Can someone explain if the Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa are Mugabe 2.0 or are they actual socialists. And are the Boer farmers pokies or peasants?
All urls found in this thread:
are the oppressed white farmers porkies
Gee user, you tell me.
Its not as black and white as that
On one hand a lot of Small farms (Yes even the white ones) in south Africa are borderline sustenance farms with so of the food grown being sold on the market to upkeep the land
On the other hand Boers own most of the big farming and Mining conglomerates that own most of S.A natural wealth
But at the same time i do disagree with how the EFF attempts to make it a race thing
I think the better question would have been Kulak or peasant
Mugabe 2.0. They're spooked ethnonationalists who want whitey out, they're the black equivalent of /pol/. Their power is growing because they are popular with coal miners (who effectively control SA's economy since SA's power is primarily coal based) meanwhile they have adopted the leftist elements of the decaying ANC into their fold.
That said, the book isn't closed on this. Shit will hit the fan in SA when the ANC fail to obtain a majority government in the next elections, largely due to their President Zuma's retardation and his party's unwillingness to remove him from power. At that point the EFF has all options open to them, from starting a civil war (instigated by closing the mines and stopping the economy) to making a coalition with the jew/anglo DA party and splitting the country into two states (and everything in between).
They aren't, most of SA is not industrialized especially not the parts where farmer-worker relations are the most violent. Socialism can't work in places where the population is mostly illiterate. The true porkies are multinational firms like BP, BHP, Rio Tinto or China Coal who own all the coal mines and thus SA's economy. That is where the real conflict is, SA could always import more food but if the power goes out SA stops being a state.
It's here EFF collides with countries like England and China directly, who can make deals with the corrupt ANC leadership. Even Israel is in on it because SA supplies them with highly-enriched uranium they use in their nuclear weapons.
From what you’re telling me is that some of the farmers are part of the working class, but some are porkies. As for EFF they aren’t socialists. Got it.
At least 2/3rds of the farmers are working class, especially with SA's existing price controls and nationalization policies affecting their ability to operate. EFF exploits this division effectively, but not nearly to the same degree as they do in other respects (urban poverty and coal mining). Really the farming issue isn't the highest priority, it just gets a lot of attention from /pol/ types because the ANC governments in those areas are usually so incompetent they rarely investigate murders or break-ins.
My point is that the meat of SA's issues are the coal mines, because again if they close so does the entire national economy. That's where the money, the international interests, and the workers are. This is by far their strongest leg because workers are often not treated right, especially as multinational firms seek to automate as much of their operations as plausible to reduce the amount of workers they have to control. It's an ongoing pissing match, one that has taken a back seat to SA's larger political crisis.
And by "larger political crisis" I mean that President Zuma has been exposed as being a lying cheating corrupt fraud, one which his party refuses to renounce. EFF soaks up blacks who want an alternative but don't want to vote for the anglo DA party. Only just now are ANC making plans to remove him in 2019 but that would occur after elections so the damage will have been done. A failing economy doesn't help. His message is also too moderate for people sick of how the ANC have mishandled basic things like occupational safety and wage theft:
He issued a plea for foreign investment and vowed to build "an economy which benefits the people of our country as a whole rather than just benefit a few privileged individuals and families".
(note how multinational news media outlets like the BBC focus on local farmers not coal miners who are subject to the whims of multinational firms like London's Rio Tinto. Also notice how England not white South Africans is at the center of this discussion - remember the Boer War?)
Overall it's going to be about a 40/30/30 split in 2019 which will break everything. The only people who benefit from this are multinational companies who can just pay governments like England and China to have the UN send in a "peacekeeping" force to support the government they fund.
ANC created this entire situation in the first place by being shit and being a puppet for multinational companies, the most obvious of which are English and Chinese mining groups. Internationally their friends in the media focus on farmer-related issues instead of coal or mineral industry related issues. As the ANC's corruption has become more unavoidable and more flagrant, the EFF hyped itself up by being a more leftwing alternative however they also play the race card because it's practical and it works. The anglo DA party is there too, as they are rapidly becoming the non-black party (this includes anglos, jews, afrikaners, indians, asians, etc), although their party policy is strictly capitalist and not /pol/ in any way.
As ANC breaks down, so does civil discourse and order. The end of this road is some sort of civil conflict and "international mission" to deal with black strikers or rioters, which /pol/ will eat up because they'll try to frame it as a Nazi masturbation fantasy. Though if a Nazi masturbation fantasy were to break out all the great powers would suddenly step in to prevent a anuddah shoah, because otherwise Israel would step in and create a white ethnostate devoted entirely to feeding Israel nuclear material. Israel would also make a huge amount of money off whatever industries their allies could obtain control of.
pics and video:
Really it's just a mess.
"Socialism can't work in places where the population is mostly illiterate"
Do you even Maoism, bro?
mfw those word filters worked 100% flawlessly and did not change the meaning or tone of what I had written
Maoism caused the great Chinese famine, and after Mao's death China became a capitalist state. By and large it didn't work.
Well, since ANC's "kill whitey" message is already acceptable in South Africa, economic anxiety caused by break down of civil order can easily lead to a Nazi masturbation fantasy.
Famines happened all the fucking time back when China was feudalist/capitalist, but nobody cares bout that cuz some ebil gommie done did it too.
China is state capitalist
True, but only cuz the communist party didn't heed Mao's deathbed warning bout Deng Xiaoping being a revisionist snake.
I maintain that this is one of the most blatantly idealistic and anti-Marxist concepts Stalinists spout.
ANC's message isn't "kill whitey", that's a /pol/ meme. However, this does not stop ANC from exploiting racial tensions. It's the EFF that is promoting "kill whitey", which puts ANC in the uncomfortable position of having to justify not starting a Nazi masturbation fantasy while also exploiting racial tensions.
But ultimately a Nazi masturbation fantasy is unlikely unless the EFF actually push for a civil war, in which case the great powers (especially England and China) will swoop in and essentially reinstitute Apartheid to keep the peace and keep their mines flowing along. Nobody wants to back the EFF because they also want to nationalize (re: "steal") major industries from multinational companies, a policy which neither ANC nor DA approve of. The unholy mix of racial tensions prevents progress and moderation.
ANC's message isn't "kill whitey", that's a /pol/ meme.
*muffled Zuma singing in the distance*
What are the economics of shitholes?
South Africa is a top-tier producer of gold, actually. That's just for a start.
they usually involve extracting natural resources.
It goes back to Lenin and Luxemburg, retard
This Jew totally isn't singing about killing whites.
And lots of Jewish diamond mines;^)
I'm pretty sure Lenin and Luxemburg didn't say workers' states fail because they don't have the correct interpretation of Marx, moron.
Because there weren’t any in existence at the time they were writing about revisionism. The main problem at that time was with a certain parliamentary Marxist current that denied the necessity of revolution at all.
If you actually believe that bad ideas can shift a mode of production, you are not a materialist. By definition.
Lots of Jews in Comparison to other Anglo colonies move to S.A
Benifit from Apartheid laws because by that point the Apartheid gov needed everyone "Not black" on their side
Thus Jews end up richer and owning lots of Land in S.A
Skip ahead to /pol/
<"Muuuuhhhhh JJOOOOSSSSTM this is evidence JOOs are ebi!"
Tell me why would Jews want to end Apartheid when they were one of the groups that benefited from it most?
Funny, some Leftcoms say the same thing only they rather spuriously think good ideas can’t make a revolution and bad ideas can’t hold one back.
No workers state has been able to transition to full communism over night and history has shown that in many cases people’s consciousness can even lag behind changes in the material conditions. Everyone knows that a pure socialist state has never existed there have always been remnants of the old system but that isn’t an excuse to refuse to take up revolution or to try to build up socialism and advance it further. Things can move backwards if those elements that want to go back to capitalism seize upon those material elements of the old system and try to enhance and advance it.
Trotsky’s conception of a degenerated workers state is pretty wishy-washy—it is socialism but it really isn’t, or it doesn’t have the right leadership and so on. We actually hold that things can go backwards whereas Trotsky held that socialism couldn’t be overthrown in the USSR without some sort of civil war.
Trotsky’s views are so incoherent on the subject no wonder neo-Trots like Tony Clif jumped ship for the USSR-was-never-anything-but-state-capitalism maymay
It’s a reference to the Oppenheimer family who pretty much held a world monopoly on diamond production in the 20th century. Funny thing is even though Nicky Oppenheimer never supported Apartheid he sure did benefit from it and in 1960 he bought up half of South Africa’s stocks to keep the economy of Apartheid South Africa from imploding.
That's all fine but it doesn't explain why Jews were disproportionately involved in militant attacks on the apartheid government and why most of those same Jews don't use the same violence against Israel(where some now live).
What explains Zionist-Israeli support for Apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia and the OAS in French Algeria? I bet you don’t even know anything about these things, you’ve just been swallowing /pol/ “red pills” you saw on shitty jpg. infographs
Why did Israel help Apartheid South Africa develop its nuclear weapons? It didn’t really need South Africa’s help it already had nukes but South Africa badly needed Israeli help for their program.
You've just highlighted the hypocrisy of the international community. Thanks.
Natural resources: uranium, gold, diamonds, and much more needed for industrial purposes and complicated electronics (like your smartphone). All powered by one thing: coal.
Then why are they such shitholes?
No, what he saying is that your treatment of the jew as a monolith, characterized by some sort of racial or ethnic essentialism, is specious. You have no ground to stand on, and your very assertion is self-negating in that the 'nation-state entity' of the jews as Israel claims to be was a major entity in support of Apartheid and colonial policies.
Imperialism, duh. First day here, /pol/?
HOS theory of comparative trade, that international exchange on the basis of expanding capital will naturally tend towards the equilibrium of trade terms and elasticities, allowing for the free exchange of goods and affording equal measure of development for nations of necessarily lesser technological competency to be able to effectively compete on the international market. The issue being that the non-reintroduction of capital or lack of state ability to invest factor endowments or protect domestic production has led to lopsided development, especially in the modern globalist economy. An enormous amount of capital, as well as partial commodities are to be gleaned from economies that have no precedent in international exchange and so their introduction has distended their ability to effectively produce. This is not to suggest that nationalist development policies will produce the desired effect, but merely that the extension of the domestic, protectionist policies of old became the global economic initiatives of modernity - all of which fall ruefully short of their positive assertions. I can recommend reading if you're interested
Okay, if people aren't monoliths based on race, then why is it that white people owning farms and having a barrier to vote is considered imperialism?
Because they were always designed to be shitholes, just colonial outposts where a skeleton crew of whites could quickly extract materials and move them to the mother country for processing and distribution. It remains so today, but with multinational firms operating directly in the region so they can take all the extra profit back home too. The remaining whites are abandoned, betrayed by their former comrades because they could make more money if the majority of voters were illiterate blacks and not prole whites.
This is what raw capitalism looks like. It's not pretty.
Because the ANC uses it as a distraction against how white people owning mines isn't considered imperialism (even though it literally is). It worked effectively until more extreme elements of the party created EFF, whose main power comes from coal miners.
White people owning farms is not imperialism. What the fuck? Imperialism is the exploitation of the countries natural resources and super-exploitation of their labor by the first world.
It's like that book Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
I'm sure the international investors that own South African resources are a multitude of ethnicities.
then why is it that white people owning farms
White individuals holding land is not in itself an act of imperialism
having a barrier to vote is considered imperialism?
How is it not?
Just look at Apartheid S.A and Rhodesia
"Barriers to vote" equals classism racism and imperialism
But South African boers were permanent residents and fought wars against imperialist powers.
The ANC must maintain the legitimizing other in the "white settler" to avoid the negativities of their own programme - that they effectively sold out an imperial bourgeoisie to support a domestic one. The white settler must remain the pre-eminent fear, the "foreign body" that disrupts the "orgnanic community" such that their figure becomes the perceptible enemy - that bellicose imperial foe that refuses to leave "our land"! There should be a sharp delineation thus between the imperialism of the the nationalists, whose idea is merely a re-orientation of the old system of the all-encompassing hegemon (but with a new, coloured face at the helm) and the Marxian understanding in relation to political economy. Anyways, fuck the ANC.
Having standards is considered racism?
It's not white peoples fault if they can't meet those standards.
Imperialist powers sometimes fight. See: Nazi Germany invasion of the Polish Second Republic.
What lands were they imperialist over? Much of the land was not inhabited.
Well, if you were to essentially sublimate the whole of life in an area, such as in the creation of a lawful state, which involved the disruption of all traditional or feudal cultures and societies, then subjected the vast majority of the populace to sordid conditions, and little control over their new "national collective", with the barrier largely being drawn along racial lines, I'd sooner find one rejecting this new national organization than chewing at the bit to acquiesce to them. Especially following the 1960 referendum
Exactly. They did so like the tools they were until one they were no longer needed. Advances in transportation mean that private security companies can ferry mercenaries between the home country and their workplace in about twelve hours. Local teams are still needed for day-to-day operations, but ultimately if company property is threatened (say by striking workers threatening to destroy a dig or equipment) a paramilitary force can be quickly deployed, one which the local police are fine with because they're on their payroll.
SA itself has tried to limit this but with little success because their ANC government is only enacting such "reforms" because they want to make more money from the practice, not ban it. Even then they are so incompetent and corrupt (by design) most companies freely ignore it:
Habitation isn't a concern, the resources and the location of South Africa (the southern cape of africa, the place that divides the Pacific and Indian oceans) are. All the humans who live there are just tools to be manipulated by outside powers, usually from England and China. France does the same thing further to the north and America does the same thing in South America. It's a fight for the basic resources that make things like automobile tires, smartphone capacitors and industrial lasers possible.
White people brought civilisation to Africa and blacks didn't like it
I'm sure it was very unfortunate for them, but I honestly don't care.
If it was up to me, I'd put them out of their misery.
super hot take
If it was up to me, I'd put them out of their misery.
I would rid of the Africans as well. They are driving the animals to extinct.
Did you not say whites brought civilisation to South Africa?
civilization means death and subordination
later civilization means disenfranchisement and refusal or relegation of citizenship
then civilization means subjecting working people to curtailment of rights and freedoms
*crash//reboot* civilization is now subjecting the whole of the nation, same nation, to international trade and neoliberalism
ANC: "Our civilization means fuck imperial legacies and keep voting for us pls"
Civilization means trying to rid yourself of the 'parasitic' other in white farmers
<Meanwhile, nowhere relevant and definitely not near books
You: "Civilization means whatever lets me rationally™ hate whoever I hate"
What a ride it has been
How is it not dictatorship and imperialism to keep a people disenfranchised from their legitimate right to self-governance?
But the other poster says they didn't want a government and its not disenfranchisement if they never had those rights to begin with.
Implying a gook could win in a one-on-one fight against a British soldier
Shouldn't leftypol be pro-civilisation?
never had those rights to begin with
Likewise with that manner of sophistry would the authoritarian tyrannies of antiquity never have been challenged, as these institutions of rights had no place in some abstract "register" of natural governance. No, hardly. If you intend to subject a populace, and they must, by birth, be subject to your laws as a nation-state than the deliberate extension or refusal of rights to certain populaces is a matter of political orienteering, not some precedent based on history. Or would you prefer to surrender yourself as a subject to divine prescient and some cheap clergy because of the historical standard of divinity?
Might makes right.
Socialism is the only civilization that exists.
The critique isn't that of civilization, but that civilization always seems to be what is materially appreciable at the time. Civilization as a general concept comes off as a cheap platitude or appeal without a common understanding of the its particularities.
What makes might? and what directs it to that end? Why must it direct itself to that end, and if the natural law even amongst sentients is such, then why must every single entity and all of their infinite subjectivities be subject to a universal like "might makes right" when that very idea is no more "human" than the computer you type on. The point being that you're straying into philosophical territory, and extreme ideology at that.
Implying a gook could win in a one-on-one fight against a British soldier
Is shooting whoever says this the most appropriate response? It feels like it is.
implying anyone cares
All morality is ideological, or do you believe in a natural hierarchy?
Japs are gooks
YOU HAVE A CHOICE: Didactic ideology but we call it natural; didactic ideology but we blah blah blah its postmodernism
Ethics is one of those philosophical categories that is a true tradition, it ebbs away at ideology as Real. This is not to deny that morality can be sutured to ideology, but they aren't necessarily so. Very little is natural with humans
Well, the original picture was about the Boxer Rebellion so I figured we were just free to rebut since the retarded /pol/yp was doing it
Yeah and they wonder why antifa attack them…
Antifa should attack us. It makes it easier to find them afterwards.
As long as you know what happens afterwards
Mugabe. Have you seen them? 90% of their talking points are bitching about whitey. They throw some bones on other issues as far as I'm aware.
The richer a third world country is in natural resources, the poorer they tend to be.
trotskyite denying the existence of revisionism
geez sure makes you wonder why what's up with that huh
EFF is good as hell.
<they deserved it
Think of the poor landowners who rely on borderline slave labor.
Being an Afrikaner sucks imo. Feeling like an African when all the Africans think you don't belong at all and are a white oppressor.
EFF is not racist, look at le BASED white EFFpedes in EFF hats!
This but unironically
Hmmm….this blows my narrative out of the water
I know! I'll drench my disdain in irony xD
Mein gott, supporting EFF is quite literally the easiest Marxist position. Even moreso than supporting Venezuela. Lo and behold, Holla Forums ultras and tanks manage to fuck it up.
I'm a tank of the Hoxhaist variety but even I can see that EFF is the closest thing to a genuine working class socialist party in SA. The bourgeoisie there is legit terrified of them.
Bad ideas alone don’t change much but if the bad idea has access to the material resources then it becomes a problem. What makes slavery bad is not the slave owner but the system. That’s why no matter what leader we have under capitalism, it’s still shit. But with socialism, it becomes more about how the resources are distributed. If a revisionist is in power then the the bad idea will cause bad situations. You can have the best tool in the world but if your incompetent with it then it’s useless.