Mandela dead, so what?
- This topic has 58 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think the word has now widened to apply to Zionist Apartheid Regime of Israel. The latest blog by our Zambian comrade makes your point , Brian, that Mandela did initiate multi-party democracy in neighbouring Southern African countries and a whole spate of elections took place but the backlash was that those parties then sought tribal/ ethnic support to gain political power. http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/12/mandela-his-political-legacy.html
Yep this article makes the point we need to consider the wider picture in respect of the introduction of representative democracy in South Africa had repercussions on the political make-up in the rest of southern africa. P.s. I tried to make a correction on SOYMB (Mandela spent 16 years on Robbins Island not 27) but the comment box is not working.
Brian wrote:I don't see any one here agreeing that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference or that it was not a welcome advance. What is being strongly argued is that the outcome made no essential difference to the situation – other than the introduction of representative democracy – and explaining why and how this major advance came about.I think it meant rather more than the introduction of representative democracy. It meant above all the abolition of the colour bar, which so far has meant more for the everyday life of the "Non-Whites" than has political democracy.
ALB wrote:Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.But you are not saying that a single 'great man' was responsible for that
ALB wrote:Brian wrote:I don't see any one here agreeing that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference or that it was not a welcome advance. What is being strongly argued is that the outcome made no essential difference to the situation – other than the introduction of representative democracy – and explaining why and how this major advance came about.I think it meant rather more than the introduction of representative democracy. It meant above all the abolition of the colour bar, which so far has meant more for the everyday life of the "Non-Whites" than has political democracy.
I find that comment rather edging on trollish behaviour when its impossible to separate the 'colour bar' from the system of apartheid itself. In fact from reports I've come across it appears that the colour bar is starting to be applied to the white farmers in South Africa. Zumba in this respect has taken a page from Mguabe by actively encouraging the poor black population to violently evict the farmers.But that deserves a separate thread for discussion.
Vin Maratty wrote:ALB wrote:Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.But you are not saying that a single 'great man' was responsible for that
No, of course not. It was something that had to happen sooner or later as apartheid was hampering the normal operation of capitalism in South Africa. In any event, it would be F.W. De Klerk rather than Mandela who'd be the imagined "Great Man" here. South Africa's equivalent of Gorbachev.I see that Imposs1904 has just published Pieter Lawrence's excellent 1985 article "Democracy and South Africa" on his Socialist standard Past & Present blog:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/democracy-and-south-africa.html
mcolome1 wrote: It looks like you do support the individualistic conception of history. Nelson Mandela did not liberate “his peoples”,…. he did not even liberate himself,….The proletarian class is the only social class able to liberate itself without the need of leaders and liberastors. Mandela was a puppet of the capitalist class of South Africa.I have no idea at all why you should believe that I support "the individualistic conception of history", but then having read your posts for several years on the WSM Forum (from which I have gladly departed), I am neither surprised nor alarmed. What you say rarely makes any sense to me. But for your information, I discarded the Great Man Theory of History when I was 18 years old, having just read Tolstoy's War and Peace where, as you would know had you read it, there is a powerful critique of the theory, based of course on Tolstoy's understanding of Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1810. You seem fixated on my use of the words "liberated" and "liberator" (note the commas). You should read what I said. I was talking about Mandela's reputation, and the way another poster saw him (presenting himself as a liberator). Of course South African workers didn't belong to him! And who are you to say Mandela did not even liberate himself?! And from what?! And who was Mandela's "boss" exactly??Where is your evidence or proof that the "proletarian class is the only class able to liberate itself without the need of leaders and liberators"? You've decided it's "true" only because it fits your definition of a leaderless, classless, moneyless, stateless, nationless, global society because that's your definition of socialism. It's merely a definitional "proof". If on the other hand you look at history (I don't know what else to look at) you see that all great revolutionary movements, political uprisings of radical change etc, had leaders who were effective where they had the capacity to mobilise large numbers of people in pursuit of a cause. Mandela was one such person. He represented millions of his own people and from everything I've read and seen they respected him for it. He was a "liberator" only in the sense that he was the leader of a political movement that liberated black Africans from the tyranny of Apartheid. It was by any measure an outstanding, heroic achievement. What happened later might be called a tragic failure. But that shouldn’t negate the significance of his earlier achievements. Instead you call him "a puppet of the capitalist class of S Africa". Still, I should be grateful for small things. In an earlier post you called him "a traitor to the working class of South Africa", which is absurd.
Useful article here on the ANC by an ex-member of the Party.bit.ly/1f28e1r
Actually, although it could have been written by an ex-member, even by a member (there's a good criticism of Lenin's post-1917 theory of imperialism), it's a reprint from the CWO.http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2012-03-01/anc-%E2%80%93-a-hundred-years-in-the-service-of-capitalBy co-incidence there's a review of them in this month's Socialist Standard here.
A couple of quotes from Soweto and Durban residents in today's Times:
Quote:Neighbours in Soweto, minutes from Vilakazi Street, where people have flocked to celebrate their former leader's life, said that the ANC was full of empty promises. One, Sinazo Ntaka, said: "If you speak out in South Africa, you will be killed. Just like the apartheid time, you spoke up, you get killed. Worse: this time you are killed by your own people."At a march inMandela's honour, shack-dwellers in Durban lambasted the ANC, saying: "Today we are experiencing leaders who are black Boers. They are leaders that evict us, beat us, torture us, arrest us and kill us."ALB wrote:Quote:John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die"I can guess what he's arguing but, strictly speaking, the title is inaccurate. Apartheid, as the legal separation of the different so-called "races" in South Africa with jobs reserved for some of them, did die (and a good thing too). And it died because it had proved to be a barrier to the normal operation of capitalism and the process of capital accumulation in South Africa. What its death didn't do was to improve the economic situation of most "Africans", even though it did improve that of some of them, not just businesspeople and politicians (who were able to enrich themselves).but also skilled workers (who were able to move into jobs previously reserved for "Whites"). Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.
Strictly speaking, apartheid has 3 aspects to it1) social apartheid – what is called petty apartheid (the racial segration of public facilities such as public transport) , the segregation of the education system along so called racial lines , the "Immorality Act" forbidding sexual relationships between races2) economic apartheid – job reservation and the colour bar3) political apartheid – the homeland policy and the denial of political rights to the Black majority within the so called White area of South Africa (constituting some 87% of the land surface if I recall correctly), separate constitutional rights for the mixed race ("Cape Coloureds" as they were called) and Asian populations, the further differentiation of the Black homelands along so called tribal or ethnic lines. Of these 3 aspects I would say political apartheid was the most important. Apartheid was basically the grafting of a racist political ideology onto a capitalist economy. It needs to be understood, however, that it was the British who first implemented many of the basic building blocks of what emerged as Apartheid after the second world war. The Britsh, for instance, introduced the first pass laws and established the first native reserves in Natal and the Cape Colony – not the Boers. I mention this because it is sometimes argued (by liberals like Merle Lipton) that capitalism and apartheid are fundamentally incompatible, with the implication that the involvement of (mainly British) capital in the development of South Africa was essentially a progressive influence. Im rather skeptical about this thesis and though I dont reject it out of hand I think it is a bit simplisticIn the early days of South African industrial development big capital, particularly in the case of the mining industry, quite happily collaborated and colluded with the racist state – long before Aaprtheid was officially introduced – to ensure an abundant supply of cheap migrant labour. In fact , the size of the native reserves were deliberately reduced so as to further undermine what remained of the subsistence economy of Black peasants and make them more dependent on migrant income . For the same reason, hut taxes were introduced or raised – to force people to become more involved in a money economy It was the structural transformation of the South African economy particularly after the second world war – with the growth of the manufacturing and service sector – which is often presented as the primary impetus begind the long term trend that would eventuate in the demise of apartheid. In particular, it was the growing shortage of skilled and semi skilled labour associated with this development that is said to have exerted an irresisitable pressure on the apartheid state causing it to progressivly soften its hardline stance, ultimately leading the the scrapping of apartheid. It is from this time that you began to see a split emerging within the white nationalist community between the more pragmatic verligtes and the die-hard verkramptes. I have some problems with this argument even though it has some truth in it , partly because there was in fact an expedient device which the apartheid state could – and to an extent, did – fall back upon to relieve the shortage of skilled labour if it so desired. This was called the floating colour bar. Basically what this meant is that as the pressue of skill shortages grew you could relieve it by allowing Blacks to do more and more of the work previously done by Whites only. In theory this could have nullifed what I term the internalist argumnent – that capitalism mechanically and of its own accord brought about the demise of Apartheid.. Interestingly, Harry Oppenhiner Chairman of Anglo American who funded the Progressive party – the political wing oif Liberal capitalism – himself expressed support for the the idea of a floating colour bar. The other problem with the internalist argument is that even if Apartheid had to go because it had become economically ineffiicient to operate a modernising capitalist economy along those lines, that cannot possibly be the entire reason why Apartheid went. More important, arguably, was the mounting costs to the state resulting from political opposition. One thinks here of the enormous costs of social unrest in the townships, of the government strategy of "total onslaught" against the frontline states (my brother and I narrowly missed being sent into Angola to fight the Cubans and MPLA at the time when we were both very naive young army conscripts, by electing to join the regimental bugle band back in Namibia!) and of course the costs of international sanctions. All these things took a tremendous toll on the apartheid state and caused it to reconsider So it really wasnt as simple as saying that capitalism was fundamentally at odds with apartheid and therefore the latter had to go. There was a lot more to it.
Here are a few random links on the general subject of Mandela and apartheid which I offer without comment. You will no doubt be able to draw your own conclusions …. http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-12-10/mandela-%E2%80%93-a-hero-for-capitalismhttp://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/mandelas_cult_like_worshippers_rewriting_history/14410#.UqyrQ2eA3rchttp://www.theamericancause.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=1016&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01returnid=29 Personally, I find this all this compulsory beatification of Saint Nelson, distasteful and the relentless insistance on casting Mandela in the role of some kind of "great man" who made history while the rest of us were merely onloookers or bit players, utterly depressing and deluded. Little wonder that the likes of Obama should flatter Mandela in these glowing terms – to bask in the reflected glory of being a celebrity politican himself. It is something these political con artists are particularly adept at and for good reason – the art of mutual flattery is the means by whiich they massage their own egos. Still, at least the petty-bourgeois traders in trinkets, T shirts and memorabilia of all kinds have been able to make a killing on the flourishing market for such things. I believe the extended Mandela family, when they have not been busily stabbing each other in the back and accusing each other of betrayal, have been falling over each other to milk his brand name for all its worth. Apparently there is even a "House of Mandela wine collection" you can now savour and mull over – or given that we are now well into that most dreaded time of the year, the festive season, turn into mulled wine! For the curious, the details are here:http://thegrio.com/2013/12/11/mandelas-legacy-lives-on-through-house-of-mandela-wine-collection/
During some searches I also picked up a comment that Mandela actually died in June and it was decided by his family to keep him alive on life support until the disputes over his will were settled.
The capitalist class will only glorify those that have served them, and those that are not a threat to capitalism, and Mandela is one of them.Probably, we will see his portrait on a Rolex watch, and Mercedes Benz advertising like they did with Ernesto Che Guevara.Saint Mandela is only a myth created by the right wingers and the left wingers, two wings of the capitalist system
Interesting interview here on how and why Mandela and the post-apartheid ANC government had to compromise with world capitalism (rather than go for national state capitalism):http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mA5N5hca_WY
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.