Political left at crossroads
Steve Hayes
The political Left in South Africa is at a crossroads in the history of its
revolution, according to the SA Communist Party’s policy conference discussion
document released today.
“As the National Liberation Movement prepares for elections in the first half
of next year, and as we face the many new possibilities but also challenges
that have emerged since the ANC’s 52nd National Conference, the question of
State power and the role of the SACP in this regard have become even more
critical.
“Both the opportunities and the dangers have escalated. The SACP has a major
role to play in the current context and much depends on our ability to rise to
the occasion,” the document said.
Many important positive resolutions were adopted at Polokwane, and there was
generally a much improved policy-making engagement within the African National
Congress, SACP and Congress of SA Trade Unions (Cosatu) alliance.
However, the document said there were many challenges and threats.
The ANC, in particular, continued to be beset with very serious factional
crises and these continually spilled over into its alliance partners.
The capacity of the ANC to run an effective election campaign or to provide
strategic leadership under these conditions, and if not immediately addressed,
could be impaired.
Among other things, there were also “fight back” initiatives in some quarters,
seeking to undermine the progressive outcomes of Polokwane.
There was rank opportunism in some quarters — either by those who regarded
themselves “Polokwane victors” and who sought to advance not the policy
positions agreed at conference but their own personal careers.
There were also those who were suddenly crossing the floor and becoming
zealots of the “new cause”.
And, at the back of all of this, was the sheer power and tactical flexibility
of the capitalist class within society, according to the documents.
TWO CONTRADICTORY FUTURE SCENARIOS
The current post-Polokwane reality contained at least two contradictory
potential scenarios.
Firstly, a scenario in which the many positive features of Polokwane — the
opening up of democratic space, the consolidation of fresh policy, the
rebuilding of mass campaigning and organisation, were all taken forward.
Secondly, a negative scenario in which the Left failed to hegemonise the
post-Polokwane reality, and instead (and particularly after national elections
in 2009) a new alliance of “1996 class project floor-crossers”,
“compradorists” and “fugitives from justice” coalesced around a programme of
awarding influential posts, tenders and contracts to themselves, while the
factional destabilisation (and not democratic transformation) of the state,
including the criminal justice system, persisted.
If the latter scenario prevailed, the Left would be used for the electoral
campaign and then dumped, with some individuals co-opted, while the rest were
marginalised, perhaps more brutally than before.
“We are, therefore, at the crossroads in the history of our revolution. The
conjuncture is full of real space for consolidating an effective, progressive,
programmatic approach to state power.
“However, the space opened up by Polokwane can also be squandered and the
opportunity lost,” the document said.
PARTY INDEPENDENCE?
The struggle to ensure the hegemony of the Left in the present reality made it
imperative that the SACP return to the subject of the party and state power.
The two general possible electoral “modalities” for the party in 2009, were
firstly, independent [SACP] electoral lists on the voter’s roll with the
possible objective of constituting a coalition alliance agreement
post-elections.
Alternatively, an electoral pact with the alliance partners, which could
include agreement on deployments, possible quotas, the accountability of
elected representatives, including the accountability of SACP cadres to the
party, the election manifesto, and the importance of an independent face and
role for the SACP and its cadres within legislatures.
In practice (at least for the prospective national/provincial elections of
2009), the SACP had already chosen this latter option.
Already the SACP was actively participating in the ANC-led election campaign
planning, election manifesto preparations, and related policy-development
processes.
This did not mean that the alternative option of an independent SACP electoral
list should quietly and now forever disappear from the table, the document
said.
Already one SACP province had indicated its intention to argue for an
independent SACP electoral list in the next round of local elections.
The modality of the SACP’s engagement with elections was not a matter of
timeless principle, but something that needed to be periodically analysed and
evaluated in the light of potentially shifting realities.
“However, if indeed we are serious and sincere about an ANC-led election
campaign in 2009, then it is critical that we should not be ambiguous, or send
mixed signals about this over the coming eight or so months.
“On the other hand, this certainly does not mean that the SACP should simply
give the ANC a “blank cheque” — 100% party support and activist effort, but
without any serious party influence or impact on the campaign and beyond,” the
document says.
Sapa
Bob Dubery
It seems to me that, in fact, it is the SACP that uses the ANC. The
SACP never seem satisfied with the relationship, and seem to think
that they bring a non-trivial amount of support to the ANC. Why don't
they put their money where their mouths are (if communists are allowed
to do that) and go it alone on their own platform?
I had to do some googling over the word "compradorists". It seems it
is not even run-of-the-mill communist party jargon, but particular to
the SACP. Why don't they just say "coconut" or "sell-out" and make
themselves clear?
Peter H.M. Brooks
actually, not of course, for the 'masses', but for themselves.
>
> I had to do some googling over the word "compradorists". It seems it
> is not even run-of-the-mill communist party jargon, but particular to
> the SACP. Why don't they just say "coconut" or "sell-out" and make
> themselves clear?
>
understand that what they were saying was bullshit. So they always
have, and, presumably, as long as they continue to exist, always will
try to be obscure in their language. Sadly, for them, they tend not to
be that good at the obscurity (it requires a certain flexibility and
nimbleness of mind that doesn't coexist well with adherence to Marx as
a god) so you can get the drift of what they think they're banging on
about - as you do above.
Notice how they love to use their own argot in the hope that it will
sound impressive. There's a machine that produces the stuff by the
yard - it's quite fun, actually:
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> For extremely good reasons! If pinkoes were clear then people would
> understand that what they were saying was bullshit. So they always
> have, and, presumably, as long as they continue to exist, always will
> try to be obscure in their language. Sadly, for them, they tend not to
> be that good at the obscurity (it requires a certain flexibility and
> nimbleness of mind that doesn't coexist well with adherence to Marx as
> a god) so you can get the drift of what they think they're banging on
> about - as you do above.
The press are missing a golden opportunity here. Instead of trying to
catch Jacob Zuma trying to get a parking ticket torn up, they should
be at SACP press conferences asking exactly what all these funny words
mean and trying to catch them letting their real agenda out. Rather
like a certain cliqure of American political reporters some years ago
who kept on asking Jessie Jackson questions that were designed to get
him to say "hymie" or "yid".
Peter H.M. Brooks
Mbeki's stilted weekly school reports were usually good for a laugh.
There are some jobs where there's a higher risk than usual of coming
across pinkos - civil servants, of course, are usually left-wing
because it is left-wing governments that grow bureaucracies. Being
state employees is one of the reasons that academics are often left-
wing. With journalists there aren't such clear reasons, but it is
exceptional for a journalist to be anything other than left-wing. Most
people can name the world's right wing journalists, they're that rare.
It'd be interesting to know exactly why this is so - I suspect that
there are a number of reasons. In any event, having journalists in
South Africa asking serious questions and getting interesting answers
out of the CP is not very likely to happen in my opinion.
Steve Hayes
<Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I had to do some googling over the word "compradorists". It seems it
>> is not even run-of-the-mill communist party jargon, but particular to
>> the SACP. Why don't they just say "coconut" or "sell-out" and make
>> themselves clear?
>>
>For extremely good reasons! If pinkoes were clear then people would
>understand that what they were saying was bullshit. So they always
>have, and, presumably, as long as they continue to exist, always will
>try to be obscure in their language. Sadly, for them, they tend not to
>be that good at the obscurity (it requires a certain flexibility and
>nimbleness of mind that doesn't coexist well with adherence to Marx as
>a god) so you can get the drift of what they think they're banging on
>about - as you do above.
You are, however, anything but clear in your use of "pinkoes".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:46:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>
> >> I had to do some googling over the word "compradorists". It seems it
> >> is not even run-of-the-mill communist party jargon, but particular to
> >> the SACP. Why don't they just say "coconut" or "sell-out" and make
> >> themselves clear?
>
> >For extremely good reasons! If pinkoes were clear then people would
> >understand that what they were saying was bullshit. So they always
> >have, and, presumably, as long as they continue to exist, always will
> >try to be obscure in their language. Sadly, for them, they tend not to
> >be that good at the obscurity (it requires a certain flexibility and
> >nimbleness of mind that doesn't coexist well with adherence to Marx as
> >a god) so you can get the drift of what they think they're banging on
> >about - as you do above.
>
> You are, however, anything but clear in your use of "pinkoes".
>
leftish persuasion.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
> leftish persuasion.- Hide quoted text -
Terms like "left" and "right" are actually pretty vague.
The Nats used to refer to the progs as "left", but in some ways the
Nats were more socialist than the Progs. The Progs were certainly to
the right of the Nats economically. Arguably the current government is
to the right of the Nats in terms of macro-economic management.
Peter H.M. Brooks
accurate, term. Just as hey-wow space cadet is more accurate than
'alternative medicine enthusiast'.
We do have a lot of nationalised industry still - it'll be nice when
Telkom finally has some competition and we don't have to pay caviar
rates for the fish & chips internet service.
We have quite a healthy private and contractor service. The notion
(shared by the Nats, of course) of selecting various groups of people
to give preferential employment opportunities (ethnic cleansing of the
workplace) had the effect of raising unemployment under the Nats, but,
under the ANC it has led to many more independent consultants. In both
cases the policy has helped keep the brain drain flowing nicely.
Remember that the Nazis, were 'National Socialists' - socialism, at
least a particular brand of it, is part of fascism. Fascism, like
socialism and communism, believes strongly in forcing people to do
what is 'good for them' and also has a strong ideological basis.
I suppose that I'm really meaning, by 'left', a centralist,
controlling, ideology fueled view of how to achieve things. This does
cover fascism, communism and many brands of socialism.
The opposite, which I'm thinking of as 'right', is a non-ideological
(aka pragmatic) approach to decentralised minimally invasive state
involvement. As you say, the ANC's actual economic record is more in
line with this than the Nats - the ANC is happy to have casinos,
brothels, shopping on Sundays, relatively free alcohol policies and so
forth.
One unfortunate consequence of the more ideological approach is a
large expenditure on arms. Part of the reason that the 'tiger'
economies of Asia did so well (notably Japan and now China) is a tiny
spend on weapons. Huge weapons spending is an economic brake, of
course, and one of the big reasons why Africa does so very badly
economically. Just last week a shipment of 30 tanks on their way to
Somalia was hijacked by pirates - it's a terrible waste of money.
I know that SA is trying to redress this by working to be a bigger
exporter of arms (there was a big airshow in Cape Town last week to
try to bolster weapons exports), but this is likely to be mainly to
the detriment of the rest of the continent who will probably be the
buyers.
A bit of a move to the 'right', away from the ideology that needs
arms, would probably be quite a good thing.
Of course, this analysis shows the UK and US to be 'left' with their
massive arms dependancy and ideological control.. which might be
counter-intuitive to some.
Peter H.M. Brooks
this. The Nats worked to keep fear up through using 'rooi-gevaar' and
'swart-gevaar' to legitimise their totalitarian moves. In the US, the
Shrub has used the 'war on terror' as a means of building fear for
exactly the same reason - and New 'error of judgement' Labour has
found it a useful tool for building a more fascist state too.
The ANC has been a bit weak on deploying fear as a means of increasing
state control - and has avoided using its majority to change to a more
repressive constitution, thus, again, showing itself more 'right-wing'
or 'conservative' than the Nats.
Steve Hayes
I am reminded of "The Jack Acid Society Black Book" by Walt Kelly.
It was a satire on the John Birch Society in the US, and in it two characters,
the deacon and the mushrat, go round making a list of pinkoes and comsymps and
others suspected of UnAmerican activities.
Two other characters, the cowbirds, who are communists, object because they
have been blacklisted from the black list. They say that they are communists
and demand to be included. But the deacon and the mushrat demur. "You are
known communists," they say, "so you can't be on a list of suspects."
Communists aren't wishy-washy pinkoes, they are full-blown Reds (full-bodied,
as the wine snobs might say).
And of course George Bush and John McCain and the US Republican Party get all
their support from "Red" states, while all those true-blue Tories of the
conservative Democratic Party get their support from the "Blue" states.
Nevertheless, the Communist Party are your actual Reds, whether under the bed
or not. They are not suspects and comsymps and wishy-washy pinkoes.
The Brit Labour Paqrty used to sing the Red Flag at their congresses -- I
wonder if they still do?
The people's flag is deepest red
It shrrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
their heart's blood died its every fold
So raise the scarlet standard high
within its shade we'll live and die
though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
we'll keep the Red Flag flying here.
and the wishy-washy pinko version:
The people's flag is deepest pink
It hangs above the kitchen sink
the working class can kiss my arse
I've got the foreman's job at last.
See the difference?
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sep 29, 8:00 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
>> leftish persuasion.- Hide quoted text -
>
>Terms like "left" and "right" are actually pretty vague.
And just to make things vaguer still, some Americans are now talking about the
"theological left" and the "theological right". It's bad enough in politics;
in theology it's quite impossible. I've blogged about it here, for anyone
interested:
http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-left-theological-right.html
>The Nats used to refer to the progs as "left", but in some ways the
>Nats were more socialist than the Progs. The Progs were certainly to
>the right of the Nats economically. Arguably the current government is
>to the right of the Nats in terms of macro-economic management.
The ANC is positively Thatcherist.
Steve Hayes
<Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Remember that the Nazis, were 'National Socialists' - socialism, at
>least a particular brand of it, is part of fascism. Fascism, like
>socialism and communism, believes strongly in forcing people to do
>what is 'good for them' and also has a strong ideological basis.
Oh dear, Peter, I thought you were immune to that kind of American right-wing
sophistry, which is about on the same level as those who say that America is
not a democracy but a republic, using contorted definitions of the terms to
justify their silliness.
Bob Dubery
> Communists aren't wishy-washy pinkoes, they are full-blown Reds (full-bodied,
> as the wine snobs might say).
I always thought a pinko was somebody who had communist leadings. Such
a term would have been needed so that the Senator McCarthies of the
world could still find ways of persecuting and besmirching people who
could answer "no" to all the "are you now or have you ever been..."
type questions but still were regarded as un-American, undesirable
etc.
But then in that era they used to talk about "commy pinko liberals",
so perhaps the word was to just to deny full-blooded redness and paint
liberals as limp-wristed panty-waists.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:01:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>
> >Remember that the Nazis, were 'National Socialists' - socialism, at
> >least a particular brand of it, is part of fascism. Fascism, like
> >socialism and communism, believes strongly in forcing people to do
> >what is 'good for them' and also has a strong ideological basis.
>
> Oh dear, Peter, I thought you were immune to that kind of American right-wing
> sophistry, which is about on the same level as those who say that America is
> not a democracy but a republic, using contorted definitions of the terms to
> justify their silliness.
>
ideology being a nasty way to run things (look at Saudi Arabia for
another example of pretty much the same thing as Stalin's Soviet Union
and Franco's Spain).
If you can point to genuine differences, then why not do so, rather
than simply dismissing the point?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 29, 8:00 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
> >> leftish persuasion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Terms like "left" and "right" are actually pretty vague.
>
> And just to make things vaguer still, some Americans are now talking about the
> "theological left" and the "theological right". It's bad enough in politics;
> in theology it's quite impossible. I've blogged about it here, for anyone
> interested:
>
>
> >The Nats used to refer to the progs as "left", but in some ways the
> >Nats were more socialist than the Progs. The Progs were certainly to
> >the right of the Nats economically. Arguably the current government is
> >to the right of the Nats in terms of macro-economic management.
>
> The ANC is positively Thatcherist.
>
proportion, than Thatcher ever did. Thatcher used to come out with all
sorts of rhetoric about doing various things, but, under her, health
spending, for example, increased considerably.
I suppose you could say that the ANC do what Thatcher said she'd do
rather than what she actually did.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> It was a satire on the John Birch Society in the US, and in it two characters,
> the deacon and the mushrat, go round making a list of pinkoes and comsymps and
> others suspected of UnAmerican activities.
>
at the heart of US behaviour - look at the figures of which countries
keep the most people in prison and you see more evidence of how deep
seated this is.
>
> So raise the scarlet standard high
> within its shade we'll live and die
> though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
> we'll keep the Red Flag flying here.
>
> and the wishy-washy pinko version:
>
> The people's flag is deepest pink
> It hangs above the kitchen sink
> the working class can kiss my arse
> I've got the foreman's job at last.
>
> See the difference?
>
difference there!
The second is the more truthful version of the first, though. It is
the petty street-committee interference that marks a totalitarian
state (did you see the excellent film about this 'The Life of Others')
not the grand parades.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sep 30, 5:22 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Communists aren't wishy-washy pinkoes, they are full-blown Reds (full-bodied,
> > as the wine snobs might say).
>
> I always thought a pinko was somebody who had communist leadings. Such
> a term would have been needed so that the Senator McCarthies of the
> world could still find ways of persecuting and besmirching people who
> could answer "no" to all the "are you now or have you ever been..."
> type questions but still were regarded as un-American, undesirable
> etc.
>
question as a starter for ten before getting down to the real
interrogation - and they were less interested in ideological
association than friendship with people they didn't like. Stalin must
have loved HUAC, seeing his enemies using his own tactics would have
tickled his sense of humour - and Uncle Joe did have a sense of
humour.
There's a very good paperback on the whole HUAC episode and it shows
not that McCarthy was such an exceptional bigot, but how easy it was
for such a bigot to get into such an influential position. These days
they don't need HUAC, they've got the 'War on Terror' on top of their
existing 'three strikes and you're out' to stigmatise and put away any
individuals that rock the boat or whose 'face doesn't fit'.
>
> But then in that era they used to talk about "commy pinko liberals",
> so perhaps the word was to just to deny full-blooded redness and paint
> liberals as limp-wristed panty-waists.
>
I thought the term was 'commie pinko fag' - which was used against
hippies, a less apt group so to name it is difficult to imagine.
The Spanish anarchists learned, to their cost, that communists and
fascists have the same underlying agenda even though they hate each
other over ideological niceties (eg who exactly should be put up
against the wall and shot).
Steve Hayes
They privatised stuff, like Maggie Thatcher.
They took things paid for by taxpayers and sold them to private enterprise.
They deregulated stuff, just like Maggie Thatcher.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Peter H.M. Brooks
though, they're not nationalising everything - though Black Executive
Enrichment programmes might be seen as sort of nationalisation.
>
> They took things paid for by taxpayers and sold them to private enterprise.
>
>
> They deregulated stuff, just like Maggie Thatcher.
>
increased regulation and the telecoms deregulation is still a long way
from complete.
Steve Hayes
Well, the Nats started it in the 1980s (the Reagan-Thatcher years). The
deregulated transport, so more heavy goods travel by road on 26 and 32
wheelers. Before that it went by rail.
Now look at the state of the roads, which weren't designed to carry that kind
of traffic.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:24:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>
> >On Sep 30, 8:47 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> They deregulated stuff, just like Maggie Thatcher.
>
> >I'm not sure what you're meaning here. The King II commission has
> >increased regulation and the telecoms deregulation is still a long way
> >from complete.
>
> Well, the Nats started it in the 1980s (the Reagan-Thatcher years). The
> deregulated transport, so more heavy goods travel by road on 26 and 32
> wheelers. Before that it went by rail.
>
> Now look at the state of the roads, which weren't designed to carry that kind
> of traffic.
>
railways here. You'd have thought that there'd be fast links between
the three major centres competing with aeroplanes. I'd far rather take
a train, but a 5 hour train, not an 18 hour one!
There is a fair amount of rail traffic - the line to Durban is very
busy - but it's a pretty pathetic network really. I wanted to take my
car on the train from Cape Town to Harrismith and this proved
completely impossible. In Europe it's quite easy to take your car to
useful parts, avoiding the long boring drives. I drove to Madrid, via
Grenoble and Barcelona, once, and, since it was Friday and I had to be
at work on Monday, took the car on the train from Toulouse to Paris,
then Paris to Pom, leaving me only the trip to Bristol to drive on the
Sunday morning. Perfect, and cheap. With a bit of imagination and
investment that sort of thing should be possible here.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> On Sep 30, 5:29 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Sep 29, 8:00 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >> Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
> > >> leftish persuasion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >Terms like "left" and "right" are actually pretty vague.
>
> > And just to make things vaguer still, some Americans are now talking about the
> > "theological left" and the "theological right". It's bad enough in politics;
> > in theology it's quite impossible. I've blogged about it here, for anyone
> > interested:
>
> >http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-left-theological-ri...
>
> > >The Nats used to refer to the progs as "left", but in some ways the
> > >Nats were more socialist than the Progs. The Progs were certainly to
> > >the right of the Nats economically. Arguably the current government is
> > >to the right of the Nats in terms of macro-economic management.
>
> > The ANC is positively Thatcherist.
>
> They spend a lot more on arms and a lot less on health as a
> proportion, than Thatcher ever did. Thatcher used to come out with all
> sorts of rhetoric about doing various things, but, under her, health
> spending, for example, increased considerably.
Though perceptions are funny things. Tony Blair is regarded as having
done great things for the economy, but it seems to me that he got
lucky on the back of a global boom and policies put in place by Major.
Thatcher was pretty keen on arms deals as well - usually because Marky-
boy got a big commission courtesy of Mumsy.
I also heard an outrageous story on my recent visit about Thatcher
backing Turkey's bid for EU membership in return for a contract for a
bridge over the Bosphorous being awarded (without going through all
that long-winded tendering rigmarole) to a company with one D Thatcher
as Chairman. The tale goes on that the mainstream press missed out on
all of this, but that a specialist publication for architects and
landscape gardeners got wind of the surveying being done and
eventually blew the whistle on the whole thing.
I don't know if that one's actually true or not, but it's pretty
entertaining.
Thatcher gets blamed for a lot of stuff these days. But when the
wheels of the economy started creaking mid-year and Brown was widely
viewed as not being up to the job, The Times ran a survey to find out
who Britons would like to see running the country, and the most votes
(though not a majority) went to Baroness Thatcher.
I think it's a bit rough on Brown. Nobody seems to have factored in
the fact that he came into power just as "boom" was turning to "bust".
I wonder if Blair saw that coming and got out while the going was
good.
One hugely interesting thing for me is that Brown, something of a self-
made man from not that auspicious a background, is widely regarded as
being a snooty toff, whilst Cameron, old Etonian, born with silver
spoon in mouth, married to an heiress, is perceived as being one of
the lads - principally because his push bike got stolen from outside
of Tescos.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> I think it's a bit rough on Brown. Nobody seems to have factored in
> the fact that he came into power just as "boom" was turning to "bust".
> I wonder if Blair saw that coming and got out while the going was
> good.
>
I've mentioned the major one of the FSA, but there were legions of
other, stupid pissing about with an overly complex tax system (that
costs a fortune to run - one of the many huge civil service overheads
that the UK suffers because of Phony and chums), wasting milliards in
the most stupid gold sell-off ever and so on. He's a walking disaster
area, how anybody thinks he is any good at anything is beyond me!
Yes, Phony and Brown have managed to turn a vibrant economy into a
mess, the anti-Midas touch is strongly with them.
AGGreen
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o873e4l1vbetmhpot...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:01:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Remember that the Nazis, were 'National Socialists' - socialism, at
>>least a particular brand of it, is part of fascism. Fascism, like
>>socialism and communism, believes strongly in forcing people to do
>>what is 'good for them' and also has a strong ideological basis.
>
> Oh dear, Peter, I thought you were immune to that kind of American
> right-wing
> sophistry,
***except that in America this is part of the left-wing agenda. Steve, you
still don't get it. You can't be THAT clueless.
which is about on the same level as those who say that America is
> not a democracy but a republic, using contorted definitions of the terms
> to
> justify their silliness.
***You're such an ass. America **IS** a republic. What's wrong with calling
our country exactly what it is? You South Africans are such jerks.
AGGreen
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 29, 8:00 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Really? I thought it was a well known term meaning somebody of a
>>> leftish persuasion.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>Terms like "left" and "right" are actually pretty vague.
>
> And just to make things vaguer still, some Americans are now talking about
> the
> "theological left" and the "theological right". It's bad enough in
> politics;
> in theology it's quite impossible. I've blogged about it here, for anyone
> interested:
>
> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-left-theological-right.html
***There is in protestantism a sharp line of demarcation between the
religious left and religious right in the U.S. The religious left, for
example, supports a woman's right to choose abortion. The protestant
religious right is justifiably characterized as sola scriptura Christians.
Steve Hayes
When I was a student in Pietermaritzburg I sometimes used to take the fast
train - left Joburg at 6:30 pm and got to Pmb at 6:00 am. Nice dinnner,
comfortable night's sleep,
But I preferred the slow train -- left at 8:30 pm, reached Pmb at 2:30 pm the
next day. Nothing nicer than sitting in the old-fasioned wood-pannelled dining
car with fans in the ceiling, sipping an ale as the Natal midlands passed by,
or standing one one of the open balconies of the old wooden coaches.
But when I finished I had a lot of luggage to get back, and a bicycle.
My uncle worked for a haulage firm, so I asked if there was any chance he
could organise one of his trucks to take it for me. He said he had a teuck
going up, but no driver, so I offered to drive it -- a crate with something
for a steel factory in Vanderbijl Park and a couple of boiler ends to pcik up
in Elandsfontein. Plenty of room for a bike and a trunk. So I drove it up for
him, and back, and then came home again on the train with little luggage.
But here's the point. He had to go and apply for permits for each load at the
railway competition office. It was before deregulation. And it wasn't a 26
wheeler either, it was a 10 ton Bedford. It wouldn't damage the roads. Local
deliveries were less of a problem -- picking goods up at the station and
deliviering them locally.
As a result, the railways made a profit, so the infrastructure could be
maintained, and as they weren't making money for outside shareholders,
services could be cross-subsidised. The heavy traffic routes made money to
cover the otherwise uneconomic ones. And those 26 and 32 wheelers were kept
off the roads, so the road fund was kept topped up by the tax on petrol - fair
and equitable that was - user pays.
So deregulation and privatisation wrecked the infrastructure of both the roads
and the railways.
Bob Dubery
> ***You're such an ass. America **IS** a republic. What's wrong with calling
> our country exactly what it is? You South Africans are such jerks.
But we are trying to move away from making sweeping generalisations.
For example we don't claim that all Americans are such jerks because,
as eny fule kno, they all support the invasion of Iraq. Or that they
all are philistines because they eat nothing but McDonalds and Burger
King. Individual Americans can be total assholes without all other
Americans being tarred by the same brush.
But back to the matter under discussion, I suppose that "republic" and
"democracy" are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. They can overlap.
You can have one without the other. To be a republic you just need to
avoid having a hereditary head of state. So the USA is certainly a
republic - or, to be more precise, a federal republic.
SA under the Nats was republic but not a democracy. England is a
democracy, but not a republic.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sep 30, 2:10 pm, "AGGreen" <aggr...@nomorespam.org> wrote:
And the USSR was a collection of republics, but not particularly democratic.
Saying that a country is a republic but not a democracy is nothing to be proud
of.
Bob Dubery
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 30, 2:10 pm, "AGGreen" <aggr...@nomorespam.org> wrote:
>
> >> ***You're such an ass. America **IS** a republic. What's wrong with calling
> >> our country exactly what it is? You South Africans are such jerks.
>
> >But we are trying to move away from making sweeping generalisations.
> >For example we don't claim that all Americans are such jerks because,
> >as eny fule kno, they all support the invasion of Iraq. Or that they
> >all are philistines because they eat nothing but McDonalds and Burger
> >King. Individual Americans can be total assholes without all other
> >Americans being tarred by the same brush.
>
> >But back to the matter under discussion, I suppose that "republic" and
> >"democracy" are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. They can overlap.
> >You can have one without the other. To be a republic you just need to
> >avoid having a hereditary head of state. So the USA is certainly a
> >republic - or, to be more precise, a federal republic.
>
> >SA under the Nats was republic but not a democracy. England is a
> >democracy, but not a republic.
>
> And the USSR was a collection of republics, but not particularly democratic.
> Saying that a country is a republic but not a democracy is nothing to be proud
> of.
maybe the people of Swaziland will. My point is that "republic" and
"democracy" are two axes on a graph.
Swaziland would be right down near the intersection of those two axes
- certainly not a republic, and not particularly democratic.
Peter H.M. Brooks
don't have the luxury of working to student time.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Oct 1, 5:14 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, there are some Americans who do argue, quite vehemently, that because the
USA is a republic, it is *not* a democracy.
It's an extraordinarly silly argument, but there are some people who appear to
believe it, and to think that others ought to as well.
>
>Swaziland would be right down near the intersection of those two axes
>- certainly not a republic, and not particularly democratic.
>
>
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> No, there are some Americans who do argue, quite vehemently, that because the
> USA is a republic, it is *not* a democracy.
>
> It's an extraordinarly silly argument, but there are some people who appear to
> believe it, and to think that others ought to as well.
>
that it doesn't comply with various models of democracy, but you're
right, that certainly isn't one of them!
It has been argued, with considerable merit, that Athens was not a
democracy because the slaves had no vote and constituted around a
third of the population.
The USA keeps 1% of its citizens in jail. It is, I think, reasonable
to argue that this prevents it being a genuine democracy unless we'd
like to claim that 2.8 million of them don't count as part of the
public or don't matter.
It's true that this argument about representation could apply to a
republic too - a state would not be a republic if it acted against the
interests of a sizable majority - whether 1% or 20% or 95% is enough
to deny it republic status isn't clear, but I think both pre- and
post- Apartheid states might have difficulty meeting at least some of
the criteria for being a republic. A republic is supposed to be a 'res
publica', a 'public thing', that is a state where sovereignty rests
with the people or their representatives. If 1% of them have no part
in its sovereignty, is it still a republic?
Of course I'm not trying to argue this, whether something meets a
rather arbitrary and not very useful definition isn't that
interesting, and, if you simply define any state that doesn't have a
monarch [does a president perhaps count as a monarch if you're
splitting hairs - particularly if like the current US president
there's an hereditary element?] is by definition a republic, you
resolve the question.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> A republic is supposed to be a 'res
> publica', a 'public thing', that is a state where sovereignty rests
> with the people or their representatives. If 1% of them have no part
> in its sovereignty, is it still a republic?
That makes a republic ipso facto democratic. Which isn't much use. You
need a two axis representation, with "republicanism" along one axis
and "democracy" along the other.
You could have democratic monarchies, non-democratic republics,
Swaziland and democratic republics. Or some country could be
definitely a republic and somewhat democratic.
>
> Of course I'm not trying to argue this, whether something meets a
> rather arbitrary and not very useful definition isn't that
> interesting, and, if you simply define any state that doesn't have a
> monarch is by definition a republic, you
> resolve the question.
What about Britain under Cromwell's protectorship? He wasn't elected,
and he ensured that his son succeeded him. But he didn't believe in
divine right of monarchs. And as he would have worked with parliament
there was an element of democracy there - but was Britain a republic
during that time? What about France under Napoleon.
It seems to me that the President/Protector must have limited tenure,
at least having to go to the country at pre-determined intervals.
Shrub did not succeed his father, and one good thing about the US is
that you can only screw things up, wage war and ride rough shod over
the constitution for 8 years maximum.
I read a lovely letter in Business Day today that assured us that
there was no need to worry too much about if Obama or McCain would get
in. Both candidates, the letter writer assured us, represent a
considerable improvement from Dubya because both of them can speak
English.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Oct 1, 12:45 pm, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A republic is supposed to be a 'res
> > publica', a 'public thing', that is a state where sovereignty rests
> > with the people or their representatives. If 1% of them have no part
> > in its sovereignty, is it still a republic?
>
> That makes a republic ipso facto democratic. Which isn't much use. You
> need a two axis representation, with "republicanism" along one axis
> and "democracy" along the other.
>
>
> You could have democratic monarchies, non-democratic republics,
> Swaziland and democratic republics. Or some country could be
> definitely a republic and somewhat democratic.
>
other words you shouldn't, if the word means anything, have a
totalitarian republic. You can, of course, as we know from a number of
examples, have a repressive democracy, though.
>
>
> > Of course I'm not trying to argue this, whether something meets a
> > rather arbitrary and not very useful definition isn't that
> > interesting, and, if you simply define any state that doesn't have a
> > monarch is by definition a republic, you
> > resolve the question.
>
> What about Britain under Cromwell's protectorship? He wasn't elected,
> and he ensured that his son succeeded him. But he didn't believe in
> divine right of monarchs. And as he would have worked with parliament
> there was an element of democracy there - but was Britain a republic
> during that time? What about France under Napoleon.
>
monarchical behaviour rather than specific beliefs that makes a
difference to people in general?
>
> It seems to me that the President/Protector must have limited tenure,
> at least having to go to the country at pre-determined intervals.
>
for a year and executed at the end of it are mentioned. It seems an
eminently sensible system and it is a little unfortunate that the
practice died out. It does indeed show that it is possible to have a
monarchy with limited tenure, though!
>
> Shrub did not succeed his father, and one good thing about the US is
> that you can only screw things up, wage war and ride rough shod over
> the constitution for 8 years maximum.
>
his father either, but it is difficult to avoid a suspicion of at
least some nepotism in both cases.
>
> I read a lovely letter in Business Day today that assured us that
> there was no need to worry too much about if Obama or McCain would get
> in. Both candidates, the letter writer assured us, represent a
> considerable improvement from Dubya because both of them can speak
> English.
>
fortunate than many on the planet too because I've only heard the
Shrub speak about three times altogether.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> But, as I see it, a republic can't be oppressive to its citizens - in
> other words you shouldn't, if the word means anything, have a
> totalitarian republic. You can, of course, as we know from a number of
> examples, have a repressive democracy, though.
It's a game of definitions. Some would argue that if you don't have a
head of state who will be succeeded by his/her offspring then you have
a republic. That's about the narrowest definition, and probably the
only non-arguable one.
Your concept makes life more interesting though. SA circa 1980 would
have been a republic for some of it's citizens only. Unless you take
the view that Nat policies were ultimately oppressive to ALL South
Africans. Which leads me on to the point that there's always going to
be people bellyaching about the government oppressing them even if
they're the most benign government on earth, or thinking that this
government is great, good and kind when they're utter bastards.
> Does it matter what a dictator believes? Isn't it the fact of
> monarchical behaviour rather than specific beliefs that makes a
> difference to people in general?
The one improvement is that the dictator doesn't have to appoint his
oldest surviving son to succeed him. Well I say "improvement", but
it's just a difference really. There have been instances of kind kings
being succeeded by mean sons, and utter sods being succeeded by
capable, benevolent heirs. A dictator migh appoint whoever he thinks
will govern in his/her image ("that eldest boy of mine is a pinko,
I'll be damned if I'll let him run the country").
> In the 'Golden Bough' a number of instances where Kings were appointed
> for a year and executed at the end of it are mentioned. It seems an
> eminently sensible system and it is a little unfortunate that the
> practice died out. It does indeed show that it is possible to have a
> monarchy with limited tenure, though!
But they weren't volunteers were they? More likely they drew the short
straw.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Oct 2, 2:35 am, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But, as I see it, a republic can't be oppressive to its citizens - in
> > other words you shouldn't, if the word means anything, have a
> > totalitarian republic. You can, of course, as we know from a number of
> > examples, have a repressive democracy, though.
>
> It's a game of definitions. Some would argue that if you don't have a
> head of state who will be succeeded by his/her offspring then you have
> a republic. That's about the narrowest definition, and probably the
> only non-arguable one.
>
> Your concept makes life more interesting though. SA circa 1980 would
> have been a republic for some of it's citizens only. Unless you take
> the view that Nat policies were ultimately oppressive to ALL South
> Africans. Which leads me on to the point that there's always going to
> be people bellyaching about the government oppressing them even if
> they're the most benign government on earth, or thinking that this
> government is great, good and kind when they're utter bastards.
>
have fundamentalists. I've met and argued with a few!
Just yesterday I was listening to an English series of podcasts called
'philosophy bites' (they're nice little interviews on specific topics,
quite fun, just the thing for an aeroplane trip) and they interviewed
a Yank on the subject of 'freedom of speech'. He kept talking, without
irony (and remember he's not a stupido, but somebody who is paid to be
a professional philosopher) about how this or that was a consequence
of 'living in a free society' - he truly believed, that he did live in
a free society. Amazingly, as a philosopher again, he saw Yankland and
'free society' as synonyms and, if asked for some truth about the
notion of a 'free society' simply referred to his experience in
Yankland. He wasn't asked it, but I'm sure he'd have simply stated, as
obvious, again with no irony, that a 'free society' could be expected
to keep about a percent of its citizens in gaol for a good proportion
of their lives.
Stephen Fry has, apparently, been doing a wonderful job of rescuing
Yankland from its image - he's produced a film about each state. I'm
looking forward to seeing it, I'd love to learn some good things about
the place. I fear that it is unlikely to want me to go there again
though.
>
> > In the 'Golden Bough' a number of instances where Kings were appointed
> > for a year and executed at the end of it are mentioned. It seems an
> > eminently sensible system and it is a little unfortunate that the
> > practice died out. It does indeed show that it is possible to have a
> > monarchy with limited tenure, though!
>
> But they weren't volunteers were they? More likely they drew the short
> straw.
>
They were volunteers. That was the point, it was attractive to be a
King, even if only for a year.