View Full Version : How can they say capitalism works?
Another British bank is in trouble, Northern Rock has had to take an emergency loan from the Bank of England. The cause of all the trouble is American mortgage brokers lending money to people they knew couldn't repay the loans.
Did you see the adverts on daytime TV, companies advertising they want to lend money to people with bad credit ratings? Ever think that doesn't make sense? It doesn't. So why do they do it? It's a scam. The brokers lend money to people who can't pay it back because the repayment agreement is worth more than they lend. When they have enough they sell them on for more than they have lent out to middlemen, Hedge Funds and Private Equity firms. The middlemen bunch them all together and sell them on to investors all over the world. So why did the banks and financial institutions all over the world buy these worthless investments? Because firms who asses the risks of investments, sort of the What Car of the financial world, were in on the scam and gave them a five star rating.
So who gains from this scam? The mortgage brokers make a fast buck but the middlemen have been raking it in, the managers of the Hedge Funds have been making hundreds of millions of dollars a year each, the top four over a billion dollars each. Who loses? You do. Already the governments of Europe, Holland, France, Britain have used tax payers money to stave off a stock market crash because firms who have bought these investments just can't be valued, nobody knows how many of the loans were bad. We will all find credit harder to get and pay more for mortgage repayments and bank charges. Billions of pounds have already been wiped of the value of shares owned by people like our pension funds and insurance companies and they will either go bust or recoup their losses from you. If the stock market crashes the world will be thrown into depression worse than the thirties, mass unemployment and raging inflation and it's only tax payers money, your money, buying worthless paper to give it value that is preventing that happening.
So how can they say free market capitalism works when socialism keeps on having to bail them out?
peter macdonald
14-Sep-07, 11:36
Fred Not only the US to blame for this... UK banks took the spread loans from them !! But then again its just the 80s trying to repeat its self .you know when the greedy yuppies in London milked the system and had the rest of us paying double digit interest on mortgages Just at the very time Scotland was crying out for investment as well
I find it hard to disagree with a lot of your post Fred
PM
PS Maybe Gordon Browns love in with Thatcher over the last few days is a sign of thinks to come (again!!)
Perhaps capitalism works because in a free market society reasonable alternatives are allowed to exist. When one system reaches its limits (and I think that they all have their limits) another system can take over for awhile to give the first system time to recover.
Capitalism works least badly than anything else. Not saying much, I know but what are the alternatives?
brokencross
15-Sep-07, 12:51
My dad used to crack a funny about a situation like this:-
A not too bright chap hears that his bank is in financial difficulties so he goes to his local bank and says to the cashier "I hear you've got money problems so I want to withdraw all my savings, all £2360 of it, right now".
Cashier says, "Certainly sir, I'll just get it for you, will £20 notes do?"
The dim chap is a little confused and says "Oh if you have it, I don't want it; its only if you haven't got it that I want it!"
Ok, Ok, sounds better after a couple of beers, but you get the gist.
I know why all the people are withdrawing/transferring their money but they must realise their panicking is exacerbating the situation.
Capitalism works least badly than anything else. Not saying much, I know but what are the alternatives?
There are loads of alternatives, Margaret Thatcher started saying that there was nothing else and people started believing her but that doesn't mean it's true. Predatory corporate capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few and when you concentrate wealth in the hands of the few you concentrate power in the hands of the few, i.e. it is the opposite of democracy.The only reason that other systems aren't viable is because the few won't let them be.
Capitalism of the sort we are seeing today is undemocratic, inhuman and above all unsustainable. We can't just sit back and say there is nothing else, if a bridge is down you don't just drive across it anyway saying "well there's no other way across the river".
Fred: "There are loads of alternatives" go on then, list 'em down
Fred: "There are loads of alternatives" go on then, list 'em down
If you want an a there is Anarchism and for a b there is Bolshevism for a c you can still have Capitalism, like the other two it's not a bad principle in itself if it isn't thoroughly abused. You can have a combination as we have, or had till recently, in this country. It is the unbridled politics of greed which passes for capitalism today and is intent on imposing itself on the entire world that is the problem.
Greed is a sin, man is by nature greedy and we are all sinners but that's no reason to say that we should base our political philosophies on it, no reason to declare greed a virtue and operate a system designed to reward the greedy.
So the political systems themselves aren't inherently good or evil, but rather the people who make them work bring the generosity or greed that allows them to shine or leads to their crumbling under the weight of corruption.
So the political systems themselves aren't inherently good or evil, but rather the people who make them work bring the generosity or greed that allows them to shine or leads to their crumbling under the weight of corruption.
That isn't just what I meant.
Capitalism is a term coined by Marx to describe a system where there are two classes, one which owns the resources and another which provides the labour, that in itself is not a bad thing. The mill owner might have exploited the worker so he could live an opulent lifestyle in a big house but he didn't shut down the mill and outsource to China because it was his legal duty to the shareholders to provide maximum return on their investment. What they call capitalism now is as far removed from the real thing as New Labour are from socialism.
Marx would certainly know all about "Greedy Capitalist Mill Owners", all he had to do was watch his friend Engels who had cotton mills near Manchester, in fact, in the town next to where I used to live. He didn't mind sponging off Engels whilst he was busy writing Das Kapital.
And Northern Rock wasn't bailed out by socialism. It was allowed short term temporary credit by the Bank of England, a capitalist organisation, at high interest rates.
As in the past, the often trumpeted demise of the Capitalist System has more to do with wishful thinking than actual fact.
northener
16-Sep-07, 10:01
Any system can be abused.
I'm sure Marx had not intended Communism to become as opressive as it did in all the countries that took on board his thinkings.
Whether it's Capitalism/Marxism/a religion based society or whatever, the systems are attractive in the eyes of an idealist, but become unworkable in an Idealist form as soon as you introduce people.
Capitalist stock market crashes, runs on banks, housing booms and busts are all caused by a combination of self-preservation, panic and greed.
The Communists would be silencing the people who voiced concerns about economic instability 'for the good of the state' and exhorting the masses to 'work harder' and put aside ANY personal thoughts - regardless of how bad or sustainable things were. Both systems have their failings.
As long as there is individual thought there will always those who will seek forward their own ends at the expense of others. To be honest I think any of the systems can work providing there are checks and balances in place to encourage development but stifle the greedy.
But where do you draw the line?
rockchick
16-Sep-07, 10:14
Here's an excerpt from a Romanian paper that doesn't touch on capitalism per se, but may provide some perspective:
"C"ntarea Americii,
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if
you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world
and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand
put on the heart.
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service
that they are only a bunch of losers.
Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts.
Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping
hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking
ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national
flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on
every car a government official or the president was passing. On every
occasion, they started singing:"God Bless America !"
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to
the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a
wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player,
who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from
hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of
people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?
Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned
into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and
millions of dollars were put into a collection aimed at rewarding not a man
or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way?
Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money?
I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases
with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but
only one conclusion.. . Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
"Evenimentulzilei " (meaning "The Daily Event" or "News of the Day")
And Northern Rock wasn't bailed out by socialism. It was allowed short term temporary credit by the Bank of England, a capitalist organisation, at high interest rates.
So where do you think this capitalist organisation got the money it used to bail out Northern Rock? The Consolidated Fund? That account is in the red to the tune of almost $60 trillion. The simple answer is that they just start up the printing presses and print it, or these days just create it electronically on a computer, just type it in that it exists. Why does the government let this private capitalist organisation just create money from nothing when they don't have the gold to back it? They let them use Northern Rocks promise to repay to back the money, even though having already been turned down by all the other lenders it is worthless paper, no market value. What happens if Northern Rock goes bust? The tax payer picks up the tab because ultimately every pound note in Britain is backed not by gold but by Britain's future tax income.
The Bank of England may be a private capitalist organisation but the money they use belongs to the people.
Fred, a number of alternatives to capitalism have been attemtped but none have worked very well.
Under capitalism we are the best fed people in the world, we have a massive range of inventions to make life easier, but we dont only have dishwashing machines, we have painless surgery, antibiotics, a wondeful assortment of electronic devices upon which we can play anything from Mozart to Metallica.
And still you gripe!
We can fly the Atlantic and visit New York. We can fly to India and China. The world is oiur limit.
And still you gurn...
Good heavens man you are determined to see the bleak side of everything. Capitalism put a man on the moon but apparently it cant put a smile on your face.
For heaven's sake cheer up, laddie.
Fred, a number of alternatives to capitalism have been attemtped but none have worked very well.
Under capitalism we are the best fed people in the world, we have a massive range of inventions to make life easier, but we dont only have dishwashing machines, we have painless surgery, antibiotics, a wondeful assortment of electronic devices upon which we can play anything from Mozart to Metallica.
And still you gripe!
We can fly the Atlantic and visit New York. We can fly to India and China. The world is oiur limit.
And still you gurn...
Good heavens man you are determined to see the bleak side of everything. Capitalism put a man on the moon but apparently it cant put a smile on your face.
For heaven's sake cheer up, laddie.
And 500 children a day die in Africa from poverty related diseases, every day, yesterday, today, tomorrow and the day after 500 children will die from easily preventable diseases that cheap medicines and insecticidal treated nets would prevent.
Here's an excerpt from a Romanian paper that doesn't touch on capitalism per se, but may provide some perspective:
No, not freedom, just brainwashing, they used the same techniques in Nazi Germany and got the same results.
One of those who's capitalist ideals got the world into the mess it's in published his memoirs today, Alan Greenspan, till recently the head of the Federal Reserve. In them he freely admits that Iraq was invaded for their oil, over a million Iraqis and our servicemen were sacrificed to Mammon. Why does nobody care? Why isn't everyone angry?
One of those who's capitalist ideals got the world into the mess it's in published his memoirs today, Alan Greenspan, till recently the head of the Federal Reserve. In them he freely admits that Iraq was invaded for their oil, over a million Iraqis and our servicemen were sacrificed to Mammon. Why does nobody care? Why isn't everyone angry?
Hold your horses, not quite....;)
Greenspan's clarification. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html)
[quote=fred;271656]Another British bank is in trouble, Northern Rock has had to take an emergency loan from the Bank of England. The cause of all the trouble is American mortgage brokers lending money to people they knew couldn't repay the loans.
I think that if we are going to have a go at anyone, we should be sure what has caused Northern Rock's problem.
Northern Rock has NOT had a loan from the Bank of England. They asked for short term support - if they needed it - They have not drawn anything as yet.
The problem was caused by The Government, in it's wisdom, making it known that they had authorised the support if necessary.
The Great British public has put 2 + 2 together and come up with 5 as usual.
Even the thousands drawing out their savings would not normally harm a bank like Northern Rock, but the publicity attached to a crisis, which is not of their making, will mean that the Brand name is finished.
Northern Rock will be bought by somebody or other, and will continue to trade in another name, in exactly the same way as they do now.
That is the face of the capitalist, the one that will pick up a bargain.
Whitewater
17-Sep-07, 23:28
Capitalism works. Not always well but it has given us all a good life (as listed by Rich) and excellent opportunity for us all if we are prepared do the hard work.
Reghers has cleared up the question on Greenspans (capitalist?) motives, by pointing out to us "Greenspan's clarification"
Sure there is greed under capitalism, but greed exists under all systems no matter how high their ideals. It unfortunately is simply part of Human Nature.
Having looked at this debate and decided it is over, I shall now return to contemplating the size of Wagon Wheels. I'm sure they have become smaller, but perhaps that is simply because I've become bigger. Hmmm! I'm sure I will have to ponder on this for a wee while.
Capitalism works. Not always well but it has given us all a good life (as listed by Rich) and excellent opportunity for us all if we are prepared do the hard work.
We get two cars and a holiday home in the country while half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. We are in debt up to our eyeballs, we owe an average of nearly £9,000 per household in unsecured loans, that goes up to £56,000 if you include mortgages. That's £1.35 trillion and that amount is increasing at over 10% a year, the average household debt increases by £13 a day.
Reghers has cleared up the question on Greenspans (capitalist?) motives, by pointing out to us "Greenspan's clarification"
The words "The Iraq war is largely about oil" do not need any clarification especially when he is just saying what everyone in the world with an IQ greater than their shoe size already knew but no one involved with the American government at the time has said publicly before.
Sure there is greed under capitalism, but greed exists under all systems no matter how high their ideals. It unfortunately is simply part of Human Nature.
Yes greed exists under all systems but other systems aren't based on it
We get two cars and a holiday home in the country while half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. We are in debt up to our eyeballs, we owe an average of nearly £9,000 per household in unsecured loans, that goes up to £56,000 if you include mortgages. That's £1.35 trillion and that amount is increasing at over 10% a year, the average household debt increases by £13 a day.
Who are the royal WE fred? I have no debt, I have no loans, I have no mortgage, mine is all paid up. My wife and I earn enough from our pensions to pay for all our utilities. We can afford at least one holiday abroad a year, we do not have to scrimp, ok I have a part time seasonal job but that is more of a hobby than a necessity. This thread IMHO is another of your anti establishment rhetoric
thefugitive1993
18-Sep-07, 09:56
[quote=fred;273223]We get two cars and a holiday home in the country while half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. We are in debt up to our eyeballs, we owe an average of nearly £9,000 per household in unsecured loans, that goes up to £56,000 if you include mortgages. That's £1.35 trillion and that amount is increasing at over 10% a year, the average household debt increases by £13 a day.
With respect to "our" situation, the two homes / cars etc in combination with the £56K debt:
Why should you assume that debt in itself is a bad thing?Much of the figures we quote relate to the illusion of money that is only as real as the digits on a computer screen. The secret is to "wise up" and understand that. The business of (judiciously) utilising the capital retained by financial institutions is there for you too, should you wish to do so. If you don't, that's your choice.
The scandals of poverty, morally bankrupt politics and warmongering are different issues.
Who are the royal WE fred? I have no debt, I have no loans, I have no mortgage, mine is all paid up. My wife and I earn enough from our pensions to pay for all our utilities. We can afford at least one holiday abroad a year, we do not have to scrimp, ok I have a part time seasonal job but that is more of a hobby than a necessity. This thread IMHO is another of your anti establishment rhetoric
The we is the people of Britain, wasn't that obvious? I'll try and use shorter words for you.
If you discount the households with no unsecured debt at all then the average goes from nearly £9,000 per household to nearly £21,000 but when the house of cards collapses it will be the people like you who pay the debts of the others if only through inflation.
With respect to "our" situation, the two homes / cars etc in combination with the £56K debt:
Why should you assume that debt in itself is a bad thing?Much of the figures we quote relate to the illusion of money that is only as real as the digits on a computer screen. The secret is to "wise up" and understand that. The business of (judiciously) utilising the capital retained by financial institutions is there for you too, should you wish to do so. If you don't, that's your choice.
The scandals of poverty, morally bankrupt politics and warmongering are different issues.
People buying real goods with imaginary money?
Don't you see the flaw in that system?
NickInTheNorth
18-Sep-07, 13:39
fred
I agree with every word you have uttered in the thread.
The basic model of the capitalist as pursued in western (so called) democracies was set out very clearly in the film "Wall Street"
"Greed is good"
If you are amongst the wealthy minority it is good, if you are in the majority of middle income, you don't really have much to complain about.
If you are among the poor minority in those capitalist societies then it has a devastating impact on your life quality and expectations.
When governments allow the same philosophy then it is disastrous for society. To enact legislation which forces business to export jobs; to make major strategic buying decisions on lowest price regardless of social impact; to drive evrything to lowest cost and highest statistical benefit leads to the sort of problems becoming more and more obvious throughout modern Britain.
Bring back common sense. Allow company directors to make decisions based not on greed, but on profitability and social responsibility.
Allow Government to buy ships from UK shipyards to keep worthwhile jobs in the UK, and save the tax payer a fortune in benefits payments rather than save a couple of million on the book price.
Give hospital cleaning contracts to businesses that give a quote to do the job properly and keep hospitals clean and infection free.
Pay all workers an appropriate wage - stop the current stupid "minimum wage" lunacy under which some of the most abused workers in society are forced to work for wages that cannot support anyone in a reasonable lifestyle.
How can anyone say that capitalism in it's current guise is working? They can say it if they are benefiting from it's so called success and ignoring the plight of millions of their fellow human beings that are being cynically exploited to ensure that they can have their second homes, there three holidays per year etc
thefugitive1993
18-Sep-07, 14:34
People buying real goods with imaginary money?
Don't you see the flaw in that system?
Unless you have very large pockets (literally), money is only a "promise to pay the bearer"; and I suspect a promise that is rarely delivered upon.
Better real goods with imaginary money than imaginary goods with real money which happened under certain systems.
I'm afraid that capitalism is the only system which provides the incentive to better one's self above that of his neighbour through the power of money. The balance to be drawn is not providing the conditions under which Karl Marx identified as the revolutionary tipping point, that is where the greed has got out of hand. Wealth should flow down to the lower levels. That is true capitalism, anything else is slavery.
Jeemag_USA
19-Sep-07, 01:17
Here's an excerpt from a Romanian paper that doesn't touch on capitalism per se, but may provide some perspective:
"C"ntarea Americii,
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if
you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world
and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand
put on the heart.
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service
that they are only a bunch of losers.
Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts.
Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping
hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking
ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national
flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on
every car a government official or the president was passing. On every
occasion, they started singing:"God Bless America !"
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to
the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a
wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player,
who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from
hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of
people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?
Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned
into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and
millions of dollars were put into a collection aimed at rewarding not a man
or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way?
Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money?
I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases
with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but
only one conclusion.. . Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
"Evenimentulzilei " (meaning "The Daily Event" or "News of the Day")
This Romanian has a somewhat interesting idea on american unity, but also its naive and very far from the truth unfortunately, in fact none of that is in any way remotely realistic.
This Romanian has a somewhat interesting idea on american unity, but also its naive and very far from the truth unfortunately, in fact none of that is in any way remotely realistic.Perhaps he has both eyes wide open instead of just one! As a Romanian he probably has a more realistic and less idealistic view of the alternatives.
Perhaps he has both eyes wide open instead of just one! As a Romanian he probably has a more realistic and less idealistic view of the alternatives.
If you want a realistic view of Romania then just look at the statistics.
At the end of the Soviet era in 1989 around 7% of the population of Romania were living below the poverty line, by 2000 it was 44%.
At the end of the Soviet era in 1989 around 7% of the population of Romania were living below the poverty line, by 2000 it was 44%.
That is because since 1989, the parameters that define the level of poverty line have changed, the standard of living of the Romanians has actually improved if you used the older way of calculating poverty.
Whitewater
19-Sep-07, 21:33
If anybody wants to see a failed attempt on how to impove Capitalism, they need look no further than present day Zimbabwe. When it was known as "Rhodesia" under Ian Smith it was also known as "The bread basket of Africa". Robert Mugabe set out with his supposed high ideals to improve the system for the native Africans, to make them all prosperous like all people living in prosperous Capitalist countries. Unfortunately his personal greed got the better of him and he brought a once proud country to it's knees by "Improving??" the system.
George Brims
19-Sep-07, 22:33
Good grief Whitewater, I haven't seen anything in ages that so required the reminder that two wrongs don't make a right. Smith's Rhodesia and Mugabe's Zimbabwe are both prime examples of the "wrong". And it's our fault (well I was too young at the time, but anyway...). The UK governments, a succession of them, that did nothing about putting down Smith's "not in a thousand years" rebellion, are directly responsible for the new nation of Zimbabwe ending up in the hands of a tinpot pseudo-Marxist headcase like Mugabe, instead of a pro-Western true statesman like Nelson Mandela. If a few (and it wouldn't have taken many) British troops had overthrown Smith instead of a Moscow-backed rebel movement the place wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. Some other mess, possibly, but not the same one.
If anybody wants to see a failed attempt on how to impove Capitalism, they need look no further than present day Zimbabwe. When it was known as "Rhodesia" under Ian Smith it was also known as "The bread basket of Africa". Robert Mugabe set out with his supposed high ideals to improve the system for the native Africans, to make them all prosperous like all people living in prosperous Capitalist countries. Unfortunately his personal greed got the better of him and he brought a once proud country to it's knees by "Improving??" the system.
Oh yes there was no shortage of food in Rhodesia, thanks to sanctions they couldn't export anything so the rich white tobacco plantation owners turned their land over to producing food for domestic consumption putting the black farmers out of business.
I don't think anyone in their right minds could ever hold Ian Smith's Rhodesia up as a model of capitalist success.
Whitewater
20-Sep-07, 00:42
I knew there would be a few bites, didn't expect them so soon though. Just goes back to what I said earlier in this thread.
All systems have high moralistic principles in the beginning, but they are run by humans and therefor very soon they are abused and all suffer from corruption of some sort or another.
At least we (the Royal we) in this country have the right to vote and change our leaders if we want, as is the case in many other capatalist countries. I guess the change doesn't make much difference at the end of the day the next lot will be as crooked as the first, just use a different method to stitch us up, but at least we get our salaries and noboby is bulldozing down our homes.
Sure there are billions starving throughout this world, there always was and always will be, I wish there was something that could be done about it. The ideals of communism were laid down in there original context to solve all that, but the system became corrupt.
I think that corrupt systems all stink but captalism is the better of all the other evils.
After that bit of stirring I now think it is time to go back to contemplating the size of wagon wheels ( we can do that under capitalism) as nothing has changed since I wrote my first post on this thread. The gurning continues about who did what to who and when and at the end of the day it solves nothing.
Oh yes there was no shortage of food in Rhodesia, thanks to sanctions they couldn't export anything so the rich white tobacco plantation owners turned their land over to producing food for domestic consumption putting the black farmers out of business.And who was it who demanded the very sanctions which penalised those very Black Africans. In fact Smith’s declaration of UDI came about because he refused to be coerced into accepting Mugabe, his terrorists or his behaviour.
Mugabe's Zanu-PF were backed by Maoist China, not Russia, and he readily described himself as a Maoist. If I remember correctly, Russia and China were still not best friends.
Mugabe's guerrillas, called the Fifth Brigade, were trained by the North Koreans. The operated out of Mozambique, Zambia, and Angola, all of which had Communist Regimes.
Mugabe’s tactics were aimed as now, despite the current spin, mainly at the blacks who he wished to terrorise into supporting him.
To pretend that by our invading Southern Rhodesia during the Smith Regime would have prevented the rise of Mugabe is a complete fallacy. After Independence there were what were generally considered to be a free and fair multi-racial election. Despite Mugabe issuing a “Death List” of those leaders co-operating in creating a peaceful changeover from White to Black Rule using such names as calling them “traitors,” “opportunistic running-dogs,” and “capitalist vultures.”
The person clearly elected by a large majority, and forming the first multi-racial Government, was Abel Muzorewa, a Black Leader who had renounced violence and was committed to a peaceful change-over.
It says much for Ian Smith that, despite the picture of evil some try to paint of him, he was elected to the multi-racial Government and many Black Politicians were quite content to have him there but that doesn't sit conveniently with the accepted propaganda.
Even though the Election had met all the conditions imposed on Rhodesia both Britain and America, under that great Statesman, Jimmy Carter, insisted that the Election be re-held after Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and his Comrade in Arms, Joshua Nkomo’s Zapu terrorists had been allowed back in the Country.
In the re-held Elections Mugabe displayed his idea of Democracy that the man with the most guns and the most ruthless thugs wins, which proved to be correct.
Within a short time Nkomo had to flee the country for his own safety and even then there were a couple of assassination attempts.
Mugabe, a Shona, then followed that win up with an act of genocide against Nkomo’s Tribe, the Matabele. The number of deaths is uncertain but believed to be 30,000.
Oh, and for those who don’t remember, Southern Rhodesia did not “suffer” under sanctions, that is a myth. The fact that it didn’t was mainly because, whilst we were not only encouraged but were fairly fastidious about maintaining them many of the Countries screaming loudest for sanctions were happily filling the gap we left by us by trading with Rhodesia via the back door. Sanctions Busting war rife and well known. In fact the UN passed a Resolution instigating Sanctions but then passed decided it was up to each individual Country to decide what to do about it. In other words, the UN demanded Countries enforced Sanctions themselves but that nothing would happen if they didn’t. “You must not break the Law, but if you do you can make your own mind up what punishment to give yourself!” Wow, that’s really tough and guess what most Countries did!
Smith and the more moderate Black Leaders had already taken part in a peaceful handover to a multi-racial Government. Rather than our intervention stopping Mugabe grabbing power our intervention was the exact reason which caused it to happen.
He turned a prosperous Rhodesia, where there was no starvation despite what some would like to portray, into the One party Marxist Mess it is now in and it was all his own work!
Even prior to him grabbing power it was plainly obvious what Mugabe was like but most idealists were happy to bury their heads deeply in the sand rather than admit the truth and even now are still trying to blame others for the disaster he, his supporters and his excusers have assisted in creating.
And who was it who demanded the very sanctions which penalised those very Black Africans. In fact Smith’s declaration of UDI came about because he refused to be coerced into accepting Mugabe, his terrorists or his behaviour.
Why do you always pretend I've said something I haven't just so you can argue? I didn't say anything about Mugabe.
This thread isn't about African politics of 50 years ago it's about Capitalism, it isn't even about the Conservative Capitalism we had 50 years ago it's about the Libertarian Capitalism we have now.
Whitewater
20-Sep-07, 12:22
Well said 'Jaws', Thank you for that. I was well aware of the situation in Rhodesia, I don't bother going into the long explanations unless I'm really riled about something. I'm enjoying this thread, I'll admit I just wrote the much condensed, open ended post to see the response, and to see how much was known about the true situation there, and how easily any system can be corrupted. A bit naughty but fun.
Jeemag_USA
20-Sep-07, 23:01
Perhaps he has both eyes wide open instead of just one! As a Romanian he probably has a more realistic and less idealistic view of the alternatives.
Yes 'perhaps' is a lovely word isn't it. I was here directly afterwards and witnessed first hand the overnight patriotism and my wife was here when 9/11 happened and she is american born and bred, she didn't buy any dollar flags from walmart or bumper stickers from K-Mart. My statement stands as my own opinion. As a Romanian living in Romania he does not have an accurate perception of misplaced american patriotism that he described as 'unity'. He just has his own innacurate theory.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.