Zimbabwe's Mugabe says government will take over all diamond operations

[TurtleDude]

Basically:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-birthday-while-a-starving-nation-got-crumbs/

Not to mention he starves his people because he hates gays:

Ian Smith's greatest sin was not creating a prosperous but racist country that unilaterally broke from England

His greatest sin was allowing Mugabe to survive before Smith turned power over to the blacks. Rhodesia was one of the most prosperous nations in Sub Saharan Africa even if Blacks were second class citizens. When THugabe took over he inherited a net food exporting nation with lots of tourism. Now its a mess, and a net food importer. He should be tried for crimes against humanity and seen in the same light as Macias and Amin

 

[dimensionallava]

What I want to see is responsible government in Zimbabwe which it has not had since 1980.

thats nonsense between the 50's and the 80's there was constant war, any school programs were created after the british showed up with maxim guns and slaughtered them, and they demanded to learn english.

Zimbabwe still has one of the best school systems in africa and one of the highest literacy rates.... if thats all your worried about

 

[dimensionallava]

In what alternate universe is Robert Friggin' Mugabe a COMMUNIST???!!!

he's a self avowed marxist, who was allies with the soviet union during the cold war, even mugabe's ascendance to power was the result of a sino-soviet proxy war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZANU–PF

 

[dimensionallava]

His greatest sin was allowing Mugabe to survive

then joshua nkomo wouldve gone into power wouldn't he?? since when are you such a big joshua nkomo fan?

 

[TurtleDude]

then joshua nkomo wouldve gone into power wouldn't he?? since when are you such a big joshua nkomo fan?

I wish the UDI had never ended. Rhodesia was a place you could travel too and not worry about being attacked. The RLI was the most effective internal security force in the world

 

[Left Vendetta]

he's a self avowed marxist, who was allies with the soviet union during the cold war, even mugabe's ascendance to power was the result of a sino-soviet proxy war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZANU–PF

A person who calls himself a Marxist is automatically a Marxist? ! Which of his actions justify him being a Communist? Through virulent homophobia and ridiculous indulgence?
Mugabe was at best a romantic national revolutionary, now he is just a reactionary.

 

[dimensionallava]

I wish the UDI had never ended. Rhodesia was a place you could travel too and not worry about being attacked.

so your saying you dont think theyre better off under slavery but you think segregation was pretty good? unfortunately just like when segregation ended in america most of your fears of being attacked were completely unfounded

The RLI was the most effective internal security force in the world

so was the SS[SUP][/SUP]

 

[dimensionallava]

A person who calls himself a Marxist is automatically a Marxist? !

sure why not?

Which of his actions justify him being a Communist? Through virulent homophobia and ridiculous indulgence?
Mugabe was at best a romantic national revolutionary, now he is just a reactionary.

as oppose to who exactly?

 

[Left Vendetta]

sure why not?

as oppose to who exactly?

Are you serious? Hitler called himself a socialist, so he must be one too.

What to you mean by "as oppose to who"? Mugabe is a reaction against globalization. His nature is not to different from that of modern day Russia or Iran.

 

[dimensionallava]

Are you serious? Hitler called himself a socialist, so he must be one too.

didn't call himself marxist though did he?

What to you mean by "as oppose to who"? Mugabe is a reaction against globalization. His nature is not to different from that of modern day Russia or Iran.

you have to give me an example of who you think the perfect communist/socialist/marxist is. do you think north korea is communist, because they trained his entire army? if not them than who?

 

[Left Vendetta]

didn't call himself marxist though did he?


you have to give me an example of who you think the perfect communist/socialist/marxist is. do you think north korea is communist, because they trained his entire army? if not them than who?

So? Does that change anything? Marxism is a method of analysis used by Communist. It is "ruthlessly critical." What makes a person a communist is his action, not what he said. And certainly a homophobe and servant of the god of global capital cannot be qualified as a Marxist.

We live in a global capitalist totality, which is constituted by all the states. Several states are still nominally "Marxist-Leninist", but they are not once you scrutinize them with just a little effort. There is, unfortunately, no communist movement today. The communist movement of the 20th century has failed. We need to build new movement off new momentu. With new left wing forces rising in Europe and USA, this can change. One, however, can at least improve himself as a Marxist intellectual today.

 

[Carjosse]

thats nonsense between the 50's and the 80's there was constant war, any school programs were created after the british showed up with maxim guns and slaughtered them, and they demanded to learn english.

Zimbabwe still has one of the best school systems in africa and one of the highest literacy rates.... if thats all your worried about

The war only began in 1964, the security forces were rather successful till the late 70s, and it is because of people like Mugabe that it happened in the first place. You claimed they were slaves, what I showed clearly proved otherwise. Before 1980 they had food, education, healthcare, little to no corruption, they had a much higher quality of life than they do under Mugabe. The life expectancy has plummeted. You also clearly do not know what the history of Southern Africa is. If you did you would know that Rhodesia declared UDI in 1964 and why Zimbabwe exists as it does. Ian Smith led a stable and responsible government but Mugabe and other countries did not like that.

 

[dimensionallava]

So? Does that change anything?

yes for example stalin called himself communist his enemies called him a communist, therefore he might be a communist, hitler called himself socialist his enemies claimed he wasn't socialist therefore he might not be socialist...... while there might never have been a communist country, there sure have been alot of communists.

Marxism is a method of analysis used by Communist. It is "ruthlessly critical." What makes a person a communist is his action, not what he said. And certainly a homophobe and servant of the god of global capital cannot be qualified as a Marxist.

but decrying him (or really anyone else) as not being a true marxist while simultaneously claiming there never has been one, all you are doing is committing a no true scotsman fallacy

We live in a global capitalist totality, which is constituted by all the states. Several states are still nominally "Marxist-Leninist", but they are not once you scrutinize them with just a little effort.

this same logic can be used to argue that hitler wasn't christian, he claimed to be christian but look at all the non-christian things the nazis did, therefore he's not christian.

There is, unfortunately, no communist movement today. The communist movement of the 20th century has failed. We need to build new movement off new momentu.

sure there is!! or else we wouldn't be talking about it

With new left wing forces rising in Europe and USA, this can change. One, however, can at least improve himself as a Marxist intellectual today.

sure why not?

 

[dimensionallava]

The war only began in 1964, the security forces were rather successful till the late 70s

so basically the 10 year period also known as the rhodesian bush war .....thats when you think they were better off?

i don't know whats worse killing or enslaving every male over the age of 10 like cecil rhodes did, and then stepping back and saying "look at all the extra food we have now"

or forcing them to learn your new language culture and history, and calling it "education"

 

[TurtleDude]

so basically the 10 year period also known as the rhodesian bush war .....thats when you think they were better off?

i don't know whats worse killing or enslaving every male over the age of 10 like cecil rhodes did, and then stepping back and saying "look at all the extra food we have now"

or forcing them to learn your new language culture and history, and calling it "education"

we aren't talking about Cecil Rhodes we are talking about RHODESIA vs ZIMBABWE

and the comparison is brutal for Zimbabwe.

 

[Carjosse]

so basically the 10 year period also known as the rhodesian bush war .....thats when you think they were better off?

i don't know whats worse killing or enslaving every male over the age of 10 like cecil rhodes did, and then stepping back and saying "look at all the extra food we have now"

or forcing them to learn your new language culture and history, and calling it "education"

The population was better off during the Bush war especially when Mugabe and the other terrorists were forced out. You would rather the natives not have any schools or access education at all? They were educated in things like the rule of law and democracy, things Mugabe never understood. Ian Smith believed the Blacks needed to be educated, give them a sense of Rhodesian identity so that when they can vote in elections they actually have a stake in well being of the country. How long do you think Rhodes lived exactly? Southern Rhodesia was a self-administering colony for the first half of the 20th century then declared UDI in 1964.

 

[Left Vendetta]

yes for example stalin called himself communist his enemies called him a communist, therefore he might be a communist, hitler called himself socialist his enemies claimed he wasn't socialist therefore he might not be socialist...... while there might never have been a communist country, there sure have been alot of communists.
but decrying him (or really anyone else) as not being a true marxist while simultaneously claiming there never has been one, all you are doing is committing a no true scotsman fallacy

this same logic can be used to argue that hitler wasn't christian, he claimed to be christian but look at all the non-christian things the nazis did, therefore he's not christian.


sure there is!! or else we wouldn't be talking about it

sure why not?

What kind of logic is this? Stalin and his enemies call himself a communist, so he must be one? I for one do not call him as a communist, and there have been many Marxist intellectual critical of Stalin. Many enemies of Hitler claimed him to be a socialist also. Does that change anything?
I have never said that "there have never been a communist," there have been many, many communists in the past and present. Mugabe certainly is not one.
The difference between Communism and Christianity is that the latter is a rigid doctrine, the former is not. Communists realize the world is dynamic, and individuals, even if they genuinely believe to be communists, cannot be unaffected by the material condition of the world. Stalin was a product of the material condition of his time, so is Hitler. However, Communism can play a role in historical progress and development while Christianity cannot. There is no consistent Christian in the world, for it is impossible for one to uphold a rigid doctrine (like "thou shalt not kill" or "turn to the other cheek"), so it does not really matter whether you are Hitler or Mother Teresa; they are just as Christian as each other. People can be become active perpetrators of Communism as a dynamic process, as a self-conscious movement, in which reason is unrestrained by superstition. Mugabe is not a Communist because he does not represent that movement. He is but a servant to superstition of global capital. The problem is that there is no Communist movement today. There are individual intellectuals like you and me who can analyze the dynamic world re-approximate our theories (Mugabe cannot even achieve this). We hope to be Communists in practice. But Communism today is only an ideology and a theory, not yet a political force. We do not practically exist.

 

[Left Vendetta]

Ian Smith's greatest sin was not creating a prosperous but racist country that unilaterally broke from England

His greatest sin was allowing Mugabe to survive before Smith turned power over to the blacks. Rhodesia was one of the most prosperous nations in Sub Saharan Africa even if Blacks were second class citizens. When THugabe took over he inherited a net food exporting nation with lots of tourism. Now its a mess, and a net food importer. He should be tried for crimes against humanity and seen in the same light as Macias and Amin

This assume things would be fundamentally different had Mugabe died. The entire social condition of Zimbabwe is irreducible to the personal will of Mugabe, who does not live in a vacuum but in a society with its "spirit" that is the source of his will. Perhaps this or that famine or other particularities would not be "that bad," but Zimbabwe's role as an economic colony for raw materials would remain the same. Zimbabwe, like most African nations, still play the role of an underdeveloped colony. It simply has China instead of Britain, and being economically dependent instead of politically dependent today.

 

[TurtleDude]

This assume things would be fundamentally different had Mugabe died. The entire social condition of Zimbabwe is irreducible to the personal will of Mugabe, who does not live in a vacuum but in a society with its "spirit" that is the source of his will. Perhaps this or that famine or other particularities would not be "that bad," but Zimbabwe's role as an economic colony for raw materials would remain the same. Zimbabwe, like most African nations, still play the role of an underdeveloped colony. It simply has China instead of Britain, and being economically dependent instead of politically dependent today.

I don't know if I can agree with it but I will note its a well argued and rational position

 

[MadLib]

The RLI was the most effective internal security force in the world

Clearly not, considering the fact that he failed to suppress the Zimbabwean insurgency.

Ian Smith led a stable and responsible government

You mean an apartheid state that was created in order to prevent blacks from gaining majority rule? That Mugabe is a terrible leader does not mean we should praise Smith's racist white minority regime.

 

[TurtleDude]

Clearly not, considering the fact that he failed to suppress the Zimbabwean insurgency.


You mean an apartheid state that was created in order to prevent blacks from gaining majority rule? That Mugabe is a terrible leader does not mean we should praise Smith's racist white minority regime.

given the choices for Sub-saharan Africa from WWII to the end of the Iron Curtain, Rhodesia was one of the better run countries in the area. what did they used to say about Rhodesia and South Africa? in those countries only the whites could vote-in the rest of the region-NO ONE could vote.

lots of people think that the only racism in the area was Euro-whites oppressing native blacks. Ah Contraire


The RLI had the best kill ratio in the world

 

[Carjosse]

Clearly not, considering the fact that he failed to suppress the Zimbabwean insurgency.

Ian Smith actually was really successful in fighting the guerrilla armies and for most part forced them out of the country, then Mozambique became independent from Portugal and suddenly the terrorists had a base that Rhodesians could not attack. Ian Smith despite having no formal training in fighting guerrilla armies was actually a very good military leader, he himself used to be a guerrilla fighter during WWII. They actually even captured Mugabe at one point. They should have taken the chance to hang him and avoid all the current problems Zimbabwe has.

You mean an apartheid state that was created in order to prevent blacks from gaining majority rule? That Mugabe is a terrible leader does not mean we should praise Smith's racist white minority regime.

The goal was to temporarily prevent blacks from having majority rule, they would be prevented until they were educated and had a stake in the well being of the nation, and be able to form a responsible and stable government. Smith was very clearly correct they were not ready for black majority rule, so much so that historians refer to his memoirs as "I told you so" by Ian Smith. He was clearly the most sensible leader in Africa.

 

[MadLib]

given the choices for Sub-saharan Africa from WWII to the end of the Iron Curtain, Rhodesia was one of the better run countries in the area. what did they used to say about Rhodesia and South Africa? in those countries only the whites could vote-in the rest of the region-NO ONE could vote.

Dictatorships were by no means unique to black Africa, and the influence of the Cold War on the independence movements certainly didn't help with democratizing the newly freed colonies. Immediate independence was obviously counterproductive in hindsight, but the correct reaction shouldn't be to impose apartheid.

lots of people think that the only racism in the area was Euro-whites oppressing native blacks. Ah Contraire

I don't believe so. The best approach was reconciliation as advocated by Mandela, not Mugabe's racist collective punishment.

The RLI had the best kill ratio in the world

Kill ratios don't really matter if you fail to achieve your political goals. We learned this the hard way in Vietnam. However successful the Rhodesians' military campaigns might have been against the insurgents, Rhodesia as a political entity was dismantled, and the insurgency itself was never defeated.

Ian Smith actually was really successful in fighting the guerrilla armies and for most part forced them out of the country, then Mozambique became independent from Portugal and suddenly the terrorists had a base that Rhodesians could not attack. Ian Smith despite having no formal training in fighting guerrilla armies was actually a very good military leader, he himself used to be a guerrilla fighter during WWII. They actually even captured Mugabe at one point. They should have taken the chance to hang him and avoid all the current problems Zimbabwe has.

How do you think guerrilla warfare works? Almost every successful guerrilla movement, from the Algerian FLN to the PKK, relies on foreign backers or territory. The racism of the Rhodesian regime likely gave the communist insurgents a level of popular support as well.

The goal was to temporarily prevent blacks from having majority rule, they would be prevented until they were educated and had a stake in the well being of the nation, and be able to form a responsible and stable government.

"I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia—not in a thousand years."
- Ian Smith

Why wouldn't blacks already have a stake in the well-being of the nation? And how could they achieve this "stake" when Rhodesia was specifically structured to keep blacks poor? Blacks could only leave their allotted areas to work for whites, could not bring their families to live with them in the townships, and were kicked out if they lost their job. It's apologism of the highest order to pretend that the UDI was motivated by anything other than the desire of reactionaries to maintain their racial supremacy.

Smith was very clearly correct they were not ready for black majority rule, so much so that historians refer to his memoirs as "I told you so" by Ian Smith. He was clearly the most sensible leader in Africa.

What historians, Dylann Roof?

 

[dimensionallava]

What kind of logic is this? Stalin and his enemies call himself a communist, so he must be one? I for one do not call him as a communist, and there have been many Marxist intellectual critical of Stalin. Many enemies of Hitler claimed him to be a socialist also. Does that change anything?
I have never said that "there have never been a communist," there have been many, many communists in the past and present. Mugabe certainly is not one.
The difference between Communism and Christianity is that the latter is a rigid doctrine, the former is not. Communists realize the world is dynamic, and individuals, even if they genuinely believe to be communists, cannot be unaffected by the material condition of the world. Stalin was a product of the material condition of his time, so is Hitler. However, Communism can play a role in historical progress and development while Christianity cannot. There is no consistent Christian in the world, for it is impossible for one to uphold a rigid doctrine (like "thou shalt not kill" or "turn to the other cheek"), so it does not really matter whether you are Hitler or Mother Teresa; they are just as Christian as each other. People can be become active perpetrators of Communism as a dynamic process, as a self-conscious movement, in which reason is unrestrained by superstition. Mugabe is not a Communist because he does not represent that movement. He is but a servant to superstition of global capital. The problem is that there is no Communist movement today. There are individual intellectuals like you and me who can analyze the dynamic world re-approximate our theories (Mugabe cannot even achieve this). We hope to be Communists in practice. But Communism today is only an ideology and a theory, not yet a political force. We do not practically exist.

you can say zimbabwe and the ussr werent communist countries, but stalin and mugabe were communists, they were the leaders of communist parties, besides there are plenty of MLs who would say your not a true communist. why should I believe you and not them?

but I think most people would say lenin was a communist... It doesn't take a big leap of faith to say that

 

[SocialD]

Read more @: Zimbabwe's Mugabe says government will take over all diamond operations

Well Mugabe just made a huge and risky move... Will often see his Chinese allies challenging this... [/FONT]

cuz a hostile government takeover of an industry always works so well. We know he just wants the government to be in charge of robbing the wealth instead of private mining companies.