Nelson Mandela

[whYNOT]

So was Andrei (a sense of life individualist) but he worked for the wrong cause. 

 

Mandela is hailed in Western Nations as the person who almost single-handedly ended Apartheid. Apartheid was going to end nonetheless, it seems that Mandela's greatest achievement was to not drive out the whites instantaneously. He created that calm before the storm that allowed Rainbow South Africa to extract reparations from White South Africans. 

Volco: That's about it, in a nutshell, what I've said. The regime was coming to an end. The majority of White people were becoming more rational, compassionate and just tired of it, and President de Klerk saw the end coming. The ANC military wing's "armed struggle" was actually a bit of a joke, of little threat in a civil war against SA's strong army. But terrorist bombing would have escalated, that's for sure.

 

As for Nelson Mandela, after the ANC's unbanning and his release, I imagine him telling the hot-heads under him (who may have understood the new freedom to mean White weakness, which must be exploited by force and seizure of property) -

 Either:

"Bloodshed is not the way, comrades - we must find a just and peaceful solution, and freedom for all citizens".

Or:

"Be patient. We will get it all in the end, anyway. Not in my time, but later."

 

I tend to the first option, with the added possibility that his Party eventually said: Enough. Time for you to retire, so we can move things along faster.  

Edited December 9, 2013 by whYNOT

[volco]

 

As for Nelson Mandela, after the ANC's unbanning and his release, I imagine him telling the hot-heads under him (who may have understood the new freedom to mean White weakness, which must be exploited by force)

 Either:

"Bloodshed is not the way, comrades - we must find a just and peaceful solution, and freedom for all citizens".

Or:

"Be patient. We will get it all in the end, anyway. Not in my time, but later."

 

I tend to the first option, with the added possibility that his Party eventually said: Enough. Time for you to retire, so we can move things along faster.  

The second option is what the 'Reactionaries'; called the fear of Uhuru (Liberartion) coming the day Mandela dies, right? 

The taxicabs blockading the city and all that jazz... 

no Uhuru still... 

[whYNOT]

Uhuru! Freedom! Kiswahili word from Kenya, not so known here.

 

Nah, it's not going to be that bad - why do it the hard way, when you can do it 'legally'? but watch this space. :0

 

(There are one or two Whites I know who believed it would be so, after his death. Alarmism, I think.)

Edited December 9, 2013 by whYNOT

[Nicky]

Personally, I find Apartheid worse than anything Socialist

Me: you're wrong about that.[insert explanation why, by describing the consequences of the two ideologies]

You:

Fortunately, as far as I know, none of this ever happened in South Africa.

That's our conversation.

What does that last statement have to do with whether socialism is better than apartheid? Full blown socialism didn't happen in SA, but it happened in plenty of places.

What you should do is forget about carrying on a pointless, never ending debate by changing the subject instead of addressing my arguments, and just look at those cases where someone successfully imposed socialism on a country. Then, take a look at Apartheid (or non-democratic nations/regions under minority or colonial rule, through history, if you want a wider sample of the what happens when the same racist ideology is applied). Then, make an objective comparison.

You'll find that your previous statement was arbitrary nonsense, based in nothing except some whim you felt was worth posting, and that socialism is in fact far worse than the ideology behind Apartheid.

Really, your facts about him that are negative, I can't find that those are accurate

Whenever I consider someone to be wrong, I call them out on it (not in my everyday life, because I like having friends, but it is what I do on this forum, because I don't see any other purpose to being here except having factual debates on a narrow category of subjects I don't get to talk about much). Sometimes I'm blunt about it, because I don't feel like pretending to be friendly with someone I don't like. So I don't mind being called wrong in a blunt manner. I do it too.

But I'd appreciate it if you took the time to do what I did above: specify what I'm wrong about. Please, quote a statement I made that is wrong, and reply to it directly. Otherwise, you're just being argumentative, not blunt. There's no way for me to address, or even begin to guess, what you're trying to correct me on. If you're even trying to correct me on anything. To be honest, I doubt you even have anything specific in mind.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Nicky

[Eiuol]

But I'd appreciate it if you took the time to do what I did above: specify what I'm wrong about. Please, quote a statement I made that is wrong, and reply to it directly. Otherwise, you're just being argumentative, not blunt. There's no way for me to address, or even begin to guess, what you're trying to correct me on. If you're even trying to correct me on anything. To be honest, I doubt you even have anything specific in mind.

I'm not even saying you're wrong or trying to correct you - this is not a competitiion. The disagreement was that as far as I know, at least the replacement for Aparheid was better and was not socialist to any degree of a "peoples state", so at least that is better. I admit, I don't know a lot about Mandela, so I want to learn. I just asked you what he did that's bad because I don't know. I'm asking for a source so I can talk more about this and find out more.

[Ben Archer]

Is it? In what way?

 

 

It's pretty tough to remake the social and political fabric of a nation just emerging from a tradition–bound past. (nevermind economic development for now). An uncomprehending peasantry must be converted into a modern farming population; a ragged bunch of casual laborers must be made over into a disciplined work force; bazaar–minded traders must become production–minded entrepreneurs.; nepotistic and corrupt bureaucracies much change into reliable civil servants. And until those changes happen, economic development will wait. 

 

It's always drawn–out and turbulent. If it could be done quickly, that would be one thing, but unfortunately that's not the prospect when you consider the logistics of development. Granted the situation isn't that black in every underdeveloped nation. But in general the implication is plain: economic development is not a smooth evolutionary prospect.

Now from our point of view, the cost of collectivism is high, because it denies political liberties and economic freedoms, among other things.. But collectivism doesn't wait for the slow, usually wasteful, growth–producing ways of the market...it just puts men where they're needed. (Stick > carrot)

 

Despite how it looks to the West, it's not so repugnant to the East/South. The harsh discipline of collectivism is much less noticeable at the margins of humanity where life is already horribly disciplined. The loss of liberty is hardly a loss to men who've never known liberty. As a method for achieving growth, it might not work for people who have a long history of past growth; but, to people who already live in misery and despair, it might be the only way of quickly escaping an insupportable life into a better future. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by Ben Archer

[Nicky]

I'm not even saying you're wrong or trying to correct you - this is not a competitiion. The disagreement was that as far as I know, at least the replacement for Aparheid was better

Well, you said socialism is better. But fine, forget socialism, let's talk about whether the replacement for Apartheid is better. Here's a random excerpt from wikipedia, on said replacement:

 

Dr. Mantombazana 'Manto' Edmie Tshabalala-Msimang (née Mali) (9 October 1940–16 December 2009)[1] was a South African politician. She was Deputy Minister of Justice from 1996 to 1999 and controversially served as Minister of Health from 1999 to 2008 under President Thabo Mbeki. She also served as Minister in the Presidency under President Kgalema Motlanthe from September 2008 to May 2009.

Her emphasis on treating South Africa's AIDS epidemic with easily accessible alcoholic beverages and vegetables such as garlic andbeetroot, rather than with antiretroviral medicines, was the subject of international criticism. These policies led to the deaths of over 300,000 South Africans.

 

Now, don't get me wrong: the apartheid was a terrible injustice. But can it really compete with a government who's Minister of Health treated AIDS with boose and garlic, and killed 300,000 people by doing so? Or with having a President who thinks HIV isn't what's causing AIDS? And then having a rapist for President, who raped an HIV positive teenager without a condom and then supposedly took a shower as a safety precaution?

 

Let's say, other than these three factoids, the new SA government is perfect in every way. Still, just based on these alone, can you really say it is better than the minority governments? 

 

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, despite being motivated by an irrational superiority complex, the white supremacists in the apartheid regime would've had a more rational and competent approach to addressing the AIDS, the crime, or the rape epidemic sweeping SA today, than the current government does?

 

Now from our point of view, the cost of collectivism is high

If by our point of view you mean any point of view placed a healthy 50 cms above an open history book, facing downward, then yes, from our point of view, the cost of collectivism is high.

But collectivism doesn't wait for the slow, usually wasteful, growth–producing ways of the market...it just puts men where they're needed.

Walk around for a while, until you spot books somewhere. Doesn't matter where. It could be a library, a book store, a fancier news stand, somebody's house, or just a guy standing next to some books. Ask that guy to lend you one that's about history. If they ask which one, tell them that it doesn't matter. Any one of them will do. Read that book. Then re-evaluate this theory. Edited December 12, 2013 by Nicky

[softwareNerd]

Despite how it looks to the West, it's not so repugnant to the East/South. The harsh discipline of collectivism is much less noticeable at the margins of humanity where life is already horribly disciplined. The loss of liberty is hardly a loss to men who've never known liberty. As a method for achieving growth, it might not work for people who have a long history of past growth; but, to people who already live in misery and despair, it might be the only way of quickly escaping an insupportable life into a better future. 

The people in the East and the West are not much different. When it comes to street-smart entrepreneurship there are thousands of people running little businesses in India who would put many average U.S. middle-class people to shame if we compare their drive and the odds they overcome. Not something less about the Westerner, but the easy life of the West means one can have a good life -- by Eastern standards, a wealthy life -- by coasting along doing mediocre work in a mediocre job (not bottom of the totem pole, but still mediocre middle-class). Four generations ago, this middle-class American's great-grandfather might have been the fruit-seller who borrowed money from a pawn-shop each week, to use as working capital, and took back the wife's necklace each Friday so she could wear it to church. Like that, there are folk in India who have to turn around their working capital daily.

The real difference is the political system under which the different people live. Politically-enshrined collective statism has held them back. Ironically those ideas aren't even Eastern, but are most often imported from the West. India is statist because its early leaders after independence studied Fabian Socialism in Cambridge, Oxford and similar places. China was communist -- not an eastern system.

It does not take much to convert bazaar-minded traders to become businessmen: we see it happen routinely in the East when the traders spot even a sliver of opportunity. It does not take much to get farm-hands to migrate in droves to factory-cities, where they live in conditions that are decried by professors. Just look at the millions who migrate that way in China -- and migrate despite rules that make it difficult for them to make their migration stable and permanent. Nope... no central planner is needed... they only hurt the process.

The irony is that the bulk of the population -- in South Africa and elsewhere -- could thrive under freedom, but they have bought into an ideology that says they ought not to be given full freedom. To the extent that they vote themselves freedom, they pretty much deal with it rationally and benefit from it, yet clamor for less freedom at the ballot-box.

Edited December 12, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Leonid]

Everybody who tries to fit Mandela into the scheme " Saint-Devil" is doomed to fail. He was a visionary, a revolutionary. a fighter against a great injustice which apartheid was. His means not always fitted the ends. In 1963 he was an angry 45 years old who went into the prison. In 1990 he reappeared as 72 years old mature statesman with the vision of reconciliation and non-racial South Africa. But there were nobody in his own party to share his vision. He could fight apartheid and win but he couldn't fight his own party, ANC, which for him was much more then just a political affiliation. It was his home and his church. He refused to contest for the second presidential term ( an unique event in Africa and in the world) and left politics in 1998, putting an insignificant nobody as a president instead. Then he went out of public life and practically secluded himself. There were a lot of charitable activities in Mandela's name, but he himself wasn't around. His legacy died long before him.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Leonid

[Leonid]

What's being missed here is that South Africa under the Nationalist Party was certainly socialist, de facto.

Economists, including one Andreas Wassenaar proved this ages ago.

Don Caldwell, one of the small group of libertarians in South Africa, wrote an excellent book: 'No More Martyrs Now', validating that fact, but showing too how the ANC was continuing down the same path as the Apartheid State, by policy and ideology.

Therefore, to a large degree, a false alternative.

Socialist 'business as usual'- in effect, then until now.

For those who want to believe in the brief South African fairy tale, you might bear this in mind.

Mandela's inestimable role in the once "Rainbow Nation" has been tarnished by the moral pygmies in the ANC since him.

None more than Jacob Zuma.

This is true. ANC didn't change much in the country macro-economics. The same large parastatal companies which apartheid created and the mining crony "capitalist" industry run business as usual. But there are differences. First, all cronies became blacks thanks to the policy of BEE ( Black economic empowerment). The rate which ANC produces black billionaires is unprecedented. The level of incompetence and corruption in all fields of government's enterprise is also unprecedented thanks to affirmative action. As one of the ANC affiliated fat cats said-I didn't go to the struggle to be poor. From  the other hand, the spirit of entrepreneurship of the black people has been released. There are myriads half-formal and informal mini and micro businesses around. Another unexpected result-since government services are crumbling, people develop alternatives-private schools and colleges often without licence, health services, private security etc..,South Africa de facto is becoming a libertarian state. There is a lot of resentment of ANC and in fact a passive civil disobedience-only 12 % of the people  pay traffic fines. The minor issue of toll gates caused a great uproar and united such political powers which usually are arch-enemies, like ANC affiliated trade unions and Democratic Alliance. There are many things happening in today's South Africa, for the better and worse. And all this started by one man-Nelson Mandela. May he rest in peace.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Leonid

[Ben Archer]

Nicky: If you want to practice your infamous charm go right ahead,  otherwise I'd make a point that doesn't start with assumptions on my education. 
 
SoftwareNerd: I do agree the situation is not as black everywhere (like I said) and certainly much better than it was in the 70's, especially in China and parts of India, like you mentioned.  I'm speaking more in general on the political problem of isolation: most of mankind has never had, does not now have, and in all probability will never have any contact with capitalism whatsoever. Capitalism is not the dominant system of organizing man's economic activities; on the contrary–if we judge by nose–counting—it is something of a rarity, and somewhat of an antiquity at that. 
 
Even in those areas of the world—like parts of South America—where development into capitalism is theoretically still possible, it is every unlikely that the end product will much resemble the kind of world we're familiar with. When I see strange anachronisms of skyscrapers and wooden plows, airplanes and oxcarts (or Chinese steam engines) that give Latin America or China their picturesqueness, it reminds me of 17th century England, with its half–formed market economy. Of course the big difference is England ruled much of the world then.
 

It does not take much to convert bazaar-minded traders to become businessmen: we see it happen routinely in the East when the traders spot even a sliver of opportunity. It does not take much to get farm-hands to migrate in droves to factory-cities, where they live in conditions that are decried by professors. Just look at the millions who migrate that way in China -- and migrate despite rules that make it difficult for them to make their migration stable and permanent. Nope... no central planner is needed... they only hurt the process.

 
To put those changes into effect is to overthrow a whole way of life—and very often, to overthrow a government and social order wedded to that life.  It takes years for a nation which is still striving to achieve widespread literacy to acquire the pool of skills and knowledge which is a requisite for even a modest economic growth. Nothing can be done overnight to relieve the dependence of many poor nations on the single crop they export to the unpredictable  markets of the world. And meanwhile, to lengthen the timetable still more, a torrent of population growth washes away the small gains in production under a deluge of births.
 
Again I don't think it's that bad everywhere. just that economic development does not hold out the easy hope that it will encourage the rise of democratically oriented, free societies. And that more likely is the prospect of authoritarian politics, strong–man governments, mild (or not so mild) dictatorships, combined with authoritarian economics , strong–man economics measures, mild or not–so–mild collectivism. 
 

To the extent that they vote themselves freedom, they pretty much deal with it rationally and benefit from it, yet clamor for less freedom at the ballot-box.

I completely agree on the irony here. Unfortunately in the contest of economic systems, it doesn't matter if our political aims are ultimately more noble, more humanitarian or virtuous. Because we can't encourage a revolutionary economic policy, we are very apt to appear in the eyes of a sweated Bolivian miner or a debt–ridden Brazilian tenant farmer as defenders or reaction, while the Left plays the role of Robin Hood.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Ben Archer

[softwareNerd]

... ... to overthrow a whole way of life ... ...

My focus is not on speed, but on direction. Relatively free democratic voting means the country will probably not turn on a dime. The question is whether it moves gradually toward freedom or away from it.

In the South African context, removing all ongoing legal discrimination based on skin color was a huge step giving a lot of people freedom. The unfortunate part is that it also changes the electorate to one that wants to reduce freedom in other areas. If I look at the realistic options and consider what I would want to see in the first black post-Apartheid leader, it would be someone who keeps a check on the majority populations desire to punish the white population at large, or to go down the lines of Zimbabwe. I praise Mandela for keeping things under control with his preaching of reconciliation.

 

After this first re-setting what comes next?

 

... ... very often, to overthrow a government and social order wedded to that life. ... ...

Sure, the government and social elites are most to blame. They are the ones who take some philosophy and push it, pretend to be its champions, etc. When the population is at point X, the leadership can move it to point X+n  or to point X-m. It cannot move it much beyond while remaining democratic, because the voters won't buy it. (See Overton window). So, we should judge post-Mandela governments by how they moved the country after the initial stabilization. Leaders aid evil when they move the country away from freedom. It is something they do from a mix of reasons: to steal money for their personal bank-accounts, or for ideological reasons.

 

If African (or South American) leaders would simply roll-put a little of Herdanando de Soto's suggestions each term, their countries would thrive. In other words, within the Overton Window offered by cultural norms, it is the task of leaders to grant as much new freedom as the culture will take. That is the realistic standard against which we should judge post-Mandela governments, Japan's Abe, China's government, or Barack Obama.

[Eiuol]

 

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, despite being motivated by an irrational superiority complex, the white supremacists in the apartheid regime would've had a more rational and competent approach to addressing the AIDS, the crime, or the rape epidemic sweeping SA today, than the current government does?

 

No, I don't. One person doesn't represent a government, either. Anyway, I'm asking about what Mandela did. I don't see what one bad apple represents?

 

You said Mandela was complicit in mass murder and implied he was as bad as Lenin and Chavez. What's your evidence?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Eiuol

[Nicky]

No, I don't. One person doesn't represent a government, either. Anyway, I'm asking about what Mandela did. I don't see what one bad apple represents?

 

You said Mandela was complicit in mass murder and implied he was as bad as Lenin and Chavez. What's your evidence?

It's on wikipedia. I'm not going to move Mandela's wikipedia page into the thread. Just look it up.

as far as I know, at least the replacement for Aparheid was better

Anyway, I'm asking about what Mandela did.

No, I'm pretty sure that's a statement about the replacement for Apartheid, not Mandela. Like I said, you keep changing the subject. Edited December 12, 2013 by Nicky

[whYNOT]

This is true. ANC didn't change much in the country macro-economics. The same large parastatal companies which apartheid created and the mining crony "capitalist" industry run business as usual. But there are differences. First, all cronies became blacks thanks to the policy of BEE ( Black economic empowerment). The rate which ANC produces black billionaires is unprecedented. The level of incompetence and corruption in all fields of government's enterprise is also unprecedented thanks to affirmative action. As one of the ANC affiliated fat cats said-I didn't go to the struggle to be poor. From  the other hand, the spirit of entrepreneurship of the black people has been released. There are myriads half-formal and informal mini and micro businesses around. Another unexpected result-since government services are crumbling, people develop alternatives-private schools and colleges often without licence, health services, private security etc..,South Africa de facto is becoming a libertarian state. There is a lot of resentment of ANC and in fact a passive civil disobedience-only 12 % of the people  pay traffic fines. The minor issue of toll gates caused a great uproar and united such political powers which usually are arch-enemies, like ANC affiliated trade unions and Democratic Alliance. There are many things happening in today's South Africa, for the better and worse. And all this started by one man-Nelson Mandela. May he rest in peace.

 

Leon, It obviously boils down to governments laying moral claim to 'socially engineer' a country. They can and do assert that it's with the accord of the populace - but, any majority that thinks they will get something out of it, will grab it, or follow like sheep, as we know. Apartheid was social engineering, based on the collectivist principle of racial superiority and racial differences; and now the ANC is also doing the same thing, on the basis of the collectivist principle of egalitarianism. (Purportedly- though with an element of racial hatred thrown in).

Democracy as an ideal has always been suspect (it's not looking too good in established Western nations). One has to empathize with unsophisticated people in repressed nations anywhere who have never known it - and believe that it, alone, will automatically grant them freedom from their fellow men, work opportunities, security and acceptance by the world. If most of Old Europe doesn't understand 'freedom', what can one expect from Africans who have never really tasted it?

They are sitting ducks for every unrealistic, lying promise the fat cat politicians make them. 

[Eiuol]

It's on wikipedia. I'm not going to move Mandela's wikipedia page into the thread. Just look it up.

No, I'm pretty sure that's a statement about the replacement for Apartheid, not Mandela. Like I said, you keep changing the subject.

I looked, I'm not seeing it. This is the closest: "Although initially committed to non-violent protest, he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961 in association with the South African Communist Party, leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government."

 

The bad stuff of that organization was after he was in jail. And also, even still, it's not unheard of for people to change after jail. He was not involved at the time when anyone died or when there were bombings. I'm not saying he was someone I'd admire, it's just factually wrong to say he was complicit in mass murder or in any way did things comparable to Lenin, Castro, or Chavez.

 

I only commented on Apartheid as an aside, since I find it absurd to say Mandela's even helped develop a socialist state if he never nationalized anything. You said there were quotas for hiring minorities, and yes, that's implicitly racist, but not nearly as bad as denying rights to property, denying voting, and other really hateful things. I suppose Apartheid is better than Socialism, but besides, South Africa isn't Socialist. So if you want to argue just that Mandela ruined a county, that just makes no sense.

[Leonid]

Tony, government in principle cannot deliver social services as it promises during each and every election. The reason for it is that such a delivery requires production which is a realm of mind. Government is a tool of coercion. However it seems that there no way to prevent government from the intervention in production and distribution of wealth. In South African context I can see only one solution. Since current ANC government is inherently corrupted and represents a new socio-economic system which could be called cleptocracy, we should vote them into the power and let them steal public funds on one condition-they shouldn't do anything else. They should keep their hands off from any enterprise, which they do anyway by default. In such a situation people slowly but surly will become self-sufficient. 

Edited December 13, 2013 by Leonid

[whYNOT]

"They shouldn't do anything else". 

Leon, if only!

I think you underestimate this State's lust for power which they justify to themselves with the self-righteousness of doing 'good' for The People.

 

That's the meat and potatoes for this bunch, while their looting of the coffers is the gravy on top. 

Men are going to look back one day and view in SA's history, one short bright passage, between two morally corrupt regimes. Echoing your sentiment: R.I.P. Nelson Mandela.

[Leonid]

"They shouldn't do anything else". 

Leon, if only!

I think you underestimate this State's lust for power which they justify to themselves with the self-righteousness of doing 'good' for The People.

 

That's the meat and potatoes for this bunch, while their looting of the coffers is the gravy on top. 

Men are going to look back one day and view in SA's history, one short bright passage, between two morally corrupt regimes. Echoing your sentiment: R.I.P. Nelson Mandela.

Lust they have, power-no, like any impotent. They can talk high-brow English about doing good for the people, but unable to maintain traffic lights, let alone any form of dictatorship.They are simply bunch of buffoons, which The People ignore or laugh on them. Watch the last DVD of Trevor Noah. He openly calls President Zuma a thief.

[whYNOT]

Leon: In that many people here are starting to learn the hard way not to expect anything from the ANC's empty promises, does not fill me with confidence. They have still not learned self-reliance after 20 years (which suits the State fine) - and will, if the State doesn't provide, merely look to gain from others and elsewhere. Remember too, that those intellectuals who are attacking Zuma now, are doing so on the grounds of his ineptness, self-enrichment and corruption, not on his principles (or lack of). They remain staunch Socialists underneath, as likely as the others to push for nationalisation.

 

I would far prefer the quasi-anarchist society you've been hinting at: in some senses it already is that, as you say. But impossible to sustain. I think one can take it as given, that at the first signs of loss of control and power, the ANC will throw huge amounts of finance and eventually force to regain it. The 'Church' will not lose its flock easily. 

Edited December 14, 2013 by whYNOT

[Leonid]

Leon: In that many people here are starting to learn the hard way not to expect anything from the ANC's empty promises, does not fill me with confidence. They have still not learned self-reliance after 20 years - and will, if the State doesn't provide, merely look to get it elsewhere. Remember, too that the intellectuals who are attacking Zuma now, are doing so on the grounds of his ineptness, self-enrichment and corruption, not on his principles. They remain staunch Socialists underneath, as likely as the others to push for nationalisation.

 

I would far prefer the quasi-anarchist society you've been hinting at: in some senses it already is that, as you say. But impossible to sustain. I think one can take it as given, that at the first signs of loss of control and power, the ANC will throw huge amounts of finance and eventually force to regain it. The Church will not lose its flock easily. 

Not as long as they they control State treasure and get their share from the mining industry. They are Mafia-style government, and mafia never wanted to control people minds, or to restrict them in any way as long as they pay. ANC will never allow nationalization, they not so stupid to kill a goose which lays the golden eggs.

[Ben Archer]

S'nerd I agree on your optimism with the direction of change in South Africa...we'll have to see. The overton window is very interesting. and pretty much makes the point that we should not attempt to steal the Communists' thunder, and give credit to Mandela where its due. 

 
After this first re-setting what comes next?

 

Now the immeasurably more difficult and subtle task of persuading the world's dispossessed that we (proponents of capitalistic ideals) are just as concerned with their lot, just as eager to aid reform as the Communists—although our  promises are less tinged with paradise and our means and slogans are less dramatic than theirs. Of course that may leave us with the prior job of convincing ourselves that this indeed is the case. 

 

Then again that is the external problem. The internal problem is that as we depart, little by little, from a philosophy of laissez–faire and espouse a philosophy of active guidance, the question of social responsibility is inescapably thrust upon us. The more successful the economic mechanism, the more pressing  becomes the social, political, and moral use to which that mechanism is put.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Ben Archer

[Leonid]

S'nerd I agree on your optimism with the direction of change in South Africa...we'll have to see. The overton window is very interesting. and pretty much makes the point that we should not attempt to steal the Communists' thunder, and give credit to Mandela where its due. 

 

Now the immeasurably more difficult and subtle task of persuading the world's dispossessed that we (proponents of capitalistic ideals) are just as concerned with their lot, just as eager to aid reform as the Communists—although our  promises are less tinged with paradise and our means and slogans are less dramatic than theirs. Of course that may leave us with the prior job of convincing ourselves that this indeed is the case. 

 

Then again that is the external problem. The internal problem is that as we depart, little by little, from a philosophy of laissez–faire and espouse a philosophy of active guidance, the question of social responsibility is inescapably thrust upon us. The more successful the economic mechanism, the more pressing  becomes the social, political, and moral use to which that mechanism is put.

The evidence that capitalism brings prosperity and communism only misery and poverty is all around us and well recorded in the history of 20th century. If reality cannot persuade them, nothing will. The problem is that they are not after prosperity but after equality, and to achieve this they would turn everybody to dispossessed. As for the question of social responsibility, it has to be confronted on the moral ground of rational egoism. They have to be explained once and for all why nobody owns them their life, that they have no claim on the life of other people and if they want help they may have it as a charity, not as a right and only those who deserve it.

[whYNOT]

Mafia? No, worse. I could almost accept a straight Kleptocracy. These are people who want to control body, mind and soul - while enriching themselves in the process as their 'deserved' rewards. Combine Attila with the Witch Doctor to see the picture. The ANC craves love and worship, and will brutalize people to get it and keep it.

"We will rule until the Second Coming of Christ" - as one politico said, exposing his premises.

Edited December 14, 2013 by whYNOT

[Leonid]

Mafia? No, worse. I could almost accept a straight Kleptocracy. These are people who want to control body, mind and soul - while enriching themselves in the process as their 'deserved' rewards. Combine Attila with the Witch Doctor to see the picture. The ANC craves love and worship, and will brutalize people to get it and keep it.

"We will rule until the Second Coming of Christ" - as one politico said, exposing his premises.

They may crave, but who will give them? Most of the blacks which i know are utterly disappointed with them. Now, come on! To brutalize people in order to get love was an impossible task even for the worse dictators. This is an Orwellian fantasy. Even if people are forced to express an admiration it is no more than pretense. But ANC never got even that and never will. The last booing of Zuma just shows how people love and worship him and his party.