|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why do so many people consider Nelson Mandela to have been saintly?
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@ 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.
Except that I already said
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
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.
Your next point
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
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?
Well aren't stories about atrocities sad and horrible? Of course the South African government committed atrocities, I'm fully aware of that in case I hadn't made that clear. The question is whether, as you claimed, that the ANC's 'armed struggle' was a response to such atrocities. The timeline suggests not but rather suggests that these atrocities began to be used as part of a counter insurgency campaign after the armed struggle (and of course the ANC themselves committed atrocities during that struggle) had begun, not the other way around.
Now you might ask why that matters? the reason why it matters is that you have presented the 'armed struggle' as being a last resort response to a campaign of atrocities by the state, thereby saying that in was the ANC that held the moral high ground in 1961. However if, as is clear, there was no such campaign of atrocities in 1961 and if Mandela and the ANC were at the time aiming to replace apartheid with an even worse system, i.e. communism, then Mandela and the ANC did not hold any such moral high ground (not that the National Party held it either).
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
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.
If by that you mean could Mandela have started a general uprising in 1989 if he had 'given the word' yes of course he could have. It would have been a disaster for the ANC and he knew it but theoretically that option was open to him.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
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.
What you have been arguing is that he went into prison as an angry man who nevertheless held the moral high ground and that when he came out that he could easy have had 'revenge' if he had still been angry but magnanimously chose to forgive instead.
[ 16. August 2015, 10:01: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In what way is communism even worse than apartheid?
Surely both are equally as bad?
On what grounds are you saying that communism is the greater evil - on the grounds of its atheism?
You seem to have this view that communism is the worst kind of evil there can possibly be in any way, shape or form.
I'm not advocating communism - nor, do I think - are any of the posters on this thread, except perhaps Doc Tor who is 'redder than red' as it were ...
I'm not suggesting that the various communist regimes or dictatorships that arose in post-colonial Africa were any 'better' than apartheid either. A dodgy regime is a dodgy regime.
At least some of the Afrikaaners - such as De Klerk - had the moral fibre and integrity to reject the evil of Apartheid in the fulness of time - and they should be acknowledged and celebrated for that too.
None of which adds or detracts from Mandela's achievement.
You seem to think that you are putting forward a more balanced view - but you aren't.
You aren't setting any records straight, all you are doing - it seems to me and I presume many of us here - is seeking to defend the indefensible or defend the indefensible ...
Your position seems to boil down to:
- Any ideology, however wicked, twisted or evil, is to be preferred to a communist one.
- Therefore we should look to mar or undermine the achievements or standing or anyone who started off with a communist position and moved towards a more balanced or nuanced one - irrespective of how they eventually moved from their starting point.
You sound like a throw-back to Senator McCarthy.
I am not nor ever have been a member of the Communist Party.
If anyone were ever to convince me to go down that route it'd be people like you.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
I'm not advocating communism - nor, do I think - are any of the posters on this thread, except perhaps Doc Tor who is 'redder than red' as it were ...
Not this side of the eschaton, I'm afraid: I'm thoroughly pragmatic about the state of human nature. A widespread outbreak of international socialism will do me just fine.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Let's try government of the people, by the people, for the people?
[ 16. August 2015, 13:32: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
1. No one has suggested that Nelson Mandela was a "saint", of any kind.
2. No one has denied he was a member of the South Africa Communist Party.
3. Bibliophile alone seeks to condemn any good Nelson Mandela has done on the basis of his membership of the South African Communist Party.
4. Has anyone else a clue why this thread continues?
--------------------
"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 Sioni Sais:
4. Has anyone else a clue why this thread continues?
School doesn't start for another two weeks?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I suspect because Bibliophile either believes he's being original and is the first person to harbour any doubts about the apparent 'sanctity' of Nelson Mandela - or he's completely missed the point of what the rest of us have been trying to say ...
Or both ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Apartheid and its demonic cannibal allies were not as bad as communism as practised where at that time?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@ Bibliophile
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.
quote:
Bibliophile posted: The question is whether, as you claimed, that the ANC's 'armed struggle' was a response to such atrocities. The timeline suggests not but rather suggests that these atrocities began to be used as part of a counter insurgency campaign after the armed struggle (and of course the ANC themselves committed atrocities during that struggle) had begun, not the other way around.
There's x3 links to the timelines.
Some notes. The PBS timelines highlights that ANC members were being isolated and imprisoned as early as the 1950's.
All the timelines state that the ANC's struggle was peaceful and non-violent until after the Sharpeville massacre (e.g. the following year).
The quote from the ANC website supports this.
quote:
The massacre of peaceful protestors at Sharpville brought a decade of peaceful protest to an end. On 30 March 1960, ten days after the Sharpville massacre, the government banned the ANC and the PAC. They declared a state of emergency and arrested thousands of Congress and PAC activists.
The ANC took up arms against the South African Government in 1961. The massacre of peaceful protestors and the subsequent banning of the ANC made it clear that peaceful protest alone would not force the regime to change. The ANC went underground and continued to organise secretly. Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) was formed to "hit back by all means within our power in defence of our people, our future and our freedom"
In 18 months MK carried out 200 acts of sabotage. But the underground organisation was no match for the regime, which began to use even harsher methods of repression. Laws were passed to make death the penalty for sabotage and to allow police to detain people for 90 days without trial. in 1963, police raided the secret headquarters of MK, arresting the leadership.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Apartheid and its demonic cannibal allies were not as bad as communism as practised where at that time?
The Soviet Union, mainland China, North Vietnam, North Korea, Albania etc.
All the bad things about apartheid, the fact that people were told where they could live, where they could work by the state, the fact that they had to carry internal passports, the lack of freedom of speech. All these things were true of communism as well. The difference was that communism tended to be more repressive as well as more economically destructive.
Now you might ask 'how was apartheid less repressive, what about the torture, disappearances etc'. Well as can be seen from Polly's timeline that wasn't happening in the 1950s. Mandela was arrested twice in the 50s for 'civil disobedience' i.e. protesting by means of non violent lawbreaking. The first time he was given a suspended sentence and the second time he was found not guilty. It is difficult to imagine such an outcome in any communist country of the 1950s.
The atrocities occurred after 1961 and were part of a counter insurgency operation by the SA government responding to the 'armed struggle' i.e. they were occurring in a war situation. All those methods of repression were certainly used by communist governments in wartime and by communist terrorists/freedom fighters (delete according to your view) in military conflicts through their history (and often when they weren't in military conflict).
[ 17. August 2015, 08:19: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The thread will continue as long as it remains within the guidelines and you keep on posting. While there is a hint of a Commandment 8 violation in play, we're keeping that under review.
Feel free to ponder these Moody Blues lyrics.
And you all have the freedom to scroll past anything you classify as "nothing new". That kills threads pretty quickly.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm trying to follow the logic of the argument. I think I've got that:
a) Apartheid was bad, an oppressive regime
b) Communism is (according to Bibliophile) evil in any form, and worse than apartheid
That seems very clear. Point b) can be debated as I wouldn't say that there is universal agreement on that. But, for the sake of this discussion, work with it. What is a lot less clear is what seems to be the next step in the argument.
c) Communism is evil, therefore there was no need to seek to overturn apartheid, and that those who did contribute to overturning apartheid do not deserve recognition for what they did.
Is that how others see the argument that has been presented?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm trying to follow the logic of the argument. I think I've got that:
a) Apartheid was bad, an oppressive regime
b) Communism is (according to Bibliophile) evil in any form, and worse than apartheid
That seems very clear. Point b) can be debated as I wouldn't say that there is universal agreement on that. But, for the sake of this discussion, work with it. What is a lot less clear is what seems to be the next step in the argument.
c) Communism is evil, therefore there was no need to seek to overturn apartheid, and that those who did contribute to overturning apartheid do not deserve recognition for what they did.
Is that how others see the argument that has been presented?
I read it as
c) Communism is evil*
d) Nelson Mandela was a member of a Communist Party
therefore
e) Nelson Mandela was evil.
All the rest is waffle.
FWIW I agree with Bibliophile's view that the Communist regimes in the countries he mentions were evil, and few if any have improved much. That's got nothing to do with Apartheid or Nelson Mandela though.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The atrocities occurred after 1961 and were part of a counter insurgency operation by the SA government responding to the 'armed struggle' i.e. they were occurring in a war situation.
There were terrible atrocities.
Then there was everyday life. Not war, just oppression and total injustice. All day, every day and everywhere. Black people had no freedom. No freedom of movement, speech, anything. They even had to use different bus stops, by law - with armed police enforcing it. They had to leave the towns and cities at night, to places they had been forced to move to.
I lived in Johannesburg throughout the 1960s and it was terrible. My Dad worked in Soweto and he was treated with nothing but friendship and dignity by his black colleagues - the whole time we lived there. I was only 11, but I was ashamed to be white.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The atrocities occurred after 1961 and were part of a counter insurgency operation by the SA government responding to the 'armed struggle' i.e. they were occurring in a war situation.
There were terrible atrocities.
Then there was everyday life. Not war, just oppression and total injustice. All day, every day and everywhere. Black people had no freedom. No freedom of movement, speech, anything.
Under communism there was everyday life. Not war, just oppression and total injustice. All day, every day and everywhere. Ordinary people had no freedom. No freedom of movement, speech, anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They had to leave the towns and cities at night, to places they had been forced to move to.
Under communism there was a privileged class as well but with communism that was the party elite, who had their own special facilities for everything, rather than any particular ethnicity.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism [some stuff]
[....]
Under communism [some other stuff]
Well, yes.
And Nelson Mandela, as leader of the ANC which, indeed, had socialist ideologies, chose to negotiate a transition from Apartheid to a multi-party democracy with a free market and constitutional commitments to human rights that are some of the most progressive on the planet. I.e., despite perhaps once - and perhaps, at a personal level, still - holding to communist ideologies, chose to act like a statesman and create a system which was not, and is not, communist.
Likewise, FW de Klerk, despite still holding to the patently racist notions of Apartheid - he is on record well into the 2000s as saying that he still considers "separate development" an appropriate way of organizing society - acted like a statesman and realized his tribe wasn't going to come out well from anything other than a negotiated settlement.
Not entirely sure what you're arguing for, Bibliophile.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism there was a privileged class as well but with communism that was the party elite, who had their own special facilities for everything, rather than any particular ethnicity.
Of course, theoretically at least, it is possible for anyone to attain the privilege of senior party position. It may not have happened very often that a loyal party member showed promise and was promoted through the party ranks to high office, or for him to be promoted far enough that his sons started off a good ways up the ladder and made it close to the top, but it is always possible.
Under apartheid there was no possible way for a black or coloured person to attain the privilege of even the poorest white person.
Therefore, in terms of opportunity to attain a higher status communism is a better system than apartheid.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The atrocities occurred after 1961 and were part of a counter insurgency operation by the SA government responding to the 'armed struggle' i.e. they were occurring in a war situation.
There were terrible atrocities.
Then there was everyday life. Not war, just oppression and total injustice. All day, every day and everywhere. Black people had no freedom. No freedom of movement, speech, anything. They even had to use different bus stops, by law - with armed police enforcing it. They had to leave the towns and cities at night, to places they had been forced to move to.
I lived in Johannesburg throughout the 1960s and it was terrible. My Dad worked in Soweto and he was treated with nothing but friendship and dignity by his black colleagues - the whole time we lived there. I was only 11, but I was ashamed to be white.
My husband's aunt lived in SA during the 70's. She remembers being called by the police and asked why her black housekeeper wasn't registered as she was working in a whites only area. Aunt was outraged as you registered dogs rather than people! One of the neighbours may have done it as the police never called again.
She cringed at the way her otherwise lovely friends would talk about black people. But that was their normal ...
When we were on holiday, our lovely driver remembered his mother crying for months when they were forced to move from the home they'd lived in for years as the area had been redisgnated. All their friends ended up somewhere completely different.
Oppressive regimes are crap whatever ideology they belong too.
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
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism there was a privileged class as well but with communism that was the party elite, who had their own special facilities for everything, rather than any particular ethnicity.
Of course, theoretically at least, it is possible for anyone to attain the privilege of senior party position. It may not have happened very often that a loyal party member showed promise and was promoted through the party ranks to high office, or for him to be promoted far enough that his sons started off a good ways up the ladder and made it close to the top, but it is always possible.
Under apartheid there was no possible way for a black or coloured person to attain the privilege of even the poorest white person.
Therefore, in terms of opportunity to attain a higher status communism is a better system than apartheid.
Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness. It is therefore judging people on the 'content of their character' but it is giving privilege on the basis of bad character. How is that better than giving privilege based on accident of birth?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
Under apartheid if you were non-white then no matter how much willing you gave or how much you supported the system you could still not be elevated from the status you were given.
That's what I call incompatible with moral goodness!
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
Well, that really does depend on whether you consider communism (rather than any particular implementation of some aspects of communism) to be "incompatible with moral goodness".
Regardless, as Polly pointed out, it's still social progression based on ability and willingness, rather than accident of birth. Which still makes it preferable to apartheid.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bibliophile: Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
If only we had a way of knowing what Mandela would do if apartheid were defeated and he would become president ...
Wait a minute, we do have a way of knowing that. Apartheid was defeated and he did become president. And none of the eeevil things you claim he would do, he actually did.
You're condemning him for things he would hypothetically do inside your head, but which he demonstratedly didn't do. I'm sorry, but I don't have much time for that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
Under apartheid if you were non-white then no matter how much willing you gave or how much you supported the system you could still not be elevated from the status you were given.
That's what I call incompatible with moral goodness!
Indeed, apartheid was a terrible, evil system. Whites who did not support this evil still had a privileged status whilst blacks who did work to support it did not gain such status. Under apartheid you had good and bad people with privilege and good and bad people without.
Under communism you could only gain privilege by willingly and successfully supporting the system, in other words you could only get privilege by willingly and successfully doing evil. So whilst under apartheid the privileged class included at least some good people in communist countries people behaving in a good way are specifically excluded from being in the privileged class. How does that make communism better?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
You're really going to have to support a claim that no one within Communist governments was basically a good person.
[x-post]
[ 19. August 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile: Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
If only we had a way of knowing what Mandela would do if apartheid were defeated and he would become president ...
Wait a minute, we do have a way of knowing that. Apartheid was defeated and he did become president. And none of the eeevil things you claim he would do, he actually did.
You're condemning him for things he would hypothetically do inside your head, but which he demonstratedly didn't do. I'm sorry, but I don't have much time for that.
In 1990 the South African government was still militarily strong and the Berlin Wall had fallen. Whether or not he even still wanted to attempting to set up a communist state at that time was not an option for him.
My point is that many people think that in 1961 Mandela held the moral high ground over the apartheid government. My point is that neither he nor any other communist in 1961 held such a position because they were supporting a system that was even worse.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You're really going to have to support a claim that no one within Communist governments was basically a good person.
Of course no one within any communist government was basically a good person. How could anyone who has been promoted based on their willingness and ability to serve evil be basically a good person? Do you think anyone in Hitler's government was basically a good person?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bibliophile: My point is that many people think that in 1961 Mandela held the moral high ground over the apartheid government.
Of course he did. By that point, the apartheid government had done many evil things. Mandela hadn't. That gives him the moral high ground.
What you have defined for him that he hypothetically might do doesn't change that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism you could only gain privilege by willingly and successfully supporting the system, in other words you could only get privilege by willingly and successfully doing evil. So whilst under apartheid the privileged class included at least some good people in communist countries people behaving in a good way are specifically excluded from being in the privileged class. How does that make communism better?
I doubt very much whether this was true in all cases in practice. In order to survive, people learn how to "play the game". As indeed they did under apartheid.
Communism is by no means unique amongst totalitarian regimes in providing scope for the ruthless, ambitious and abusive to rise to the top. I think your singling out is absurd. What is wrong with recognising the dangers of power? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?
The corrupting and oppressive power of communism has been documented graphically by Solzhenitsyn in his novels and in his Gulag Archipeligo books. Apartheid was an oppressive system and like all such it also corrupted its proponents and administrators.
You simply have not made the case for communism being uniquely corrupting, or more corrupting than apartheid. In my view, you've failed because the case simply cannot be made.
[ 20. August 2015, 05:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Under communism you could only gain privilege by willingly and successfully supporting the system, in other words you could only get privilege by willingly and successfully doing evil. So whilst under apartheid the privileged class included at least some good people in communist countries people behaving in a good way are specifically excluded from being in the privileged class. How does that make communism better?
I have never argued or even suggested that Communism is the better of two evils with Apartheid.
The original OP was asking about Mandela and Apartheid and for most of this discussion you have seemed to want to belittle Mandela's contribution and suggest that Apartheid was not that bad.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You're really going to have to support a claim that no one within Communist governments was basically a good person.
Of course no one within any communist government was basically a good person. How could anyone who has been promoted based on their willingness and ability to serve evil be basically a good person? Do you think anyone in Hitler's government was basically a good person?
So, you want me to Google for good people within a Communist government?
How does receiving the Nobel Peace Prize seem to you as a measure of "basically good"?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that many people think that in 1961 Mandela held the moral high ground over the apartheid government. My point is that neither he nor any other communist in 1961 held such a position because they were supporting a system that was even worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Of course no one within any communist government was basically a good person. How could anyone who has been promoted based on their willingness and ability to serve evil be basically a good person?
I'm pretty sure that defining Nelson Mandela (circa 1961) as "within a communist government" strains the definition of the term well past the breaking point. Of course, if you claim that Mandela was a communist then the post-Apartheid government he later headed was, by your definition, a communist government.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you want me to Google for good people within a Communist government?
Given the way Bibliophile has defined the terms, I'm pretty sure that Nelson Mandela is the example he's looking for. His communist government turned South Africa into some kind of police state murderplex, or so he claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How does receiving the Nobel Peace Prize seem to you as a measure of "basically good"?
Seems like a somewhat flawed measure.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, there was I thinking my flaw was that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to Nelson Mandela.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, there was I thinking my flaw was that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to Nelson Mandela.
But Mikhail Gorbachev won the Peace Prize in 1990 for "for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community"..
He was a communist. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) In Russia! Any award that's given to a communist must be compromised and not worth having. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
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
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Wasn't Bonhoeffer a member of the Abwehr? Wasn't Benedict XVI in the Hitler Youth? Wasn't Schindler a member of the Nazi Party?
Aren't people capable of conforming to all sorts of non-communist organisations and end up complicit in bad things? The middle managers who don't challenge bad corporate behaviour? The journalists fiddling their expense accounts because everybody does it? The endemic cheating within some education systems? The covering up of child abuse in churches?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I was just looking for some measure by which you could say whether or not someone is a good person, to counter the absurd assertion that there could be no good people* within senior ranks of Communist governments. It just takes one example of someone who is a good person in such a position to demolish the assertion.
Of course, if you start on the assumption that Communists are irredeemably evil and therefore anything which recognises good that they have done can not be used in evidence of any Communists being good then we're in a Catch-22. And, that certainly appears to be the assumption that Bibliophile is working from, that even an association with Communism is enough to invalidate any claim that someone (like Mandela) can be a good person.
* it is, of course, true that even in the best of people there are bad traits so "good" and "bad" are relative positions on a spectrum. Which makes a case that someone is a "good person" not that easy to make, which is why some externally recognised measure is useful. It, of course, also means that it's just as hard to prove conclusively that someone is evil.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The covering up of child abuse in churches?
On that basis can there possibly be any good Roman Catholics?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I think Bibliophile may have his answer - why do people treat Mandela as if he were saintly? because, despite everything, his own past, the pressures within and without his party, despite what one might expect of his politics, despite what some might have wanted him to do, he acted in a way that embodies the grace, reconciliation and just general goodness towards his neighbours that Christians say they aspire to.
[etided fro splelgni]
[ 20. August 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: dyfrig ]
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Nice, succinct summation. But that answer has been given over the course of this thread. He's rejected it in the long form; what makes you think he'll accept in the short?
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
I was just looking for some measure by which you could say whether or not someone is a good person, to counter the absurd assertion that there could be no good people* within senior ranks of Communist governments. It just takes one example of someone who is a good person in such a position to demolish the assertion.
I'm sure you could provide examples of communist leaders who have done good things. Bad people can do good things and as you say its relative. We are all bad to a greater or lesser degree in this fallen world. My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, communism glorifies rebellion against non-communist authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to communist ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, the strident atheism and hostility to God. Marxism is satanic in origin and nature. To support marxism is to support evil.
Now is it possible for bad people to do good things. For example lets look at the recent history of Angola. In 1961 a communism rebellion broke out in the Portuguese colony of Angola. Rather shamefully the US, the UK and Portugal's other NATO allies gave no military assistance to the Portuguese when they were fighting this communist attack. The South African government however did help. South Africa had a bad government run according to a wicked system but in that instance it did the right thing in helping the portuguese in their efforts to restore order to Angola.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
If there is one thing evil in Angola and Mozambique, it was apartheid-era South Africa. It started and maintained civil wars in those countries that were of unspeakable cruelty. That you can even think that what South Africa did was a good thing is sick, very sick.
You are the one supporting evil here. That you waltz over the suffering over these people just to make an argument and feel smart-ass about it is utterly disgusting.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If there is one thing evil in Angola and Mozambique, it was apartheid-era South Africa. It started and maintained civil wars in those countries that were of unspeakable cruelty. That you can even think that what South Africa did was a good thing is sick, very sick.
You are the one supporting evil here. That you waltz over the suffering over these people just to make an argument and feel smart-ass about it is utterly disgusting.
The war started in 1961 and South Africa did not start being involved until 1967. It could not possibly be accused of starting the war. The first country to militarily intervene in the war was Cuba not South Africa. Are you going to accuse Cuba of starting and maintaining the war?
The war was started and maintained by the communists.
[ 20. August 2015, 20:42: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil.
And, your point is complete and utter bollocks.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil.
And, your point is complete and utter bollocks.
There's a 'Hell' thread with my name on it if you want to start using language like that.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
Le Roc
I would add that the Portuguese government had not just the right but the moral duty to try to repress the communist rebellion in Angola. The South African government did the right thing when it gave them assistance in this effort.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Communism might well be an evil. It doesn't have a good track record. Granted.
To combat it, did that mean that the West had to support fascist regimes like Salazar's Portugal or Satanic systems like apartheid?
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
No, you don't get to play games like this. South Africa maintained a terrible civil war for no cause at all, just the same stupid "communism is evil and everything is valid against it" that you are spouting here.
If you want to make your stupid little arguments here, I don't care about that. But now you are using the suffering of millions of people just to be smug about it. You said that what South Africa did in Angola was a good thing. Take it back.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If being rebellious is a sure sign of Satanic influence then the USA is intrinsically Satanic as it owes its very existence as a nation to rebellion
If communism is intrinsically Satanic by this measure then so is US capitalism.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If being rebellious is a sure sign of Satanic influence then the USA is intrinsically Satanic as it owes its very existence as a nation to rebellion
If communism is intrinsically Satanic by this measure then so is US capitalism.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
