Black racism in South Africa.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Black racism in South Africa.

Post by cassowary » Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:37 pm

Land seizure based on skin colour

The tables have turned. Tell the left in America. Whites are not the only race capable of racism and oppression.

We are all the same under our skins - including our dark side (of human nature).

.......................................

Is it now considered racist to use the phrase “dark side”? How about “negative side”?
The Imp :D

User avatar
lzzrdgrrl
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:18 pm
Location: Okie Doke

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by lzzrdgrrl » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:55 am

They don't care.......
I have a certain notoriety among the lesser gods........

User avatar
dagbay
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:27 pm

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by dagbay » Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:25 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:37 pm
Land seizure based on skin colour

The tables have turned. Tell the left in America. Whites are not the only race capable of racism and oppression.

We are all the same under our skins - including our dark side (of human nature).

.......................................

Is it now considered racist to use the phrase “dark side”? How about “negative side”?
Not only they don't care in the USA but they relish it calling whites who support them to go away.
I'd rather be diving or flying alas for now I am on terra firma.

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by neverfail » Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:36 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:37 pm
Land seizure based on skin colour

The tables have turned. Tell the left in America. Whites are not the only race capable of racism and oppression.

We are all the same under our skins - including our dark side (of human nature).

.......................................

Is it now considered racist to use the phrase “dark side”? How about “negative side”?
A vast land redistribution in the Russian empire at the beginning of the 20th century to break up and parcel out the big landed estates of the boyars and barons (including those of the Tsar himself) into peasant-owned smallholdings would have done wonders to avert the 1917 Russian and Bolshevik revolutions. No, I am not even suggesting the Tsar should have been necessarily overthrown, power taken away, to bring about the reform. I am saying that the regime, if only for long-term self-preservation, should have itself inagurated the reform.

Likewise had a similar reform been implemented in the Republic of China about 1920 to rid the country of its absentee landlords and regional warlords it would have abolished the biggest single cause of doscontent among China's rural masses thus removing the biggest source of subsequent popular support for the Chinese Communist Party it its life and death civil war struggle against Chiang and his Kuomintang government - the aggreved, abused and disenfranchised Chinese peasantry.

In both cases, red revolution averted by pre-emptive reform.

Russia and China never went Communist? Think about it!

But of course, had you been alive then you would likely have been opposed to both sensible programmes of land reforms, Cassowary. In your eyes the rich are always the deserving rich, arn't they?

Same principle applies to land reform in South Africa. Since white farmers traditionally own virtually every bit of arable land worth having (one of the past sins of the now abolished apartheid power structure was such a ghastly maldistribution) there is simply nowhere else that the South African ANC government can obtain the required land other than from white farmers.

At least in South Africa they are paying the farmers for the land - not seizing it from them without compensatin like in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. That post-apartheid South Africa is so willing to abide by rules is a blessing unto itself. Don't count on it doing so forever if things ger truly desperaste there.

Government's cannot always afford to do nice things. Sometimes it is necessary to choose a lesser evil in order to avert a greater evil.

I do not know whether you allow your inner imp within get the better of you Cass when you inagurate discussions like this one by presenting readers with a half-truth; but their are times that I wish you would tell that pesky imp of yours to bugger off before you succomb to temptation. :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by cassowary » Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:22 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:36 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:37 pm
Land seizure based on skin colour

The tables have turned. Tell the left in America. Whites are not the only race capable of racism and oppression.

We are all the same under our skins - including our dark side (of human nature).

.......................................

Is it now considered racist to use the phrase “dark side”? How about “negative side”?
A vast land redistribution in the Russian empire at the beginning of the 20th century to break up and parcel out the big landed estates of the boyars and barons (including those of the Tsar himself) into peasant-owned smallholdings would have done wonders to avert the 1917 Russian and Bolshevik revolutions. No, I am not even suggesting the Tsar should have been necessarily overthrown, power taken away, to bring about the reform. I am saying that the regime, if only for long-term self-preservation, should have itself inagurated the reform.
I thought the Russian revolution was led mainly by the urban workers and less so than by the peasants. It was Mao's revolution that was mostly peasant based. You could be right, though. Its hard to tell.

I would say the main cause for the downfall of the Czar was because of military defeat in the Great War which led to mutinies in the army. If not for the Great War, the monarchies of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary would have survived longer.
Likewise had a similar reform been implemented in the Republic of China about 1920 to rid the country of its absentee landlords and regional warlords it would have abolished the biggest single cause of discontent among China's rural masses thus removing the biggest source of subsequent popular support for the Chinese Communist Party it its life and death civil war struggle against Chiang and his Kuomintang government - the aggrieved, abused and disenfranchised Chinese peasantry.
The cause of discontent was lack of food as a result of civil war and the Sino-Japanese war. Today, the world is in a perilous state as a result of the Covid19. If you keep locking up the economy, people will go hungry and you will get revolutions.

It was famine that led to many revolutions in Chinese history and also the French revolution.
In both cases, red revolution averted by pre-emptive reform.

Russia and China never went Communist? Think about it!
Maybe or maybe not. But its a nice thought. I just wish that WWI never took place. Then there won't have been Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
But of course, had you been alive then you would likely have been opposed to both sensible programmes of land reforms, Cassowary. In your eyes the rich are always the deserving rich, aren't they?
Well, this brings up an interesting point. The revolutions that overthrew the monarchies of Europe came at a time when the mode of competition changed. You see, the "deserving rich" of the feudal era are different from the "deserving rich" of today.

How did people become rich in the feudal times? Let's take William Marshall, England's greatest knight. He was the younger son of minor nobility and so had zero lands to inherit. But he died wealthy and became the Earl of Pembroke. How?

Because he was a good fighter and commander. He rose and serve 5 English Kings. So the deserving rich in those days depended on one's skill in the arts of war.

Now, when factories generated wealth during the industrial revolution, a different set of virtues were needed. Diligence, frugality and willingness to take risks were the qualities needed, instead of physical strength, courage and the ability to inspire men to risk their lives.

Its a better system because no violence is needed. In feudal times, wealth was procured by violence. But today, you need to sell some service or product instead.

... More later. I am going for lunch.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by cassowary » Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:29 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:22 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:36 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:37 pm
Land seizure based on skin colour

The tables have turned. Tell the left in America. Whites are not the only race capable of racism and oppression.

We are all the same under our skins - including our dark side (of human nature).

.......................................

Is it now considered racist to use the phrase “dark side”? How about “negative side”?
A vast land redistribution in the Russian empire at the beginning of the 20th century to break up and parcel out the big landed estates of the boyars and barons (including those of the Tsar himself) into peasant-owned smallholdings would have done wonders to avert the 1917 Russian and Bolshevik revolutions. No, I am not even suggesting the Tsar should have been necessarily overthrown, power taken away, to bring about the reform. I am saying that the regime, if only for long-term self-preservation, should have itself inagurated the reform.
I thought the Russian revolution was led mainly by the urban workers and less so than by the peasants. It was Mao's revolution that was mostly peasant based. You could be right, though. Its hard to tell.

I would say the main cause for the downfall of the Czar was because of military defeat in the Great War which led to mutinies in the army. If not for the Great War, the monarchies of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary would have survived longer.
Likewise had a similar reform been implemented in the Republic of China about 1920 to rid the country of its absentee landlords and regional warlords it would have abolished the biggest single cause of discontent among China's rural masses thus removing the biggest source of subsequent popular support for the Chinese Communist Party it its life and death civil war struggle against Chiang and his Kuomintang government - the aggrieved, abused and disenfranchised Chinese peasantry.
The cause of discontent was lack of food as a result of civil war and the Sino-Japanese war. Today, the world is in a perilous state as a result of the Covid19. If you keep locking up the economy, people will go hungry and you will get revolutions.

It was famine that led to many revolutions in Chinese history and also the French revolution.
In both cases, red revolution averted by pre-emptive reform.

Russia and China never went Communist? Think about it!
Maybe or maybe not. But its a nice thought. I just wish that WWI never took place. Then there won't have been Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
But of course, had you been alive then you would likely have been opposed to both sensible programmes of land reforms, Cassowary. In your eyes the rich are always the deserving rich, aren't they?
Well, this brings up an interesting point. The revolutions that overthrew the monarchies of Europe came at a time when the mode of competition changed. You see, the "deserving rich" of the feudal era are different from the "deserving rich" of today.

How did people become rich in the feudal times? Let's take William Marshall, England's greatest knight. He was the younger son of minor nobility and so had zero lands to inherit. But he died wealthy and became the Earl of Pembroke. How?

Because he was a good fighter and commander. He rose and serve 5 English Kings. So the deserving rich in those days depended on one's skill in the arts of war.

Now, when factories generated wealth during the industrial revolution, a different set of virtues were needed. Diligence, frugality and willingness to take risks were the qualities needed, instead of physical strength, courage and the ability to inspire men to risk their lives.

Its a better system because no violence is needed. In feudal times, wealth was procured by violence. But today, you need to sell some service or product instead.

... More later. I am going for lunch.
continue here ...

So the point is that the rich got rich because they possessed the qualities needed for the era they were in. They earned their money according to the rules of that era. Too bad for the aristocracy of Czarist Russia. They were born at the time of the industrial revolution when the rules changed.

Today, wealth is earned in the capitalist system by diligence, frugality and accumulation through patient investing. It's not a bad system. But it does penalize the indigent, the spendthrift, those with vices like alcoholism, drug taking, womanizing, addictive gambling and so on. Those who failed always envy those who succeeded. Envy is what leftist politicians trade in.
Same principle applies to land reform in South Africa. Since white farmers traditionally own virtually every bit of arable land worth having (one of the past sins of the now abolished apartheid power structure was such a ghastly maldistribution) there is simply nowhere else that the South African ANC government can obtain the required land other than from white farmers.

At least in South Africa they are paying the farmers for the land - not seizing it from them without compensatin like in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. That post-apartheid South Africa is so willing to abide by rules is a blessing unto itself. Don't count on it doing so forever if things ger truly desperaste there.

Government's cannot always afford to do nice things. Sometimes it is necessary to choose a lesser evil in order to avert a greater evil.
I don't know much about South Africa. But I do know that Ramphosa wants to seize land without compensation. See the article I linked to. You missed this:
One of the most contested issues currently is the government’s policy of Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC), which would allow the state to seize land without paying for it, trashing property rights enshrined in the country’s constitution.
That is unfair, but let's put that aside. Instead of fussing over whether it is fair or not, let us focus on the consequences. The result is Zimbabwe all over again. By now, we can predict what is going to happen.

The country will be impoverished as ownership of land pass over from the more capable and those with qualities (or virtues) that make successful farming possible to the incapable and those lacking the qualities that make success in the modern world possible.

Those leaders (no doubt from the left) who promise these destructive policies will no doubt gain power. But they know that their power is only temporary. They are not stupid even if their followers are. They know from the experience of neighboring Zimbabwe, that the country will go to the dogs.

If whoever emerges as top dog is ruthless enough, he will become a dictator like so many other Socialist dictators before them. That is likely because we can see that they don't respect the constitution. But dictatorship is a precarious position and power taken by force can be removed by force. So the dictator will plan for an escape route. He will pilfer as much money as possible while he can. That's what happened in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Now its going to be South Africa's turn.

I hope when these Socialist politicians become billionaires by redistributing wealth from their poor to themselves, they choose to follow Mugabe's example and put their money into Singapore banks. Socialism leads to poverty and dictatorship for the people. But it also leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of the dictator and his cronies. Virtuous peoples like the Swiss and Singaporeans will offer them secretive banking accounts and make money out of them.

So, I guess money still flows to the virtuous. There is justice in the world after all.
I do not know whether you allow your inner imp within get the better of you Cass when you inagurate discussions like this one by presenting readers with a half-truth; but their are times that I wish you would tell that pesky imp of yours to bugger off before you succomb to temptation. :D
Hahaha. The imp in me likes to tell the truth in the most pungent, offensive manner.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by neverfail » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:01 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:22 pm


I thought the Russian revolution was led mainly by the urban workers and less so than by the peasants.
Technically true! The winter was unusually severe that year and the water in the steam locomotives boiler pipes froze solid so trains could not deliver food to the cities - the consequence was food riots. But had the Tsar had the unswerving support of the peasants (around 90% of the Russian Empire's population then) I believe that his regime would have survived and prevailed.
It was Mao's revolution that was mostly peasant based. You could be right, though. Its hard to tell.

I would say the main cause for the downfall of the Czar was because of military defeat in the Great War which led to mutinies in the army. If not for the Great War, the monarchies of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary would have survived longer.


The military setbacks did not help the Tsar - even less so when at the beginning of the conflict he made himself commander-in-chief of the armed forces - probably as a morale-booster to the predominantly peasant rank-and-file. (Bearing in mind that as head of the Russian Orthodox Church the Tasar was supposed to have been God's anointed. With God on your side how can you possibly lose? :roll: ) With hindsight I believe that move was a PR disaster as with loss of ground to the Central Powers and mounting casualties the Tsar had made himself the obvious target of blame. At the very least in some Russian minds doubt may have been sown as to whether their soverign really had God's backing as they had previously believed. Prior to the war these would likely have balked at thinking such blasphemy. :)

cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:22 pm
I just wish that WWI never took place. Then there won't have been Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
World War One was the sort of stress test that exposes weaknesses and culls away the unsound. The seeds of Hitler and Stalin had been sown even before the downfall of the regimes that preceeded them. As for Mao I am baffled as to how WW1 had anything to do with his rise.

The great survivors were the Western allies. Britain and France were both shaken and bruised and weakened by war debt but politically their familar structures of government survived intact. The USA as a net creditor from the conflict posatively throve in the 1920's decade that followed. To what would I attribute the contrasting survival of the Western Allies? Principally to the fact that, unlike their landlocked (and blockaded) adversaries, these three had access to the global ocean and were therefore able to access hte resources of much of the world.

Especially important for the UK. The fact that their Royal Navy patrolled the global sea lanes meant that their merchant vessels could (for instance) ship in oil from the USA and Mexico; rubber from Malaya (for rubber tyres) and fine merino wool from Australia (for soldiers' warm wooly army gratecoats, sox and blankets) to augment war production. Pointedly the UK also imported wheat from Canada; beef from Argentina and tea from India to make up for shortfalls in domestic food production and thwerefore keep the masses adequatedly fed and supportive of the war effort. By contrast neither the Central Powers nor Russia had these options open to them as their own food production and distribution crumbled leaving their urban workers hungry and disgruntled.
..............................................................................................................................................

In any case returning to South Africa: the Afrikaaner establishment, with much of the World against them and their own black and coloured popuation restive, were wise enough to see the writing on the wall and cede power graceously. By doing so they averted a huge bloodbath and delivered a functioning parliamentary system for the ANC to move into. Land reform strikes me as a small price to pay for continuing peace and tranquility within the realm.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by Sertorio » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:45 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:36 pm

Same principle applies to land reform in South Africa. Since white farmers traditionally own virtually every bit of arable land worth having (one of the past sins of the now abolished apartheid power structure was such a ghastly maldistribution) there is simply nowhere else that the South African ANC government can obtain the required land other than from white farmers.
As far as I know, when the Whites got to South Africa there weren't any Bantus south of the Vaal river, only Bushmen who were not farmers. Why should land in present Cape Province be distributed to people who weren't there when the land was occupied? Those Bantu who truly want to be farmers - how many will there be? - will find enough land in the rest of South Africa. But, of course, it seems better to take over land which is already productive than having to do the work yourself... That's what happened in Zimbabwe with the results we all know...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by cassowary » Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:00 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:01 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:22 pm


I thought the Russian revolution was led mainly by the urban workers and less so than by the peasants.
Technically true! The winter was unusually severe that year and the water in the steam locomotives boiler pipes froze solid so trains could not deliver food to the cities - the consequence was food riots. But had the Tsar had the unswerving support of the peasants (around 90% of the Russian Empire's population then) I believe that his regime would have survived and prevailed.
It was Mao's revolution that was mostly peasant based. You could be right, though. Its hard to tell.

I would say the main cause for the downfall of the Czar was because of military defeat in the Great War which led to mutinies in the army. If not for the Great War, the monarchies of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary would have survived longer.


The military setbacks did not help the Tsar - even less so when at the beginning of the conflict he made himself commander-in-chief of the armed forces - probably as a morale-booster to the predominantly peasant rank-and-file. (Bearing in mind that as head of the Russian Orthodox Church the Tasar was supposed to have been God's anointed. With God on your side how can you possibly lose? :roll: ) With hindsight I believe that move was a PR disaster as with loss of ground to the Central Powers and mounting casualties the Tsar had made himself the obvious target of blame. At the very least in some Russian minds doubt may have been sown as to whether their soverign really had God's backing as they had previously believed. Prior to the war these would likely have balked at thinking such blasphemy. :)
Exactly, it was this defeat that shook the faith of the peasants and hence their support for the Czar. The soldiers mutinied. This undermined his rule more than the failure of not giving lands to the peasants.

It is difficult to see how the worker's revolt in the cities could have overcome the army had it remained loyal to the Czar. Power grows from the barrel of the rifle as Mao said. It was true for the Communist regime that followed the Czar.
cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:22 pm
I just wish that WWI never took place. Then there won't have been Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
World War One was the sort of stress test that exposes weaknesses and culls away the unsound. The seeds of Hitler and Stalin had been sown even before the downfall of the regimes that preceeded them. As for Mao I am baffled as to how WW1 had anything to do with his rise.
Simple. The success of the Bolsheviks inspired other Communists/Socialists in other lands to attempt revolution. Many joined the cause as a result, thinking that Marx's prediction of revolution by workers will overthrow the plutocrats (ie the nobility, the landlords and the wealthy). I believe that Marx was inspired by the French Revolution. He saw it an inevitable evolution of human society. I see the French Revolution as no different as that of so many revolutions in China. It was caused by famine and natural disasters. The French peasants were simply hungry because of the bad harvest due to bad weather.

Excerpt:
Throughout the 18th century, France faced a mounting economic crisis. A rapidly growing population had outpaced the food supply. A severe winter in 1788 resulted in famine and widespread starvation in the countryside. Rising prices in Paris brought bread riots. By 1789 France was broke.
You see, the weather changed. The Medieval Warm Period ended and Global Cooling started. Poor weather caused revolutions and changes of dynasty many times in China. Floods, droughts, earthquakes, pestilence and other calamities were believed by the Chinese to be the judgement of Heaven. The Emperor no longer had the Mandate of Heaven to rule. So revolt!

Marx was wrong. He based his ideology entirely on his theory that the French Revolution was a revolt by the oppressed working classes. To someone who knows something of Chinese history, the French Revolution was simply the result of lousy weather.
The great survivors were the Western allies. Britain and France were both shaken and bruised and weakened by war debt but politically their familar structures of government survived intact. The USA as a net creditor from the conflict posatively throve in the 1920's decade that followed. To what would I attribute the contrasting survival of the Western Allies? Principally to the fact that, unlike their landlocked (and blockaded) adversaries, these three had access to the global ocean and were therefore able to access hte resources of much of the world.

Especially important for the UK. The fact that their Royal Navy patrolled the global sea lanes meant that their merchant vessels could (for instance) ship in oil from the USA and Mexico; rubber from Malaya (for rubber tyres) and fine merino wool from Australia (for soldiers' warm wooly army gratecoats, sox and blankets) to augment war production. Pointedly the UK also imported wheat from Canada; beef from Argentina and tea from India to make up for shortfalls in domestic food production and thwerefore keep the masses adequatedly fed and supportive of the war effort. By contrast neither the Central Powers nor Russia had these options open to them as their own food production and distribution crumbled leaving their urban workers hungry and disgruntled.
The Central Powers nearly won. Had they followed Shlieffen's plan, they would have won. The Plan by Count Alfred von Shlieffen was to concentrate German forces on the Western front and knock France out of the war quickly. Then quickly send the victorious German army to the Russian Front.

At a critical moment Moltke withdrew German divisions from France to the Russian front. He panicked at the news of the Russian army entering German lands. Before the German troops could get there, the Russians were defeated with available German forces at the Battle of Tannenberg.

But the withdrawal of German soldiers at a critical moment in the battle in France led to German failure to achieve its goal of knocking France out of the war. The war dragged on which resulted in the Fall of three Eagles - the German Kaiser, the Russian Czar and the Austrian Emperor.

I think Europe and maybe the world would have been better off, had the Germans won. There won't be so many deaths. The monarchies would have survived meaning that there won't have been a Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Mao. Its all because of Moltke's decision.
..............................................................................................................................................
In any case returning to South Africa: the Afrikaaner establishment, with much of the World against them and their own black and coloured popuation restive, were wise enough to see the writing on the wall and cede power graceously. By doing so they averted a huge bloodbath and delivered a functioning parliamentary system for the ANC to move into. Land reform strikes me as a small price to pay for continuing peace and tranquility within the realm.
I agree that the Afrikaaner regime was wise to give up. But what you call land reform is simply land seizure and is unfair. Whatever you call it and whether it is fair or not are not important. What is the important is the result. We only have to look at Zimbabwe to see that it will be disastrous.

South Africa will be poor, ruled by an African dictator who will enrich himself and his cronies before he is thrown out. The only good thing is that maybe some banks will be enriched by their ill gotten wealth. Let's hope, Singapore banks get a piece of the pie.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Black racism in South Africa.

Post by neverfail » Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:34 am

cassowary wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:00 pm


Exactly, it was this defeat that shook the faith of the peasants and hence their support for the Czar. The soldiers mutinied. This undermined his rule more than the failure of not giving lands to the peasants.
That's not what I said. I pointed out that the dire tactical error made by the Tsar (or Czar) was that he appointed himself commander of the armed forces - in effect Field Marshall in charge. Had he not done that while remaining the autocrat ruler of Russia he would have still had the option of blaming the defeat of his generals and ssacking a few of them as sacrifical lambs to public anger.
Power grows from the barrel of the rifle as Mao said. It was true for the Communist regime that followed the Czar.


Tyranny grows from the barrel of a gun - not that Mao or Chiang or anyone else who held power in China in their day could have told the difference. . More long lived power structures grow from the consent of those being governed. Power based upon the capacity of those holding it to terrify and kill is not worth having.
cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:22 pm
I just wish that WWI never took place. Then there won't have been Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
neverfail wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:01 am
World War One was the sort of stress test that exposes weaknesses and culls away the unsound. The seeds of Hitler and Stalin had been sown even before the downfall of the regimes that preceeded them. As for Mao I am baffled as to how WW1 had anything to do with his rise.
Simple. The success of the Bolsheviks inspired other Communists/Socialists in other lands to attempt revolution.
No, not so simple as there must have been something fundamentally wrong in China just as there was in Russia that facilitated the fall of the preceeding regimes and assisted those seeking to replace them. Why was there no 20th century revolution (socialist or otherwise) in Britiain, The USA, France, the low countries, Scandinavia, Canada or Australia?. Because in all of these countries the regimes of government continued to command the loyalty and respect of the populace at large. In China successively, the Manchu imperial monarcy and subsequently the ROC led by Chiang obviously did not.
I think Europe and maybe the world would have been better off, had the Germans won.
I concede that same thought has once or twice passed through my mind but we will now never know. They lost!

neverfail wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:01 am
In any case returning to South Africa: the Afrikaaner establishment, with much of the World against them and their own black and coloured popuation restive, were wise enough to see the writing on the wall and cede power graceously. By doing so they averted a huge bloodbath and delivered a functioning parliamentary system for the ANC to move into. Land reform strikes me as a small price to pay for continuing peace and tranquility within the realm.
I agree that the Afrikaaner regime was wise to give up. But what you call land reform is simply land seizure and is unfair. Whatever you call it and whether it is fair or not are not important. What is the important is the result. We only have to look at Zimbabwe to see that it will be disastrous.
Not "seizure" as they have been buying land from farmers willing to sell. Willing seller + willing buyer = a contract.

The only thing wrong with that is that the process is proceeding so slowly that it is causing social discontent.

As you may see in my next post to Sertorio, I am of two minds about the efficacy of land redistribution in South Africa - which in economics may or may not result in a decline in agricultural production but might in political terms may still prove a good investment in social stability. Sometimes it is worthwile making the trade-off.

Post Reply