Nelson Mandela: The World Loses an Icon.

[phiLLy]

Some very uninformed and biased opinions in here that are backed up with nothing more than just their opinions...

But I guess that's what politics is

I won't jump in here, since getting into politics in a Forum is always a bad idea.

But, for what it's worth, I've lived in Canada, Capitalist/"Free", and I live in Hong Kong, and work in China.

as to Uncle_Si's point about is it the Capitalist's fault that people are in poverty, well, as a Business man, and somebody who's family owns and operates business in China, and employs a fair amount of people (Approximately 1500 - 2000 depending on the season), I will say without a doubt, that the Capitalists do hold a huge fault in their poverty.

In my eyes at least.

EDIT: I also thought i'd mention something on the point of whether "Communist" Countries care about their citizens or not, and expand on my point.

In the last few years, China has been steadily pushing for businesses that employee people to raise wages. It's been a steady increase, and a fair amount. I don't remember the exact number, but it has run a lot of firms out of business.

Not only are they raising the wages, they also are forcing firms to purchase some sort of "plan" to help these individuals save money, and work towards buying housing, or what-not.

It's something they've been doing for a while, and it grows each and ever year.

On top of my original point. Thikn about it this way. If the "Capitalist" countries didn't require their $150.00 Nikes that cost $20.00 to make, and cheap labour, China wouldn't have the means to employ so many people.

With the wage-rate rising in China, people are moving to India and other countries that haven't imposed these higher fees.

So...don't say that "Communism" doesn't have a care for it's people while other people benefit. Sure, those up top continue to reap in the money for doing nothing. But isn't that the same in any culture or economy/country?

[Uncle_Si]

Some very uninformed and biased opinions in here that are backed up with nothing more than just their opinions...

But I guess that's what politics is

I won't jump in here, since getting into politics in a Forum is always a bad idea.

But, for what it's worth, I've lived in Canada, Capitalist/"Free", and I live in Hong Kong, and work in China.

as to Uncle_Si's point about is it the Capitalist's fault that people are in poverty, well, as a Business man, and somebody who's family owns and operates business in China, and employs a fair amount of people (Approximately 1500 - 2000 depending on the season), I will say without a doubt, that the Capitalists do hold a huge fault in their poverty.

In my eyes at least.

EDIT: I also thought i'd mention something on the point of whether "Communist" Countries care about their citizens or not, and expand on my point.

In the last few years, China has been steadily pushing for businesses that employee people to raise wages. It's been a steady increase, and a fair amount. I don't remember the exact number, but it has run a lot of firms out of business.

Not only are they raising the wages, they also are forcing firms to purchase some sort of "plan" to help these individuals save money, and work towards buying housing, or what-not.

It's something they've been doing for a while, and it grows each and ever year.

On top of my original point. Thikn about it this way. If the "Capitalist" countries didn't require their $150.00 Nikes that cost $20.00 to make, and cheap labour, China wouldn't have the means to employ so many people.

With the wage-rate rising in China, people are moving to India and other countries that haven't imposed these higher fees.

So...don't say that "Communism" doesn't have a care for it's people while other people benefit. Sure, those up top continue to reap in the money for doing nothing. But isn't that the same in any culture or economy/country?

There is no perfect system, I think we can all agree on that. But what economic system provides the best opportunity for people to succeed. I argue that it's capitalism. Capitalism does not guarantee success but it does guarantee opportunity. I can speak from personal experience being a business owner myself. I struggled in an industry to make a name for myself I lived off of tuna and kaiser buns for 6 months in a shitty motel room, willing to do whatever it took to gain experience and knowledge in my industry. I would work 10 hour days then work 4 hours after for free just to learn more from the guys I was working with. I spent time studying and training on my own time to better understand different aspects of my industry. I sacrificed time with friends and family because of the travel that is required in my industry. I understand that this might not he for everyone. I understand that some people think it's crazy to do what I have done, as a matter of fact many of my friends and family thought that in the past. I didn't have to do the things I did, I made a choice. I saw an opportunity and I went for it, knowing there was no guarantee of success. It worked out for me and I don't regret a single thing that I did. Today I have succeeded in my own terms. I don't care about anyone's definition of success other than my own. I don't want anything from anyone nor do I expect. I understand that my current success is not guaranteed to last so I am planning for the future. I help those in need where I can and as in see fit. Capitalism worked for me and it has worked for millions of others.

I have seen what communism does to oppress people because my family lived through it, they escaped to Canada in hopes of bettering their lives and providing their kids. What my family went through under communist rule I would never wish on anyone. For these reasons I believe in Capitalism and I oppose communism. The great thing about Canada, unlike communist countries, we can have these discussions and debates without risk of persecution. Freedom is a precious commodity to me and is more valuable than any amount of money. As I said these are my views and I don't expect anyone else to understand them nor do I expect anyone to agree with me. I think that these types of discussions are important to have, but this forum doesn't seem to be the best for it. If anyone would like to discuss further feel free to PM me. #tanknation #MU

[Joey]

Revisionist view of Mandela by Stefan Molyneux. References are on the youtube page.

He spends way more of his time justifying Apartheid, and condemning Modern Day South Africa than he does revealing anything new about Mandela. Weird.

[Bendit]

Revisionist view of Mandela by Stefan Molyneux. References are on the youtube page.

BTW, there's no point in debating "capitalism" without first defining it -- since there's no agreed-upon definition, you're usually debating apples and oranges.

Amazing! I wonder if these pop commentators bother to watch their diatribes after they have recorded them. For example after the putdown of Mandela regarding his refusal to renounce "non-violence" he goes on to let us all know about his disdain of colonialism but then spends pretty much the rest of the piece comparing economic/socio downgrades of South Africans post apartheid to the benefits they enjoyed during. This guy is clearly a Ayn Randian disciple. But I digress. He mentions not how black South Africans were treated in the apartheid system by a racist minority holding power through threat of violence and incarceration nor whether the economic statistics were inclusive of black SAs. Colonialists had their problems regarding personal freedoms and equal rights for the indigeneous but it was somewhat "benign" compared to South African practised apartheid and a somewhat lesser extent the system of separation being practised over another occupied people....the Palestinians.

On the matter of renouncement of violence when the "offer" was "graciously" made by Botha to Mandela, he replied, "Let him renounce violence". After all, there was a great violence first begun by the ruling white class upon Mandela's people. For those who forget how insidious the system is...a brief description:

Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times under Dutch rule.[6] Apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. Legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups, "black", "white", "coloured", and "Indian", with Indian and coloured divided into several sub-classifications,[7] and residential areas were segregated, sometimes by forced removals. Non-white political representation was abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa

Malcolm X & ML King were leaders in the US who struggled with the concept of violence in their leadership of black peoples in America during the struggles of the 60s:

Malcolm X understood:

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.


Martin Luther King Jr. agreed:

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems ... But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government.
As did Mandela. Offered the chance to be free by the avowed white supremacist P.W. Botha if he would renounce violence, Mandela replied, “Let him renounce violence.”

While the two struggles had the commonality of subjugated black peoples there is a dichotomy that the ruling class would subject the black populations to less than equal conditions and forced separation under pain of incarceration if there was pushback but yet demand non violence/obedience locally and violence abroad (induction into the army) against supposed enemies of the state.

I notice that the thread has devolved into a discussion of economic/political systems. This is a canard and diversion from the real subject.....fundamental justice and freedoms equal to all regardless of race, creed or gender. That is what Mandela fought for. SA is not going to change overnight...it never does but the reconciliation movement he started to safeguard the rights of those who supported and enforced the prior system is a testimony to his fundamental goodness of being. I couldnt care less about his true ideology (he has denied being a communist).

[Bendit]

Oops. Nothing personal, but it seems that I was insulting Rand. I didnt realize the gentleman's background...he just came across very conservative on fiscal and socio grounds and unforgiving that there will always be people in any society that will be disadvantaged and consequently require help. A just society will provide this. I still dont get his anti Mandela spiel. He was fighting to free indigenous SAs from an insidious racist government. It seems like the height of confusion (a charge often levelled against libertarians) that Stefan is an anti-colonialist but seemingly pro apartheid. Something is not computing.

To be honest I dont want to tread in areas I do not have much knowledge in but here are a couple of quotes from Rand on libertarians and anarchists and dont know quite what to make of it....I was of the opinion the two (Randian & Libertarian) were relatively close in their thinking....individualism, survival of the fittest and the usual looking after #1 stuff. Oh yes and government and social programs are bad. Ms Rand who railed against programs like social security and medicare etc when dying of lung cancer was not above getting those benefits to ease her misfortune.

Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?

AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

Are you saying that Stefan/yourself are further right of Rand?

[Quirk]

And to bring this back to Mandela, he refused to take that step.

Right, so if you see a gang of theives robbing an inocent person, your "non violence" principle instructs you to walk right by, or sing kumbaya, or something.

What particular act of violence did Mandela commit that you object to?

[Quirk]

I think if you watch the presentation it talks about that.

Feel free to put it in your own words,
since I'm responding to your post, not the presentation.

[Quirk]

I didn't accuse him of a specific act of violence. He refused to publicly reject it.

So this defines his legacy to you? Not all the things he did do, and went through, but something he didn't do, actually, something he refused to say? Hmm.

Also, you never answered the question about the robbery above. Please do.

[Bendit]

BTW, "A just society will provide this." The state is not society. It's a corporation with a monopoly on the use of offensive violence in a given territory. If people need help, it must be given voluntarily, not through violence. And it doesn't matter if you agree with the means by which the state "helps" the needy (I would say subjugates them), because you have no choice but to participate. It is not compassionate to help people become dependent on the corporation called the state.

Maybe I am oversimplifying your politics but in the absence of some form of "rules" how does anarchy which is the anti thesis of controls to make "the buses run on time" provide a solution of providing protection to us everyday schleps going about our mundane or exciting lives?

Why does Stefan incessantly put down Mandela and glorify the pro apartheid govt/system by citing economic/socio statistics in favour of the latter. The validity of those pronouncements are unimportant to me. Mandela's cause was simple...removing the shackles of apartheid on his countrymen/women. If he/you are intellectually averse to forms of govt. and laws in general why the clear preference of the racist and violent govt. ? Or did I miss something. I did not miss his disdain for colonialism.

I assume you walk amongst us as a Canadian. How do you square your politics while you continue to benefit from some of the social benefits this country provides? Maybe you'll surprise me and volunteer that Stefan/you are independently resourceful, have rejected the Health care system and pay out of pocket for any medical attention you have or hope to receive in your life time. Just an example.

In practical terms what you are calling for is a form of isolationism especially in the current climate of globalization (no fan here). Impractical and somewhat dangerous when one considers the communications interconnectivity. btw...while you provided a partial hats off to Aung San isnt she now part of the govt. of Myanmar? That must not go down well. Non violent but sits down with the jailers (on equal terms) to hopefully improve everyone's lot.

[Quirk]

Maybe I am oversimplifying your politics but in the absence of some form of "rules" how does anarchy which is the anti thesis of controls to make "the buses run on time" provide a solution of providing protection to us everyday schleps going about our mundane or exciting lives?

I'm quite impressed with the overall political accumen this group has demonstrated in this thread. I truly wasn't expecting that. I was expecting the right libertarians, "market" anarchists to be able to do their usual bullshit baffles brains routine with more effect here, but no, you guys sent them packing quite effectively. Great!

As for the above quote, Anarchism is not about no controls, it's about no rulers, and Anarchist (real Anarchists, not "Austrians," Rothbardians, Anar-caps, etc), have always talked about collectives and federations as ways to have basic rules and make the buses run on time, etc, in ways that are as voluntary and distributed as possible, and as inclusive and particpatory otherwise.

Many where even somewhat positive about Republics, as in the kind of democracies typical of modern countries. The State they where fighting against was quite a different one, i.e, the France, Germany and Russia of Bakunin's time.

"Liberty is so great a magician, endowed with so marvelous a power of productivity, that under the inspiration of this spirit alone, North America was able within less than a century to equal, and even surpass, the civilization of Europe." -- Bakunin.

Anarchists want people to make rules and manage resources collectively, without property and without the State. "The State" is not meant to be understood as meaning the same thing as any Government, The State is to be understood in the sense of a fuedal state, an institution that demmands tribute and grants privilge, thereby creating classes.

While formal aristocratic tites are not as much a feature of modern states, by enforcing property rights over the great inhereted fortunes, the function remains the same. Anarchist believe in either collective property or "usufruct" possesion, meaning that either your own something colletively, or if you own something individually than you must be the one that uses it and posseses it.

This "non violence" stuff is just bullshit from the "right libertarian" collection of talking points, and it just provides a way to justify ignoring domination and exploitation and condeming those that stand up to it, as we've seen above. A position that can only be held by the already privildged,

Best,

[Bendit]

@Quirk,

Thanks for the post/reply...it was very informative.