quote:

---

Police in South Africa have used rubber bullets to disperse crowds of angry township-dwellers outside Soweto. [...]

One community leader told the BBC residents still have no water, no electricity and no sewage provision.

The BBC's Peter Greste in South Africa says these are the latest in a series of increasingly violent clashes over a lack of housing and other services.

---

Political apartheid was killed, in amazingly short order, by the events leading up to the first one-person-one-vote elections in 1994. But economic apartheid was never really touched, and the chickens are coming home to roost. These events reminded me of a striking article last year, briefly contrasting the Venezuela experiment with the South African experience.

quote:

---

That's real democracy when the halls of power are cleaned out and replaced with new blood. Plutocrats tend to become too comfortable with power after several decades of monopolizing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Several Hon. Gentlemen: "Oh! Oh!"

---

And if liberal democracy in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, or even next door to Cuba in Haiti actually produced something worthwhile for Cubans to aspire to, then U.S.-managed elections might be an easier sale. Those countries off Uncle Sam's back stoop are still shitholes though, Jeff. And Cubans are there in those countries and observing the basic human rights violations happening every day. NeoLiberals in Latin America and Africa need better salesmen.

[ 03 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I was actually laughing at the implication that the ANC in South Africa is some sort of ancient cabal, while Chavez in Venezuela isn't.

The ANC was elected to power in South Africa in 1994. Chavez tried a military coup in 1992, and was eventually elected in 1996.

quote:

---

Zimbabwe waited far too long to begin "redistribution" (notably land reform), and we've seen the devastating results. Is South Africa headed the same way?

---

White people in South Africa think so, because of fears over issues like Black Economic Empowerment which is like affirmative action but a lot different. But, I doubt it's headed in the same way for various reasons. If South Africa's economy were to tank, maybe but that could be said about a lot of middle-income countries, and I think it's too advanced for something quite like that to happen. Zimbabwe was a bit different than South Africa because A) it never really had a history of democratic institutions or traditions, or a real strong civil society, and B) it's economy was far less diverse and reliant on agricultural exports than that of South Africa's and C) South Africa is more ethnically diverse so it's probably a lot harder to marginalize any one group. There's of course the black and white populations, both of which are internally diverse with multiple ethnic groups speaking multiple languages, as well as the mixed race populations and East Indian ones. In Zimbabwe there was a much smaller, far less established white population, and a black population that included one ethnic group that makes up a strong majority of the population.

In Zimbabwe too there was an actual civil war, so Mugabe was able to give land to war veterans, whereas in South Africa there was never a real civil war per se only state and anti-state violence. So the pre-liberation struggle could be used as a tool, but traditionally it hasn't been used in that way. Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe are not at all similar. And I think that's another important point, because Mugabe is respected as a leader of the liberation struggle, so his actions are glossed over by his supporters regardless of their consequences. Whereas Mandela has stressed cooperation, and reconciliation so the political culture of the two countries are different.

The black middle class has been growing in South Africa. So while strong levels of economic inequality exist, I wouldn't call it economic apartheid anymore. Especially since the government has taken steps to be inclusive, but of course the vast majority of people, mostly black, are still poor. I think if anything the plight of the majority of the population, inspite of an increasing middle class, will lead to new political alignments. The people in the article Unionist linked us too will have become impatient with the South African government and seek an alternative. Right now the ANC is in an alliance consisting of the ANC itself, a union of trade unions (like the CLC here), and the Communist Party of South Africa. The ANC started off as an economically socialist organization but has transformed itself into a liberal one, that has alienated the latter two organizations. So I think if the living standards of the poor and working class don't improve the ANC will loose it's electoral hold on them for the sake of a truly socialist party led by protest groups, trade unions and the South African Communist party.

quote:

---

"Perhaps the most important figure here is that 12% of South Africa's black population account for over half (54%) of all black buying power," Simpson said. "This compares with 10% accounting for 43% of black buying power 15 months ago."

---

quote:

---

South Africa's black middle class has grown by 30% in just over a year, with their numbers increasing from 2-million to 2.6-million and their collective spending power rising from R130-billion to R180-billion.

---

And this:

quote:

---

The new research shows that there is not only growth from new entrants into what the institute terms the "black diamond" segment, but also from within its ranks as people move up the ladder and establish themselves in the middle class.

---

So it's not simply a question of wealth concentration. Yes, obviously that's a minority of the population so wealth isn't distributed as equally as it ought to, but in terms of overall numbers that's an impressive level of growth in overall numbers of people improving their economic status.

ETA: So while, yeah the middle class is becoming more affluent the overall numbers of middle class individuals are increasing as well. So take from that what you will.

[ 03 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Yes, obviously that's a minority of the population so wealth isn't distributed as equally as it ought to, but in terms of overall numbers that's an impressive level of growth in overall numbers of people improving their economic status.

---

VK, I'm not an economist and I'm trying to understand what your linked article is saying.

The population of South Africa is approximately 47 million. The Black population is approximately 37 million. There is no definition of the Black "middle class" in your article, but if it has grown from 2 million to 2.6 million in just over a year (as stated), then that means it has grown from roughly 5.4% to 7.0% of the Black population.

I have trouble understanding the term "middle class" as it is used here. Is it referring to the wealthiest 7.0% of Blacks, or is there some wealthier "upper class" segment, and if so, how numerous is it?

As for 12% of Blacks owning 54% of Black purchasing power (vs. 10% owning 43% 15 months ago), it sounds to me as if a very small number of Blacks have significantly improved their economic position (as you say) - but at the expense of other Blacks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I didn't mention Cuba. Apparently, some people like Fidel thought I was referring to Cuba, and i can understand why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
VK, sorry to harp here, but do you know how "middle class" is being defined here? Is is income-based? or occupation? I still have trouble with the notion of a "middle class" that is less than 1/14 of the population.

---

I'm pretty sure it's income based. I agree that having a middle class that's so small [2nd ETA] is worrisome, but obviously there has been a lot of growth since 1994. And while there are many things to criticize the ANC about, I think on balance they've done a good job of trying to uplift people.

This is the URL for the study that I cited. For some strange reason it wasn't included in the original link. In it they cite the figure of approximatley 6,000 Rands (which is like 1,000 dollars) per month as the average wage. Which doesn't sound like much to us, but since South Africa is a middle income country with a lower cost of living, this goes a lot further for them then it would for us.

ETA and for Clarity: But anyways, all of that is a bit of thread drift on the original topic on the views of the dispossessed. At the same website there was another interesting survey about South African views on service delivery. Another mixed bag, that should be cause for concern for the South African government. On the one hand there have been improvements from the time of Apartheid when just about every black person lived in abject poverty. On the other the legacy of that time still lives on for the majority of black people, inspite of the increasing numbers of affluent black people.

re: 2nd ETA Sorry, if that wasn't clear before.

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Plutocrats tend to become too comfortable with power after several decades of monopolizing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Actually, Haiti is NOT all that much of an "AIDS hotspot".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If we want to talk about the horror of HIV, look no further than your beloved Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe,...

---

You must be listening to reruns of Rush Limbaugh radio or O'Reilly or something wafting north over the border. Mugabe is a nationalist, nothing more. And we know about anything remotely resembling red menace as far the CIA and their cold warrior masters are concerned.

Look up the numbers infected with HIV in South Africa, Nigeria, Botswana, Lesotho, Chad, and democratic capitalist India where an estimated 350M go to bed hungry every night of their miserable lives.

[ 03 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

As for South Africa generally, I understand it underwent an IMF structural adjustment program in the 1990s.

Prior to the ANC assuming power, the IMF was strictly hands-off to the white government, even though *.za had a dual exchange rate (there was a commercial Rand and a financial Rand), heavy government intervention in the economy and a state-owned petroleum sector for energy security.

These features were though to be made possible to work for the betterment of blacks in South Africa precisely because of the interventionist tendencies of the South African government, and with the withdrawal of South African armed forces from the neighboring states, as well as the removal of the absorption of out-of-country laborers to depress wages for South African blacks, the theory was that South Africa would help "pull up the frontline states" in a sort of bootstrapping processs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
Fidel, I must part company with you when you defend Mugabe from proven assertions that he has made homophobic speeches, comparing gays and lesbians to "dogs", especially when these kinds of attitudes can only increase the tendency to unprotected, unsafe sex amongst Zimbabwean homosexuals owing to state-sanctioned intolerance.

---

But that wasn't me who defended Mugabe from any proven assertions against his character. It's funny how there is always damning evidence that comes up sooner or later against a known enemy of the neoLiberal order of things.

And if Mugabe is a homophobe, then how many homophobic world leaders have their actually been in recent history and in and around S. Africa in general? It's a known fact that most African leaders are not Paris university candidates for EU leadership. Mugabe, like Mandela and for all their warts, were important leaders in the struggle against white rule in Rhodesia and South Africa. Mugabe is 83 years of age and educated in the 1950's. This is a guy who claims to have a degree in violence. And violence was the way in white ruled Rhodesia for many years.

Because we all know that AIDS is problematic for several Southern African nations besides Zimbabwe and South Africa. If he said those things, then Mugabe is not leadership material for sure. But then again, who is the official political opposition in Zimbabwe, and whose interests do they represent? Yes they have inflation reminiscent of "make the economy scream" Chile, but rich white people's money seems to be safe in Zimbabwean resource stocks, which are a safe haven from the wild and rampant inflation rates they've been experiencing.

quote:

---

Given all this, and the fact that an uppity Africa is bad for the USA, I'm inclined to believe that the IMF deliberately sabotaged the South African government to keep it from being able to guarantee a decent standard for those it claims to represent.

---

There's no doubt about that.

[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And if Mugabe is a homophobe, then how many homophobic world leaders have their actually been in recent history and in and around S. Africa in general? It's a known fact that most African leaders are not Paris university candidates for EU leadership. Mugabe, like Mandela and for all their warts, were important leaders in the struggle against white rule in Rhodesia and South Africa. Mugabe is 83 years of age and educated in the 1950's. This is a guy who claims to have a degree in violence. And violence was the way in white ruled Rhodesia for many years.

---

That's no excuse - either for his actions or for his homophobia. South Africa has passed laws that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and I don't recall Mandela or Mbeki making coarse comments about gays and lesbians. In addition as bad as the Zimbabwean economy is, I might point out that Stiglitz of all people used Botswana as an example of an African nation that's kept itself out of major economic trouble, by making sure that commodity revenues don't prompt a sudden rise in government spending that can't be recovered when the market goes bust - that sort of thing.

So clearly, Mugabe had alternatives. But as far as I can tell he seems to just be wrecking the Zimbabewan economy for no good reason. You don't get inflation rates of several thousand percent per year for several years in a row unless you're printing money like there's no tomorrow - and what's it good for? There's no war that he has to fight that needs money - even scrip with barely any value - to pay soldiers so they'll keep fighting.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:

In addition as bad as the Zimbabwean economy is, I might point out that Stiglitz of all people used Botswana as an example of an African nation that's kept itself out of major economic trouble, by making sure that commodity revenues don't prompt a sudden rise in government spending that can't be recovered when the market goes bust - that sort of thing.

---

Is AIDS-racked and poverty-stricken Botswana the subject and target of EU and U.S. trade sanctions ? What might Stiglitz say about Zimbabwe's lines of credit and capital inflows being cutoff? It just seems to me that unlike surrounding countries where grinding poverty and roving power blackouts are the experience today, Zimbabwe is being targeted because of its land reform policies and rejection of neoLiberal prescriptions.

What Stiglitz has said about the IMF is that they have a tendency to move goal posts on its debtor nations. They demand transparency in countries when the Fund isn't very transparent itself.

I think as Zimbabwe comes closer to placing land and mineral wealth in the hands of the people, the neoLiberal capitalist order will step up its ideological war on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe can't be allowed to succeed in deviating from the model which is pretty much failing all around it.

"Make the economy scream" Chile was another country which suffered a sharp rise in inflation leading up to a U.S. fomented military coup on 9-11-73

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Stiglitz on Botswana

As for your crap about sanctions, I googled recent news and came up with... wait for it...

NOTHING

about any economic sanctions against Botswana from the US and EU.

I did see a report about Botswana not testing airport officers for various health conditions and getting slapped by the ICAO for it, but that's not an economic sanction from the industrial nations, Fidel.

You don't help your case when you start ranting on about nonexistent crap.

Seriously - can it be so impossible to believe that in some cases, the fate of countries is almost entirely written by their own leaders?

I get the feeling you'd blame the USA for Idi Amin's crackpot notions in Uganda, and his theft of Ugandan state assets, forcing the government to print money to meet budgetary expenses (with the predictable result that the prices of basic foodstuffs jumped something like 100% in six months or less).

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Unlike other sub-Saharan countries, Zimbabwe is a target of economic sanctions, which have made the region-wide drought and oil-price-rise-induced crises more acute. The sanctions, imposed by the US and EU, deny Zimbabwe access to international development aid. NGOs, following the Western governments that provide their funding, have also cut off assistance, amplifying the sanctions’ effects.

---

I think it's criminal, and so have prominent Canadians, Stephen Lewis etc said what's happening in Africa is criminal. Those countries are the poorest, most desperate capitalist nations in the world bar none. The ongoing rape of Africa for its diamond and mineral wealth is one ongoing crime against humanity. And we can't blame Mugabe for that happening I'm afraid.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
I get the feeling you'd blame the USA for Idi Amin's crackpot notions in Uganda,

---

Jesus!

Meet the Friendly Dictators

quote:

---

Because of his loyalty to Britain and his strongly anti-communist stance, Amin was picked by the British to replace the elected Ugandan government in a 1971 coup. While in power, he earned a reputation as a "clown" in some circles in the West, but he was no joke at home. Amin brutalized his people with British and US military aid and with Israeli and CIA training of his troops

---

Uganda and Rwanda are U.S. proxies which have conducted raids into the Congo and murdered some 4 million people in recent years.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

It is SO fucking tiring that people with something to say, and expertise as well, get insulted on babble by those who genuflect before dictators, yet blame the US for EVERYTHING.

It's impossible to hold a nuanced view about anything around here; everything becomes black-and-white children's stories.

I don't think they view themselves as evil today anymore than they did when Wall Street was propping up Hitler through to the Pentagon's support and aid of Saddam and bin Laden. Weren't the Nazis considered nihilists? It's all about money and appalling greed with a few "dirty tricks" along the way. Other than that they are really just a bunch of mafioso using and "The Fund" and sometimes nukes as bargaining tools, the "invisible fist" so to speak.

(usury + mafia) = "free market economy"

And their goal for the world is full spectrum submission to the neoLiberal capitalist order. Canada's two oldest political parties and our own oligarchs are completely in-line with this view.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Uganda and Rwanda are U.S. proxies which have conducted raids into the Congo and murdered some 4 million people in recent years.

---

So it was the USA's influence that caused Idi Amin to come up with this ridiculous notion that Indians (from India, and also who were born in Uganda) were causing economic sabotage, seized all their property and booted them out of the country without so much as a 'please and thank you'?

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

During the Cold War, the far right in the US used to do the same thing: but for them it was always "Soviet proxies".

It is just a silly way of pretending that the whole world is simple, and can be described by black and white ideology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Let's get back on topic.

---

Thank you, Michelle. I opened this thread because I'm worried about the direction that African (and other) countries take after they've thrown off colonialism and racist minority rule. Is South Africa taking a neo-liberal path in order to attract foreign investment, enrich a tiny "middle class" (which I was hoping Vansterdam Kid would define for me), neglecting land reform?

The topic is about how "The people" are "rising".

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The topic is about how "The people" are "rising".

Enjoy playing in the sandbox, then.

---

I'll make it simple (assuming you're using a Windows box):

1. Hit CTRL-Home.

2. Look 2/3 way down screen until you see "Violent housing protests", probably in red font.

3. Hover cursor over red stuff (I know, I know, it's kind of Commie colour) and click left mouse button.

4. Read article about township dwellers rising up and clashing with authorities.

5. Forget, ever so briefly, about Stalin and his crimes.

6. Formulate an on-topic opinion and post it; OR find another thread that's more interesting to you than this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Why do you want me to forget Stalin and his crimes?

---

So that you can drop your vigilance and we can send you to the Gulag. You are an Enemy of the People. Only if people like you can be lulled to sleep will we be able to sneak our way into power. You think we don't know that Canada owes its democracy and freedom to you and you alone? That's why my Comrades and I target you incessantly. Forget Stalin! Forget! Forget!

Besides, I would dispute that the ANC has taken a purely "neo-liberal" road. Especially if you look at policies like BEE (black economic empowerment) and various development moves that they've undertaken (including massive increases in the amount of people with access to education, clean water, health care and housing vs. those w/out pre-1994). The more that I read about post-1994 South African history the less I think that this is a simple Left OR Right issue. So I'd describe the ANC gov't as having taken a mixed approach that adopted some aspects of neo-liberalism and has kept some aspects of their traditional socialist philosophy. When it comes to the west, I'd say that one of the things we can do when it comes to southern Africa, including South Africa, would be to pressure our governments and institutions to write off apartheid-era debts. Those are a criminal "neo-liberal" insitution that in all good conciouness South Africa (and other southern African countries affected by apartheid-era South Africa's policies like Angola) shouldn't have to pay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
I did define the black South African middle class for you unionist, there's no need to distort what I said.

---

I apologize - I actually never noticed your response before I made that last post. Haven't checked this thread in a while. You did indeed reply.

quote:

---

See, if you advocate "Economic redistribution" and a more "purely" socialist form of development I'd worry about that course of action as being an effective one alone.

---

One of my main concerns is agrarian land reform. Mugabe waited 20 years (which please the British no end), then acted in haste - with well-known consequences. Who owns the plantations in the S. African countryside? What has changed and when will it change? I'm not talking about communal farms here - I'm talking about expropriating the big landowners and re-distributing the land.

quote:

---

If you look at Zimbabawe Mugabe was a relative economic liberal from about 1980 to 2000. It was only when he got into trouble that he returned to his socialist economic rhetoric and redistributive action. This has indisputably not been good for the people of Zimbabwe.

---

Then, only once a farmer (political allegiances should be irrelevant) graduated from such a programme would they then be in line to a certain parcel of land. How long it would take for that to redistribute most of the land from white to black hands, in coordination with the setting up of educational opportunities is hard to say. What is easy to say is that more than three percent of the land over twenty years should've been redistributed had he followed such policies from the beginning. Of course he'd need to pressure the UK to provide money to buy out the white farmers, to ensure the process moved forward, and to ensure economic stability. The process probably would've required forced sales if not enough white farmers agreed to sell their land. And of course if the UK, and other donors, didn't fund the redistributive effort (which is likely that they wouldn't properly) then at least qualified farmers would properly run the farms and any economic disruptions would've been a lot more moderate than what has happened.

Because what's happened is that he just let his supporters take land, to protect his political position and distract from his domestic failures (using the whites as scapegoats - which, with other examples of course, is a common political refrain throughout the world). Even though the people who took over the land may not have even been actual veterans of the Bush War, and even if they were maybe they weren't experienced farmers. Either way agriculture was a mainstay of the Zimbabwean economy, and the country was known as the breadbasket of the region. Now it's just a basketcase. Essentially I think that bad governance is as big a problem as neo-liberalism. Or maybe bad governance, it's hard to say. Either way both of them are problems.

ETA: Btw this is BEE. It's not quite 'affirmative action', and it's 'quotas' can be designed to give all sorts of percentages of people to industry (which may or may not be demographically representative) but if implemented properly then I think it's a good tool to alleviate economic and social injustice.

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

After over a decade of that agenda (1994 - 06), Klein highlighted the toll showing conditions today much worse than under apartheid, and ANC's leadership responsible:

• the number of people living on less than $1 a day doubled from two to four million;
  
• the unemployment rate more than doubled to 48% from 1991 - 2002;
  
• only 5000 of 35 million black South Africans earn over $60,000 a year;
  
• the ANC government build 1.8 million homes while two million South Africans lost theirs;
  
• nearly one million South Africans were evicted from farms in the first decade of democracy; as a result, the shack dweller population grew by 50%, and in 2006, 25% of South Africans lived in them with no running water or electricity. And there's more:
  
• the HIV/AIDS infection rate is about 20%, and the Mbeki government shamefully denied the severity of the crisis and did little to alleviate it; it's been a major reason why average life expectancy in the country declined by 13 years since 1990;
  
• 40% of schools have no electricity;
  
• 25% of people have no access to clean water and most who do can't afford the cost; and
  
• 60% of people have inadequate sanitation, and 40% no telephones.

---

Economic Stats

• Unemployment - 25.5% in September 2006

HIV/Aids & Infant Mortality

• The estimated overall HIV-prevalence rate is approximately 11%.
  
• The HIV positive population is estimated at approximately 5,3 million. (Though, I agree that it would've been much lower had Mbeki and his health minister not been so horrible on this issue - that alone means they ought not to be re-elected.)
  
• The infant mortality rate (IMR) is estimated at 45,2 per 1000.

As for housing, and water according to the original link at the beginning of the thread:

quote:

---

South Africa has built at least 1.6 million new houses and 9 million people have gained access to water since the end of apartheid in 1994, but shortages remain severe.

---

• Households with access to clean water: 85% in 2001, 80% in 1996
• Households using electricity for lighting: 69.7% in 2001, 57.6% in 1996
• Households in formal housing: 63.8% in 2001, 57.5% in 1996
• Households with chemical or flush toilets: 51.9% in 2001, 50.5% in 1996
• Pupil-teacher ratio: 38:1 in 2003, 43:1 in 1994
• People who have completed grade 12 schooling: 20.4% in 2001, 16.3% in 1996
• People with access to electricity: 70% in 2003, 32% in 1994
  

quote:

---

When apartheid ended, the new government launched a campaign to provide more water taps. But it also embraced a free-enterprise model for charging people, even poor people, for water. That has provoked outrage and anger. It has also brought death.

---

Hmm.... why does that sound familiar?

* scratches head * ... Oh yeah!

Same thing with deregulation of electricity markets around the world. Electricity and water prices skyrocketed in Britain in Maggie's time. NeoLiberal schemes for deregulation of power were rejected in California and are on hold in a dozen more U.S. states. Ontario's Liberals have put the kibosh to Mike Harris' electricity market deregulation but haven't reversed it either.

Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton says privatized electricity isn't so much the problem as is neoLiberal deregulation of electricity markets. However, privatized electricity companies in the U.S., historically have produce more expensive power on average than publicly owned utilities.

Critique of the Global Project to Privatize and Marketize Energy Sharon Beder 2005

quote:

---

So why are governments around the world ignoring public opinion? How have governments been persuaded that electricity is just a commodity that should be traded in the market place like pork bellies, rather than an essential service that needs to be controlled and supplied by governments to ensure its availability, reliability and affordability?

During the 1970s business interests promoted a combination of neoclassical economic theories and economic or market liberalism (referred to as neoliberalism). Its basic policy formula involved government spending cuts, . . . and imposed on developing nations by the World Bank and the IMF as conditions of their loans.

The Washington Consensus placed an “exaggerated faith in market mechanisms” for solving economic problems and it gave economic goals priority over social goals, destroying socially beneficial traditions and desirable aspects of cultures in the process. Government social services have been decimated. In the end the responsibilities of governments are likely to be reduced to little more than law and order and national defence

---

[ 25 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
I'm going to have to dispute some of those stats because I'm uncomfortable with the assertion that people had better living standards under the Apartheid government.

Economic Stats

• Unemployment - 25.5% in September 2006

---

SOUTH AFRICA: Small Farmers Pushed to Plant GM Seed [excerpt]

quote:

---

Mntambo is one of 50 small-scale farmers in the Valley of a Thousand Hills in South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal province who have been taught how to farm organically by non-governmental organisation Valley Trust. The farmers learn to plant seasonal crops that will provide their families both with food security and an opportunity to generate income by selling their produce at local markets.

"We decided to promote organic farming to create sustainability for small-scale farmers. We believe it is the only way to give them food sovereignty and stability," explains Valley Trust food security facilitator Nhlanhla Vezi.

The Valley Trust used to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture, according to Vezi, but the collaboration ceased when the department started to put pressure on small-scale farmers to form cooperatives if they wanted its support. "The Department makes very attractive offers to provide farming equipment, water piping and seeds, but then uses this as a strategy to push GMO because of agreements they have signed with multinational GM seed patent holders," says Vezi.

Rural farmers are often lured into planting GM seeds by the Department of Agriculture by promises of substantial bank loans and the prospect of huge earnings, agrees Lesley Liddell, director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming by encouraging farmers to inter-crop, use natural fertilisers and non-chemical crops. "But in the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilisers and pesticides."

Yet, small-scale farmers are often so desperate for financial support that they consider planting GMO crops against better knowledge if they are offered the seeds for free. "I know that GMO is not good in the long run, but if someone gave me these seeds I would still plant them," says Tholani Bhengu, another small-scale farmer who works with the Valley Trust. "For me, the most important thing is to bring food on the table every week. I can't afford to think now about what will happen next year."...

South Africa is the only country within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to grow GM crops -- maize, cotton and soya -- commercially. Since 1997, GMO farming is regulated by the Genetically Modified Organisms Act.

"The adoption of GM crops in SA has increased over the last ten years and this has also filtered down to small-scale farmers," confirms Priscilla Sehoole, chief communications officer of the national Department of Agriculture....

"The GM industry is pushing for harmonised legislation because it will make it easier to commercialise varieties of GM crops across countries. But those concerned with biosafety very much doubt if regional harmonisation (of biosafety legislation) would be of advantage," says African Centre of Biosafety director Mariam Mayet.

"At the moment, each SADC country has its own policies and all these laws are very different from each other. This means that each GMO application has to go through the approval system and public consultation of each country, which is good for transparency and accountability " she explains.

"When South Africa passed GMO legislation in 1997, most people weren't aware of how highly contentious the technology would become. But now there is no way back. Once you're in it, you're in it," says Mayet....

Over the past decade, South Africa has entered trade agreements with large, multi-national agricultural biotechnology corporations, such as Monsanto, which -- in an attempt to control the world’s agricultural production -- promote the subsidisation of patented GM seeds. Through an incentive system supporting monocultures, small-scale farmers are systematically integrated into commercial agriculture, mainly for export, and encouraged to put together their land.

"It all looks very nice on paper, but it is actually a clever ploy to get access to people's land. Small-scale farmers who sign up for GM deals quickly lose control over seed management, production and eventually their land. This means they lose their food sovereignty," says Mayet. "GMO marginalises poor, small-scale farmers. We are in for hard times and need to fight for people's right to land and resources. But we won't give up."

---

They should have followed the sandbox advice of the Babble Boys, and copied Mugabe!

But don't look at Mugabe, or you might see "the people" rising against YOUR recommended policies.

So handing the land over to political supporters who couldn't grow a mushroom on a mountain of dogshit is land reform?

If so, he should have waited another 20. If that meant that nobody was growing anything, well, it'd be a dead heat with the SFA that's getting grown by all those Generals and war heroes right now.

The British outrage intensified once it became clear that Mugabe was going to implement land reform no matter what with or without their promises of financial support. There are plenty of African "strongmen" who will remain outside of the "moral" outrage of the Western powers as long as they act the part and don't dare implement such "barbaric" policies as land for the majority.

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

"The British outrage intensified once it became clear that Mugabe was going to implement land reform, no matter what."

quote:

---

Both Mugabe and Britain are guilty of avoiding historical truths in favour of a skewed story which legitimates their own position. Britain's persistent refusal to acknowledge its own colonial legacies is contradictory. It reneged on its commitments to the land reform programme claiming, in Claire Short's words, that there were no ‘links to former colonial interests' while nevertheless concerning itself with the fate of the white farmers who represent these interests. Alongside an extremely selective use of human rights discourse, such contradictions mean that Mugabe's denunciations have some truth to them even if their main purpose is to detract from the ruling elite's own depravities. While Africa is ostensibly central to Britain's international development agenda, the emphasis has always been on the paternalism of aid rather than acknowledging and making reparations for the economic devastation wrought by colonialism. Rarely do condemnations of land seizure, violence and intimidation extend back to the time Matabeleland came under British rule. This too was accompanied by the seizure of vast swathes of fertile land by a handful of British farmers while large numbers of Ndebele and Shona people were killed or forced into labour. Brutal modern regimes in that part of the globe didn't begin with Mugabe.

---

So you see my petty right wing friend, land reform actually began with the British and there has never been compensation or accountability for these crimes. But you can forget all about them in service of a new set of crimes, can't you?

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

If the old crimes are history, while the new ones are happening as we speak, then ya.

What would you have me do? Demand that the land be taken from white farmers a second time, for emphasis? Dig up Ian Smith and try his cadaver?

I think the bigger question is why you and so many others want to ignore what Mugabe is doing right now to focus on a dead guy. Sure, the Brits stole the land. Then Mugabe stole it from them.

The land should belong to the people of Zimbabwe. But in the interests of your ideology, you would give it back to the British or the Americans or whoever would exploit it for whatever economic purposes and if the plight of Zimbabweans is the same as the plight of the people of Haiti, to you they would be just as invisible and just as disposable.

You see, you don't care about the people of Zimbabwe. You only care about Mugabe because your ideological leaders have told you so. You have no interest or knowledge in the history of Africa and nor do you care. For you, it is playing your role for in the interests of the imperial regime as instructed by whatever op-ed preachers you turn to for instruction as to what you believe.

Is this the part where you criticize my motives, whilst retaining the fantasy that your own are pure?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Such a lengthy explanation is hardly necessary, FM. The British authorities, like some others, identify "cronies" with the 98% black majority. .

---

quote:

---

Shouldn't it be possible to show a fair and uncorrupt process for the redistribution of land? Taking the land from one set of privileged people and giving it to another is not necessarily a great improvement. A land reform program that coincides with a crash in agricultural production is also questionable.

---

Also, the merit or necessity of land reform is independent of how efficiently such reform is carried out. That it has to be done comes first. And the former colonial masters, or the current world hegemon, are in no position to be forming judgements about how the former victims should carry out restorative justice.

A fight was, of course, inevitable. Right now it's a dirty fight, those opposed to land reform are winning in a one-sided way, and their opposition shows every sign of continued success.

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Other than to say that it has to be done first.

Which I suppose it was, years ago. But how long should someone in Zimbabwe have to wait, after the land has been taken back, to actually eat the food from that land?

"while Mugabe, who carries out land reform, and is accused of similar repression as Mubarak, has been the subject of lengthy attempts at regime change?"

I expect the Brits had lots of bad reasons for wanting to oust Mugabe over the years, but it seems to me that for most of the lifetime of Zimbabwe (as opposed to Rhodesia) the world has kept their nose out of it (Brits excepted perhaps) and in some cases has even looked to Zimbabwe for an example of how to fix things in Africa.

Why does the world suddenly care? Well, you could say it's because Mugabe took the land back from the white farmers (as though, if we only got rid of Mugabe, they'd all get it back) or else we could "brainstorm" some other reasons for the world to take notice, such as "Mugabe blatantly told the world he would not respect the results of the election" or "Mugabe's goons beat and raped supporters of the opposition".

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Since moderators seem to be an endangered species, I will intervene here to ask why this thread is turning into Zimbabwe elections thread #16 instead of sticking to the topic of South Africa.

---

I concur with N. Beltov. I opened this thread long ago to incite debate on this issue: Will South Africa end up like Zimbabwe if (like Zimbabwe) they wait for 20 years to take the land away from the Wealthy Whites and give it to the people who actually work and produce the wealth?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
(For Doug) Define "fair" for the majority who lived under apartheid for decades and white colonial masters for centuries.

---

Fair - as in eligibility to receive land not being conditional on political affiliation, ethnicity (the reality's much more complicated in most African countries than just white and black) or personal connections. Maybe not as fair, but I think essential to successful land reform would be a condition that people being granted land have some experience with agriculture and make a committment for a certain time period to farm that land themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Maybe not as fair, but I think essential to successful land reform would be a condition that people being granted land have some experience with agriculture and make a committment for a certain time period to farm that land themselves.

---