="Commune") Republics. Other people have called it communist.

8. Mugabe's policies serve no purpose other than prolonging his reign. He may once have been an idealistic young revolutionary, but now he has become a dictator like the one he once fought. He is not redistributing land to poor black people, he is bringing it under the control of his party, thus increasing his power.

And I think that's it.

Mugabes nothing but a filthy ethnic cleansing racist pig, if he wants to return Zimbabwe back to only black ownership, then he could do so easily without massecuring white people or ordering his troops to rape white women in front of their familys.
Why not just say instead we value white farmers input to the economy, but the language taught in schools now will only be zulu etc.
He could have even forced white people admittedly at some small bloodshed to leave the country and go elsewhere, the killing is racially motivated, nothing else.

Well, here we are at the end of a long and pointless discussion. I'll summarise my views, and then get on with my life, since I have four exams this week.
I will not return to this thread, so don't bother replying.

A cynic might suggest that you can't take debate.

1. There is a lot of racial inequality in African countries. The Afrikaners, many of which still do not accept that their genes are the same as black people's, live a good life in wealth. They personally did little to gain this wealth, the headstart they enjoyed comes from a time of racism and oppression.

Evidence? White-guilt syndrome proves nothing.

2. I believe past wrongs should be righted, even if the people who originally commited the wrongs are no longer alive. Taking some (not all) land away from Afrikaners and giving it to the descendands of the oppressed natives is a viable solution in my opinion.

People committ crimes, not races. How can it be a viable solution when there is no evidence that the land will be put to productive use?

3. Land Redistribution can only work if the Afrikaners are compensated appropriatly by the state. Violence is not a viable solution.

Agreed, but land distribution requires a lot more to work, including the investments in education and infrastructure to ensure the land will be used in a productive manner.

However, land distribution is not a solution to Africa's problems, and has the potential to exacerbate existing problems, especially corruption. It is also an attack on property rights of people who personally committed no crime.

4. There are barriers to entry into the market:
-There is limited land available, since the best land is taken by Afrikaners.
-There are significant costs associated with starting a farm, which in economic theory constitutes a barrier to entry.
Therefore, there is a limited (at the moment very small) number of suppliers, and there are barriers to entry. That defines an Oligopoly.

Nope, didn't see the proof I asked for several times.

6. Communism is a theoretical construct, developed hundreds of years ago. It describes a utopian society without classes, without money and without greed. The way to this society was then believed to be through revolution and a time (called Socialism) of societal upheaval in which private property and so on would be abolished. Sometimes, Marx argued, this society would move on to Communism.
I personally believe a fundamental assumption on Marx' part is wrong, that people are naturally good and will not be greedy or jealous of other's success or wealth.

None of which shows that Mugabe isn't a Communist. His implementation of all of Marx's 10 point agenda is proof that he is.

7. There therefore never has been a communist state. There have been a number of socialist states, which failed in their endeavours and became totalitarian dictatorships. To my knowledge, no country actually called itself "communist", this name was given to them by others. The USSR for example was a Union of Socialist Soviet (ie ="Commune") Republics. Other people have called it communist.

Names prove nothing.

No attempt at communism can do anything but become tyrannical. The fact that Marx didn't believe that doesn't mean that tyrannical states sich as Zimbabwe aren't communist.

8. Mugabe's policies serve no purpose other than prolonging his reign. He may once have been an idealistic young revolutionary, but now he has become a dictator like the one he once fought. He is not redistributing land to poor black people, he is bringing it under the control of his party, thus increasing his power.

Unsubstantiated flannel. Anyway, the attempts by Mugabe to increase his power fit into hid communist agenda because the incrased power acts as an enabler. Remember he had to back down oin trying to implement point 10?

bump

7. There therefore never has been a communist state. There have been a number of socialist states, which failed in their endeavours and became totalitarian dictatorships. To my knowledge, no country actually called itself "communist", this name was given to them by others. The USSR for example was a Union of Socialist Soviet (ie ="Commune") Republics. Other people have called it communist.



You know, back in the day, they were Communist. Having LIVED in Communist Czechoslovakia and Poland, I can tell you that they really did aspire to Marxist ideals, etc.

As for calling themselves Communist, perhaps you've never read the CCCP's Constitution? They just *might* be quoting Marx there, no?
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/nation/government/constitution.php

How about the Cuban one?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.georgetown.edu/pdba/Constitutions/Cuba/cuba1976.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dconstitution%2B%252Bcuba%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D
DECIDED

to take ahead the triunfadora Revolution of the Moncada and the Granma, the Mountain range and Girón headed by Fidel I castrate that, sustained in the narrowest unit of all the revolutionary forces and the town, it conquered total national independence, it established the revolutionary Power, it made the democratic transformations, initiated the construction of the socialism and, with the Communist Party to the front, it continues it with the objective to build the communist society;

Just because they failed, you're saying it didn't happen, that they weren't "true". That's what we in the real world call "revisionism". You know, like the Iraq war was about liberation and not WMDs. That's another example of revisionism.

It's travesties like this that make me wish Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front was back in power. At least under Smith's rule, the Rhodesian Army was not bulldozing villages, killing political opponents on that basis, nor did the Smith government try to seize land.

According to Smith (who was also on the select committee responsible for land allocation) the worst lands were allocated to white farmers because their technology, and tools could make the land productive. The blacks wanted the alluvials, which were more fertile, and held water better, and got them.