|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why do so many people consider Nelson Mandela to have been saintly?
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Evil? Evil is a doctrine that teaches people to kill people, and I don't think Marx did.
Actually, he did. He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
OK, I became an example of what I read about in "Straight and Crooked Thinking" a long time ago. One side takes an extreme position, and the other moves out to the extreme to counter them. Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
I don't really like people waving the word evil about.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
Largely because Marx thought, based on the political events of his lifetime, that the authorities would quite happily use violence and terror to stop any social reform, and he didn't have Gandhi's faith in non-violent solutions.
It's one of these things where reformers are held to a higher moral and political standard than people defending the privileges of the status quo.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence. Quarter of a century would have been more than ample time to train up commercial black farmers in sufficient numbers. the fact that this wasn't done is down to his government.
So you admit your using it as an example was completely mendacious bullshit irrelevant to the case of South Africa? Good to hear. Now that that's cleared up I'm sure you'll never mention it again!
If there had been a general uprising in 1990 then the ANC would not have had 25 years to train up farmers in the area they controlled, they would not have had one year. White farmers living in black majority areas would have presented extremely easy targets. In the context of a chaotic general uprising plenty of people would have taken he opportunity to carry out farm invasions in order to grab the land. By the time the ANC was able to re establish regular government in the area the land grabs would have been completed already with no time for an orderly handover and no time to trail new farmer. The entire agricultural sector would have been thrown into chaos.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture.
Did I miss something? Has the capital of South Africa been re-named "Mandela"? Maybe if this thing ever gets built we can revisit the subject, but for now Washington seems pretty far ahead in the "more popular" game.
Washington certainly was more popular when they named the city and built the monuments. In 2015 Mandela is more popular.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
So, despite managing to create the rainbow nation without destroying the economy or scaring over half the population away, Mandela gets dismissed out of hand because a) he's a bit black and b) he's a left-wing Marxist. Wow. Just. Wow.
Tubbs
Its got nothing to do with him being black. Murdering tyrant Fidel Castro is as white as snow and I'm not a fan of him either. Yes negotiating a more or less peaceful solution was an accomplishment that required a great deal of political skill but it was an accomplishment that he shared with De Klerk and he never gets called a moral giant.
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
[ 12. August 2015, 23:52: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
Imperialism and the pursuit of trade killed countless millions and wiped out entire peoples between 1492 and, I suppose, 1914. It's still going on to a lesser extent, but as an integral part of our economy I doubt many are too fussed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Plus, capitalist coups have a pretty long cold war pedigree. That was pretty much the raison d'etre of the School of the Americas, for example. We could talk about Chile, El Salvador, Colombia, all places where the US has backed right wing terrorists and/or dictators. Heck, Cuba's pre-revolution US-backed government wasn't exactly a model of liberal democracy either. Leaving Latin America we could talk about the CIA-backed installation of Saddam Hussein in place of the democratically elected government, or the continued support for the House of Saud despite their appalling human rights record. Or in the installation and backing of the Shah in Iran, or the tacit support given to the Colonels in Greece.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
Well done on answering the half of the question I'd already agreed on. Now, how about the other half?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
Largely because Marx thought, based on the political events of his lifetime, that the authorities would quite happily use violence and terror to stop any social reform, and he didn't have Gandhi's faith in non-violent solutions.
It's one of these things where reformers are held to a higher moral and political standard than people defending the privileges of the status quo.
Which is what I was thinking - if you look at the intransigence of those in power, impatience would suggest pushing them about a bit.
Which is obviously wrong, because those in power are there because they are supposed to be there.
I once read a children's graphic novel about Prometheus which stated baldly that he was wrong to oppose Zeus because he was the king - glossing over the reasons for Prometheus' actions. (The writer was a particular sort of Christian with earlier books about Genesis - you can't map Biblical relationships on other people's pantheons.)
I suspect that attitudes like this are informing Bibliophile's position. It is easy to see that those opposing them may eventually be driven to the conclusion that the means to change them have to include violence.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
Ideally by attacking the ideology, not by attacking particular self-proclaimed practitioners.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence. Quarter of a century would have been more than ample time to train up commercial black farmers in sufficient numbers. the fact that this wasn't done is down to his government.
So you admit your using it as an example was completely mendacious bullshit irrelevant to the case of South Africa? Good to hear. Now that that's cleared up I'm sure you'll never mention it again!
If there had been a general uprising in 1990 then the ANC would not have had 25 years to train up farmers in the area they controlled, they would not have had one year. White farmers living in black majority areas would have presented extremely easy targets. In the context of a chaotic general uprising plenty of people would have taken he opportunity to carry out farm invasions in order to grab the land. By the time the ANC was able to re establish regular government in the area the land grabs would have been completed already with no time for an orderly handover and no time to trail new farmer. The entire agricultural sector would have been thrown into chaos.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture.
Did I miss something? Has the capital of South Africa been re-named "Mandela"? Maybe if this thing ever gets built we can revisit the subject, but for now Washington seems pretty far ahead in the "more popular" game.
Washington certainly was more popular when they named the city and built the monuments. In 2015 Mandela is more popular.
But there wasn't an uprising so what's your point?! Now, why wasn't there an upristing ...?! Oh, could it be because Mandela and the other ANC leaders, some of whom were Marxists, worked with the existing regime to make sure there wasn't one.
Mandela is within living memory. Washington is a historical figure. Of course Mandela is more popular. In a few hundred years it'll be different. Someone else will have come along to be venerated.
Tubbs
[ 13. August 2015, 09:58: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
Ideally by attacking the ideology, not by attacking particular self-proclaimed practitioners.
Thanks for expanding that - I should have been more explicit.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
Largely because Marx thought, based on the political events of his lifetime, that the authorities would quite happily use violence and terror to stop any social reform, and he didn't have Gandhi's faith in non-violent solutions.
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
[ 13. August 2015, 16:15: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
Part of my difficulties in taking your whole argument seriously has been this sense that you are standing judge and jury over the likes of Mandela and anyone who would stand with him.
As stated previously the ANC was a non-violent political organisation that was until the massacres of Sharpeville and other places. Women and children were shot in the back as they fled and many, many people were killed.
It was at this point the ANC took up arms as every time they want to protest their communities were left to mourn the loss of dozens.
What I am reading into your posts is that the black people should have just accepted apartheid and lived as second rate citizens under an oppressive white rule.
I guess you would also suggest that the Tutsi's in Rwanda should have not resisted the persecution they faced as well??
The question is what would you do if you lived in a similar situation and you saw your family, friends and community continually being beaten, tortured and killed?
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
Well done on answering the half of the question I'd already agreed on. Now, how about the other half?
Well neo-liberalism as a political ideology first emerged in the 70s with the Pinochet coup. Since then we've had coups in El Salvador and elsewhere, the US invasions of Greneda, Panama, Afganistan and Iraq and well as the attack on Lybia. That's quite a lot but I still think it'll take some time for it to catch up with Marxism's bloody record.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well neo-liberalism as a political ideology first emerged in the 70s with the Pinochet coup. Since then we've had coups in El Salvador and elsewhere, the US invasions of Greneda, Panama, Afganistan and Iraq and well as the attack on Lybia. That's quite a lot but I still think it'll take some time for it to catch up with Marxism's bloody record.
Bollocks. Neo-liberalism emerged when some bright spark separated the profits of business from the liabilities in the concept of limited liability companies, which cannot go to jail or swing on a rope. The political parties supporting corporate entities take the responsibility for that, which goes back about 300 years.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
And you really and truly believe that? What about the people who ran the Underground Railroad to get slaves out of the USA? (To avoid incurring references to Godwin's Law and more recent examples.) What about the people who helped Catholic priests to travel about England and serve their community? What about the early Christians refusing to burn incense to the Emperor? and all the others down the centuries.
Respect the authority of people who are the authority simply because they say they are the authority, and enforce it with one sided use of violent power? Why? In heaven's name, why?
No, I will resort to Godwin. A friend of mine was having a debate with a local vicar, asking him what he would have done if, under a Nazi rule, he had been asked to deliver up Jews to the authority. The vicar said that he would have done so, because the law would require it, and he would be bound to obey it. My friend sometimes finds churches very difficult places.
You can't respect authority just like that. You have to question it, and act against it if necessary in order to be properly human. Ignore Paul - he was probably writing for the eyes of such as the Roman secret police to protect his fellow Christians.
This is not Hell, so I have deleted the expletives, even down to the asterisks.
[ 13. August 2015, 20:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
Absolutely. I am glad that you've come to realise that whole 1776 business was just so out of line. Speak nicely to HMQ and she will send you a Governor General in due course.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
"Excuse me sir, would you mind removing my shackles, not raping me and my sister and, perhaps, let us have a bit more food? No? Well, alright then, carry on"
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
Ideally by attacking the ideology, not by attacking particular self-proclaimed practitioners.
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them. It proclaims power to 'the workers' and then concentrates power in the hands of a bureaucratic class of the a new marxist elite who exercise absolute authority under the pretence that they represent the people. It is fundamentally based on a lie. It celebrates the 'rebel leadership' image of itself which should be no surprise. The very first rebel leader was of course the father of lies.
Now all the dreadful tyrannies of apartheid, the fact that people were told by the state where they had to live, who they were allowed to associate with, they had to carry internal passports, they often lived in poor econmoic conditions. All these things can and could be found in communist countries. One difference however is that repression of political opponents under communism tended to be more harsh.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
Part of my difficulties in taking your whole argument seriously has been this sense that you are standing judge and jury over the likes of Mandela and anyone who would stand with him.
As stated previously the ANC was a non-violent political organisation that was until the massacres of Sharpeville and other places. Women and children were shot in the back as they fled and many, many people were killed.
It was at this point the ANC took up arms as every time they want to protest their communities were left to mourn the loss of dozens.
Is that actually true? I'm only away of two massacres in South Africa in the early sixties. Cato Manor, where 4 white and five black policemen were murdered by a thousand strong mob, and Sharpeville a few weeks later. The latter massacre came about not because of any state policy to massacre protesters but because of the panicked response of inexperienced policemen who were unable to control the crowd and fearful of a repeat of Cato Manor. There was no excuse for that. Authorities should ideally only ever use the minimum amount of force needed to prevent mob rule, no more no less. The authorities there should have found a way to disperse the crowd which didn't involve shooting people in the back (more info on SharpeVille here http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-truth-about-sharpeville ) (and no that's not a right wing source before anyone asks).
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The question is what would you do if you lived in a similar situation and you saw your family, friends and community continually being beaten, tortured and killed?
I will again quote Rian Manan quoting Mandela
quote:
Emboldened, the ANC tackled cruel potato farmers, and brought them down too. Soon it was organising consumer boycotts all over the country, and often winning. At the same time, it was behind the ceaseless protests against the pass laws for women while winning stunning victories in the Treason Trial and elsewhere. The cost in ANC lives: zero. ‘To the best of my knowledge,’ writes Mandela, ‘no individuals [meaning political detainees] were isolated, forced to give information, beaten up, tortured, crippled or killed’ prior to December 1961, when the communists started their bombing campaign (see page 302).
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9116391/the-mandela-files/
I would also point out that the above mentioned ANC successes would not have been possible for for any opposition groups in any communist countries in 1960 as the repression tended to be harsher there.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Bibliophile,
The ideology of democratic capitalism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of empowering them. It proclaims power to 'the voters' and then concentrates power in the hands of a bureaucratic class of the a new political elite who exercise absolute authority under the pretence that they represent the people. It is fundamentally based on a lie.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Bibliophile
Firstly who is Rian Manan? As far as Google shows he has no experience of Apartheid or was ever around in South Africa at the time. You quoting him as an authority on the subject seems a bit like asking Justin Bieber what good music is.
Next your perspective about Sharpeville is extremely offensive. 67 dead and 180 injured is not down to a few police being nervous.
In addition the links below will educate you more about the horrific treatment blacks went through. 1000's died in police custody. The beatings were so cruel. People taken from their homes at night never to return. If you doubt this then at least do some reading on the Truth and Reconciliation process.
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them.
It has the "clearly and openly stated" purpose of enslaving the population? That seems unlikely.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@Bibliophile
Firstly who is Rian Manan? As far as Google shows he has no experience of Apartheid or was ever around in South Africa at the time. You quoting him as an authority on the subject seems a bit like asking Justin Bieber what good music is.
Next your perspective about Sharpeville is extremely offensive. 67 dead and 180 injured is not down to a few police being nervous.
In addition the links below will educate you more about the horrific treatment blacks went through. 1000's died in police custody. The beatings were so cruel. People taken from their homes at night never to return. If you doubt this then at least do some reading on the Truth and Reconciliation process.
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
Reading The Spectator article, it contains this rather telling quote about Rian Moran:
quote:
We will therefore have to turn to Hollywood to complete this story. I went to see the movie version of Long Walk to Freedom armed with a pen and ready to fight yet another rearguard action for Afrikaner honour, only to find myself disarmed by the director Justin Chadwick’s take on the Mandela story. No one really expects movies to be true, and this one certainly isn’t. It’s a fable about a brave man who sticks up for what he believes in and, against all odds, wins in the end. Music swells, titles roll and I must hide the fact that I am moved. (Yes, I am a sucker.)
Agenda much?!
The main arguement is that Mandela's reinvention as a cute and cuddly media figure instead of communist rabble rouser was due to a good literary editor. (Wonder if that would have worked for Hitler?!) Despite the quotes in the article being on record and being widely circulated both before and after Mandela's death.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them. It proclaims power to 'the workers' and then concentrates power in the hands of a bureaucratic class of the a new marxist elite who exercise absolute authority under the pretence that they represent the people. It is fundamentally based on a lie. It celebrates the 'rebel leadership' image of itself which should be no surprise. The very first rebel leader was of course the father of lies.
It appears that this and this alone is the basis of your assessment of Nelson Mandela. Maybe you should start a thread titled "Why do so many people consider Marxist-Leninism to be such a rip-roaring success?" because it would cover your arguments far more thoroughly than this which looks at the life of one man, who was for a time a member of political party based on Marxist-Leninism.
You wouldn't get many people agreeing with the premise, just as you don't have many agreeing that Nelson Mandela was a saint.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them.
It has the "clearly and openly stated" purpose of enslaving the population? That seems unlikely.
Well, the express purpose, taken from the Communist Manifesto is this: quote:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Perhaps Bibliophile would like to see himself as one of the ruling class, and is therefore taken to trembling at the mere mention of revolution. Us proles must know our place.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, the endpoint of socialism is reckoned to be the withering away of the state, although that is about as likely as a chocolate condom.
"The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished,” it withers away." Engels, Anti-Duhring.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@Bibliophile
Firstly who is Rian Manan? As far as Google shows he has no experience of Apartheid or was ever around in South Africa at the time. You quoting him as an authority on the subject seems a bit like asking Justin Bieber what good music is.
Well Rian Malan's bio on wikipedia says that he spent the first 23 years of his life living in South Africa from 1954 to 1977 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rian_Malan
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Next your perspective about Sharpeville is extremely offensive. 67 dead and 180 injured is not down to a few police being nervous.
well lets have a look at a description written by Patrick Laurence (a well respected journalist with strongly anti-Apartheid views - see http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/14/patrick-laurence-obituary ). He wrote
quote:
The first factor was the killing of nine policemen in Cato Manor, near Durban, by an enraged crowd of people living there a few weeks before...
Given the Cato Manor killings and the tale of the fate of Retief and his men that was taught repeatedly at white schools, it requires no feat of imagination to deduce that many of the young policemen were nervous as the black crowds began to press against the fence surrounding the police station in Sharpeville...
A major problem at Sharpeville on the fatal day was that PAC marshals appeared to be thin on the ground and/or not vigilant enough in preventing the crowd from pressing against the fence surrounding the police station. In his analytical chronicle of the Sharpeville shooting An Ordinary Atrocity, Philip Frankel goes a stage further when he writes: "... the much vaunted marshals, whose primary task was to steer up the mob ... were unable or unwilling to steer the crowd away from what was clearly becoming a cataclysmic situation."
Emeritus professor David Welsh provides another perspective in his excellent and newly published book The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. He identifies the immediate cause of the tragedy as two simultaneous events: firstly, a scuffle at the fence gate when security police officer Att Spengler open it to let a member of the crowd in and some of the people at the gate entered with him, possibly because they were pushed from behind; and, secondly, the arrival at scene of Geelbooi, a common law criminal who was drunk and armed with a handgun, and who, thinking he had spotted a policeman who had maltreated him, fired two shots in the air.
The reaction of the more nervous and younger policemen inside the perimeter of the fence was to open fire without being ordered to do so. The firing continued even as the purported would-be attackers were either felled by the fusillade of bullets or were still fleeing for their lives.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-truth-about-sharpeville
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
In addition the links below will educate you more about the horrific treatment blacks went through. 1000's died in police custody. The beatings were so cruel. People taken from their homes at night never to return. If you doubt this then at least do some reading on the Truth and Reconciliation process.
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
And when did all that start? quote:
‘To the best of my knowledge,’ writes Mandela, ‘no individuals [meaning political detainees] were isolated, forced to give information, beaten up, tortured, crippled or killed’ prior to December 1961, when the communists started their bombing campaign
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9116391/the-mandela-files/
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them.
It has the "clearly and openly stated" purpose of enslaving the population? That seems unlikely.
Quite right, I used the wrong word there. I wrote 'express' when I should have written 'evident'.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the endpoint of socialism is reckoned to be the withering away of the state, although that is about as likely as a chocolate condom.
"The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished,” it withers away." Engels, Anti-Duhring.
Maybe that Engels quote would make more sense to me if someone could explain what he understood to be the distinction between 'governing' on the one hand and 'administering' and 'directing' on the other. I've always got the impression that administering and directing were central to the process of governing.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Appears fairly obvious. Less telling people what to do. More concentrating on what people need to live.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Appears fairly obvious. Less telling people what to do. More concentrating on what people need to live.
And who decides what it is that people need and how would those decisions be enforced?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Appears fairly obvious. Less telling people what to do. More concentrating on what people need to live.
And who decides what it is that people need and how would those decisions be enforced?
The people.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Appears fairly obvious. Less telling people what to do. More concentrating on what people need to live.
And who decides what it is that people need and how would those decisions be enforced?
The people.
OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
Probably by whichever means the people decide amongst themselves to be the best.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
Probably by whichever means the people decide amongst themselves to be the best.
How would 'the people' decide amongst themselves? By representative or direct democracy? And who would be in charge of administering the voting?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Bibliophile
I am unable to discern what exactly your agenda is on this thread? You seem to want to re-write the history of apartheid in South Africa single handed.
The sources you are using are either questionable or taken out of context.
For an example it is widely accepted that Mandela was not the same man when he was released from prison to when he went in. Bishop Tutu recognised this fully.
quote:
In the early 1960s, just before his arrest and incarceration for more than a quarter century, Mandela was, in fact, a very angry man. As his longtime friend Bishop Desmond Tutu once told Sky News, “he needed that time in prison to mellow.”]
And yet you try to use quotes from before his time in prison as a measuring rod for the rest of his life. This includes quotes you use from Rian Malan who refers to the manuscript that Mandela wrote whilst in Robben Island.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recognised over 20000 victims in the process and awarded (a token) compensation for their injustices. These included the huge amount of deaths, beatings and 'mysterious' disappearances of people after visits from the police. These figures are on top of the 3.5 million people affected by displacements. The figures are on the official TRC website if you care to look it up and in Bishop Tutu's book 'No Future without Forgiveness'.
Next you quote Patrick Laurence a huge supporter of Mandela. Again the quote you used was prior to many of the atrocities done in the name of apartheid. Laurence also wrote a number of books on the subject including one of the Death Squads. if you have any doubt what these were read the reports from the TRC.
Your quotes also tend to come from only two white men (albeit not fans of apartheid). Have you read any of the stories from those who experienced apartheid first hand? Any black people or coloured people? Have you ever had a conversation with anyone from the townships or read through the stories preserved in the museums and archives in South Africa such as the District 6 museum? Even checked some of these stories online (try the TRC website)?
[code]
[ 14. August 2015, 20:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
Probably by whichever means the people decide amongst themselves to be the best.
How would 'the people' decide amongst themselves? By representative or direct democracy? And who would be in charge of administering the voting?
I have no idea of your gender, your age, your ethnicity or your level of education. But seriously? You don't think a bunch of people can come together, sort something out and then see it through without some blue-blood, God-ordained authority figure imposing his (and it probably will be a him) will on them? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
Polly
You have made a number of suggestions that I have disputed. You said
quote:
South Africa could have easily slipped into a civil war if Mandela wanted 'justice/revenge' when released in 1997.
and have spoken about people's gratitude that he did not follow quote:
a desire to hunt down the authors of apartheid and serve 'justice'.
And when I pointed out some of the huge strategic difficulties that would have faced Mandela if he had attempted to follow this path your response was to tell me to listen to some sad stories of people who suffered under apartheid. Well I'm sure these stories are very heart rending but but unless they contain specific information about the strategic situation then they are not helpful in shedding light on this question.
Furthermore you stated
quote:
As stated previously the ANC was a non-violent political organisation that was until the massacres of Sharpeville and other places. Women and children were shot in the back as they fled and many, many people were killed.
It was at this point the ANC took up arms as every time they want to protest their communities were left to mourn the loss of dozens...
The question is what would you do if you lived in a similar situation and you saw your family, friends and community continually being beaten, tortured and killed?
Now apart from the fact that launch of the 'armed struggle' did indeed happen chronologically after the Sharpeville massacre this is untrue. It is simply untrue that every time the ANC wanted to protest they were left to mourn the loss of dozens. The Sharpeville Massacre was at a PAC demonstration and the only other massacre at that time was Cato Manor which was a massacre of nine policemen. Mandela himself, in the above mentioned quote, confirmed that he was not aware of ANC people being 'beaten, tortured and killed' until after the armed struggle was started in December 1961. That was over a year and a half after Sharpeville and what had happened in the meanwhile?
What had happened was that Mandela and others had been put on trial for treason and found not guilty . So far from beating, torturing and killing ANC people at and after every demonstration (or indeed at or after any demonstration) the SA government failed even to fix a trial to imprison them. The second trial and the imprisonment of Mandela, the beatings, torturing and killing, the death squads etc these all came after the 'armed struggle' was started.
Again your response to me is that I should listen to sad stories of people who suffered under Apartheid. Again I'm sure these stories are heart rending and horrific. But if they concern events after 1961 then they don't shed any light on the question of what led to the 'armed struggle'.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This is ridiculous.
Even if Polly is wrong about the chronology it doesn't take anything away from Mandela's subsequent behaviour after his release - granted, he wouldn't have had the logistical capacity to hunt down and take revenge on all the perpetrators of apartheid - even if he'd wanted to ...
But all his actions after his release point towards him not wanting to pursue such a course of action.
It strikes me that you are over-reacting to the beatification of Mandela by some of those you oppose on ideological grounds by going to the opposite extreme and not acknowledging that the guy had any saving graces at all ...
Ah well, if you are going to adopt a binary position on almost every issue you're confronted with then it's hardly surprising that you are going to reach overly simplistic and binary conclusions.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Next your perspective about Sharpeville is extremely offensive. 67 dead and 180 injured is not down to a few police being nervous.
Going back to this point again I would remind you of what you said about how nervous many whites in South Africa were in the eighties about being so outnumbered by the black majority and you mentioned some of your own relatives.
Now imagine one of those relatives had been one of the policemen at Sharpeville that day. The police station is surrounded by an angry crowd for a number of hours. The police have been unable to control or contain the crowd. Its only two months since nine police had been massacred by an angry crowd at Cato Manor. The crowd surges to the perimeter fence. Can you say with certainly that your relative would not have panicked and opened fire? Can you say with certainty that you would not have done so in that situation?
Now none of that excuses the continuation of fire after the crowd started scattering. None of that excuses the failure of the SA authorities to control the crowd in the first place. The authorities were clearly responsible for the massacre and bear the guilt for it.
However the evidence suggests that it was not preplanned and was not part of any strategy to kill people whenever they demonstrated.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This is ridiculous.
Even if Polly is wrong about the chronology it doesn't take anything away from Mandela's subsequent behaviour after his release - granted, he wouldn't have had the logistical capacity to hunt down and take revenge on all the perpetrators of apartheid - even if he'd wanted to ...
But all his actions after his release point towards him not wanting to pursue such a course of action.
It strikes me that you are over-reacting to the beatification of Mandela by some of those you oppose on ideological grounds by going to the opposite extreme and not acknowledging that the guy had any saving graces at all ...
Ah well, if you are going to adopt a binary position on almost every issue you're confronted with then it's hardly surprising that you are going to reach overly simplistic and binary conclusions.
Well I'm not saying that he was all bad. I've already said that he was a skilled politician and I would add that he was clearly a man of great charisma and charm. I'm trying to communicate what is wrong with the simplistic picture that so many people have of Mandela and the situation in South Africa at the time.
I appreciate you trying to be balanced here. I also don't wish to be unsympathetic to Polly. She has recently visited South Africa and heard some horrific stories from people who suffered terribly under apartheid. This has clearly emotionally effected her, a natural and humane reaction. However it can often be the case that when a person is emotionally effected
in this way it can cloud the rational part of their mind and lead them to misleading conclusions.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So, you add patronising reflections and accusations to your binary conclusions, Bibliophile?
Polly is a bloke, as far as I'm aware. I suspect it's 'Polly' as in 'Mr Polly' - although I've no idea whether he's based his moniker on the H G Wells character.
How is Polly's reaction any more emotional and knee-jerk to your own?
Nobody here is suggesting that the situation in South Africa was simplistic, that Mandela was some kind of unadulterated Saint who floated six inches off the ground ...
The poster here who is coming out with simplistic conclusions and attitudes seems to be you ...
I come back to an earlier point I made about ideology. Because you don't like Mandela's ideology you allow that to colour your attitude towards him ... we all do that, of course.
I'm as guilty of it as anyone else. I don't particularly like the US religious-right, for instance, or US neo-cons - so that will colour my judgement irrespective of how good, bad or indifferent they are in real life.
The difference, it seems to me, is that I'm prepared to admit that whereas you seem to appear that your conclusions are reached in a purely rational and unbiased way when that is far from the case ... as indeed it is with any of us.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm trying to communicate what is wrong with the simplistic picture that so many people have of Mandela and the situation in South Africa at the time.
And you are failing, mainly because no one here has that simplistic picture - as has been explained to you over and over again.
Almost every other poster, however, has come out with a nuanced, complex understanding of Mandela and his role in leading SA towards a peaceable future.
The fault here lies entirely at your door, because you appear to be wilfully misjudging your audience. You're not telling us anything we hadn't already realised for ourselves, and yet you carry on. You're certainly communicating something but it's probably not what you want.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@ Bibliophile
What I find disturbing is that you seem to try to want to justify the violence, the killings, beatings and torture non-whites experienced from apartheid.
There simply is no justification for Sharpeville or any of the hideous treatment suffered in the years of apartheid. It seems that you think it is ok for whites to be nervous and use a gun but not the blacks who were constantly faced with aggression.
As I quoted above 20000 people submitted their testimony at the TRC. These are not just sad stories but reality of people who have been eternally scarred by apartheid, who have lost loved ones, women raped, others silenced through fear.
Then your response is simply to label these stories as "sad". What will it take for you to recognise such atrocities?
In addition you are always looking at the events in hindsight which completely ignores the temperature of feelings felt on the ground at the time by both the white community (including those who opposed apartheid) and the blacks who lived in townships such as Soweto.
Whatever terms you want to use like 'strategic' fails to appreciate the true atmosphere of the time.
The facts remain that Mandela was sent to prison disillusioned and immensely angry and frustrated that the black communities were being segregated. Apartheid stated that blacks should separated from whites and only be allowed into their communities to work.Whole communities were being uprooted and moved to live in horrific conditions. their rights restricted and labelled as less than human.
The whole black community were looking to Mandela to lead which way to go next. Bishop Tutu has commented (as part of TRC) that hunting down the perpetrators of apartheid was a real possibility but this would have led the nation into path that could have led to more violence and civil unrest. You can read all this on the TRC website but you don't seem to be interested in this evidence.
What I and others have been underlining is not that Mandela was a Saint but upon his release he came out of prison as a changed man. His ambitions was to heal his nation and start a process that brought equality and opportunity for all communities. You have constantly wanted to dismiss and belittle this.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Apartheid stated that blacks should separated from whites and only be allowed into their communities to work.Whole communities were being uprooted and moved to live in horrific conditions. their rights restricted and labelled as less than human.
Even during the day when they were allowed in town to work (pretty much slave labour) they had to use separate park benches, eating areas etc - and they were labelled. The police stepped in if they dared to sit in a non-designated place.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
