Marxism (Split from RCC thread)

[Knobbyboy88]

When is a person close enough to be called a marxist?

I would address this question on a case-by-case basis. There are simply far too many unknown variables which would go into a making a blanket judgement on such a broad issue. As I have already pointed out, things are rarely so simple as the "ivory tower" crowd might lead you to believe.


In Mugabe's case, he was a Marxist Revolutionary during the 1960s and 1970s (so he obviously is rather comfortable with the ideology), he allied himself with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and lead a "Marxist" government, he regularly uses rhetoric which is suspiciously reminiscient of Marxist values, and he has at least tried to impliment policies that claim to seek the "nationalization" of major sectors of Zimbabwe's economy.

I'm sorry, but this simply makes him a "Marxist" as far as I am concerned. The fact that he may not necessarily be a good one is irrelevant.

[ray245]

In Mugabe's case, he was a Marxist Revolutionary during the 1960s and 1970s (so he obviously is rather comfortable with the ideology), he allied himself with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and lead a "Marxist" government, he regularly uses rhetoric which is suspiciously reminiscient of Marxist values, and he has at least tried to impliment policies that claim to seek the "nationalization" of major sectors of Zimbabwe's economy.

I'm sorry, but this simply makes him a "Marxist" as far as I am concerned. The fact that he may not necessarily be a good one is irrelevant.

What is the policies that he has implemented that makes him a marxist? Can you quantify that in detail? All the requirements put forward by you is extremely vague.

[Knobbyboy88]

What is the policies that he has implemented that makes him a marxist? Can you quantify that in detail? All the requirements put forward by you is extremely vague.

There is, of course, the whole "one party" Marxist government issue.

Apart from this, however; I would say that I am broadly suspicious of any government which seeks to "nationalize" major industries or sectors of its economy. Mugabe has rather blatantly pushed to nationalize most of the land owned by whites in Zimbabwe.

As Zimbabwe's rampant hyperinflation would also seem to indicate, Mugabe is no opponent of economic "central planning" either.

[Knobbyboy88]

Yeah, "sharing something in common with Marxist ideology" is decidedly not the same as "being a Marxist" you dumb fucking retard, so you just basically conceded.

As Mugabe basically accepts all of the tenants of Marxist ideology, I fail to see how.

Once again, just because he may not be the "Marxist" that you think he ought to be, does not mean that he is not a "Marxist."

Ghandi is anti-colonialist.

Ghandi's non-violent form of "anti-colonialism" had next to nothing in common with the fire, brimstone, and populist uprising form practiced by Marxist leaders like Mugabe and Chavez, so it is basically a red herring. Nice try, however.

No, you said he's a Marxist

Yes....He is "more than close enough" to be considered a Marxist. What of it?

Once again, why does this have to be a false dilemma/

You have shown no such actions by Mugabe. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but if you cannot see the ways in which Mugabe has at least attempted to impliment "Marxist" economic policies, then you are simply blind.

[K. A. Pital]

As Zimbabwe's rampant hyperinflation would also seem to indicate, Mugabe is no opponent of economic "central planning" either.

You're an idiot, right?

Hyperinflation happened in:
Germany
Austro-Hungary
post-Soviet Russia and other nations (multiple times)

Neither of these nations used central planning at the time. And moreover, central planning operates on FIXED PRICES, thereby making hyperinflation basically impossible.

So inflation, and hyperinflation, is only possible outside central planning and in a market economy; due to oversupply of money and freely rising prices. In a planned economy, the corresponding process would be accruing deficits.

Man... You skipped econ, right?

Ghandi's non-violent form of "anti-colonialism" had next to nothing in common with the fire, brimstone, and populist uprising form practiced by Marxist leaders like Mugabe and Chavez

Chavez practiced violent anti-colonialism? Are you an idiot? His nation is long independent. What violent anti-colonialist uprising happened in Venezuela? Explain to me?

As Mugabe basically accepts all of the tenants of Marxist ideology

You haven't shown that he accepts even one tenant of Marxist ideology. Has he publicly endorsed anything of Marx?

I'm sorry, but if you cannot see the ways in which Mugabe has at least attempted to impliment "Marxist" economic policies

How are these policies uniquely Marxist, so that they differentiate Mugabe as a Marxist? Prove it. Like I said, you haven't done that. Mugabe tried to implement certain economic policies. Are those uniquely Marxist? Are those wide reaching enough to be considered Marxist? And are those based on official Marxist ideology and Marxian economics? No? Then WTF are you talking about?

How is he more a Marxist than any other African regime?

[ray245]

There is, of course, the whole "one party" Marxist government issue.

You are aware that there are nations that has a one party system, but wasn't a marxist state?

Apart from this, however; I would say that I am broadly suspicious of any government which seeks to "nationalize" major industries or sectors of its economy. Mugabe has rather blatantly pushed to nationalize most of the land owned by whites in Zimbabwe.

Care to name it?

As Mugabe basically accepts all of the tenants of Marxist ideology, I fail to see how.

Once again, just because he may not be the "Marxist" that you think he ought to be, does not mean that he is not a "Marxist."

Put forward a list of actions that makes him a marxist. In detail.


Seriously, I have enough of you trying to run away from the question being asked by giving us an extremely vague answer.

[Knobbyboy88]

You are aware that there are nations that has a one party system

That have Marxist one party governments?

Care to name it?

Put forward a list of actions that makes him a marxist. In detail.

Good lord Ray! Do you want me to write you a book on the subject here or what?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_zimbabwe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_mugabe

Just scan over these. You should find most of the policies I've mentioned covered within.

Seriously, I have enough of you trying to run away from the question being asked by giving us an extremely vague answer.

What part of "this is a seriously complicated issue, and I don't really have the time to spoon feed all of it to you" aren't you people getting exactly?

[ray245]

That have Marxist one party governments?

Taiwan under the KMT?

Good lord Ray! Do you want me to write you a book on the subject here or what?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_zimbabwe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_mugabe

Just scan over these. You should find most of the policies I've mentioned covered within.

Do not expect anyone else to do you the work for you. You made that claim, back it up down here. Tell me how does the specific policies implemented by Mugabe is marxist.

What part of "this is a seriously complicated issue, and I don't really have the time to spoon feed all of it to you" aren't you people getting exactly?

If you are too lazy to bother backing up your claim, then shut the hell up. Too bad the rules down here don't look kindly on peopel who don't like to back up their claim.

Debate Rule 5. Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

[Knobbyboy88]

You haven't shown that he accepts even one tenant of Marxist ideology

I have done so repeatedly. You simply refuse to accept them as they don't live up to your absurd and puritanical Marxist-Leninist selection bias.

Once again, it is entirely possible that Mugabe can be a slightly more moderate in his views and still be a "Marxist."

Chavez practiced violent anti-colonialism?

Don't be obtuse. You are well aware of the violent nature of Chavez's rhetoric.

How are these policies uniquely Marxist, so that they differentiate Mugabe as a Marxist? Prove it.

You see, that is exactly your problem Stas. We can't really prove much of anything given the evidence we have available. We can only really speculate on the motives of a fickle man that neither of us have met.

Frankly, what do you mean by "uniquely Marxist?" The fact the you may not find an African stalin does not mean that Africa does not possess Marxists.

Mugabe IS a Marxist. The current government in Zimbabwe was established by a "Marxist" party. Frankly, the fact that many other governments in Africa aren't a whole lot different doesn't really matter where this fact is concerned. Along with Latin America and South East Asia, Africa was one of the major regions of the world where "Red" movements were highly active during the Cold War.

So inflation, and hyperinflation, is only possible outside central planning and in a market economy; due to oversupply of money and freely rising prices. In a planned economy, the corresponding process would be accruing deficits.

I never said that it was a totally centrally planned economy. It was simply highly regulated and the state exercised broad oversight over industry.

This is actually rather common under "soft" socialist regimes.

[Knobbyboy88]

Do not expect anyone else to do you the work for you.

There is a difference between asking someone to "back up" their points, and basically asking them to provide you with a full fledged lecture on the subject.

You already know my stances on Mugabe and I have already named several of the policies which I believe to be "Marxist" in basis. Frankly, the sources I provided can back up my claims better than I would be able to anyway.

[Patrick Degan]

Do NOT presume to misquote or reinterpret me.

Fair enough. However, it is true.

Because YOU say it is, Bright-Eyes? Doesn't work that way around here.

This fact is literally common knowledge. I have neither the time nor inclination to become your google search bot simply to demonstrate what should be perfectly obvious.

YOUR claim, YOUR BURDEN to provide the evidence to actually back the claim, Bright-Eyes. "Common knowledge" is worthless as evidence, being on a par with hearsay.

Lets make this easier for both of us. Do you deny that the Marxist regimes of the 20th century fell victim to massive corruption and cronyism?

Let's look at that: the Soviet Union underwent sharp economic decline due to it's military overspending and the CPSU lost confidence in itself and its capacity to continue governance, but it's corruption levels were not crippling nor anywhere nearly sufficient enough to account for the downfall of the regime. The Warsaw Pact governments also were not overly burdened with cronyism, particularly not Honeker's East Germany or Jaruzelski's Poland. Communist China made a transition to a mixed system, as did Communist Vietnam —both survive. Cuba's system remains stable and is burdened by the ongoing US trade embargo, not by cronyism or rampant corruption. North Korea has effectively become a monarchy and has even officially abandoned Stalinism but also shows no signs of collapsing. Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia fell to a military conquest by Vietnam. And Yugoslavia was not victimised by cronyism or corruption by ethnic nationalism. History speaks against you on this assertion of yours.

nor do you tie it in to your catch-all redefinition of the Mugabe regime as Marxist.

Once again, I am hardly the one redefining terms here.

Oh yes you are, Bright-Eyes.

It is commonly accepted that Mugabe is a Marxist or at the very least borderline-Marxist leader.

Who gives a fuck what's "commonly accepted"? Lots of "commonly accepted" things don't hold up factually. That's why something more solid as evidence is demanded here.

Honestly, just google the words "Mugabe" and "Marxist" and see what comes up.

About the same sort of ideological tripe as comes up when you Google the words "Obama" and "Marxist", along with the odd notation that Mugabe used Marxist rhetoric to bolster his credibility with revolutionary forces back in the 60s and 70s. But as has been pointed out to you, rhetoric is worthless. Deeds are the standard of judgement, and by that standard, Mugabe and his government have proven to be anything but Marxist.

You can consider this to be an "appeal to popularity" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is you people who are the ones trying to rewrite history here, not me.

As you wish, Bright-Eyes. We're not responsible for your fantasies.

ignoring actual mechanics, focussing instead on mere rhetoric.

Once again, I'm not the one apparently claiming that if a leader's policies do not look and function exactly like those of Fidel Castro or Stalin they are somehow not a "true" Marxist.

No, you're the one who says that if they merely call themselves "Marxist" they are Marxist. By your idiot logic, that makes North Korea a democratic country simply because it calls itself one (the official name of the regime, after all, is the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea). My demand is that you actually demonstrate the factual basis for your argument with evidence of how the Zimbabwean government has proceeded since the downfall of the colonialist regime.

The Zimbabwean government was actually reacquiring land through repurchasing it from landowners, operating through the market and legal frameworks.

No, Mugabe signed a deal with the British in the 1970s which stated that no land reappropriations would take place for at least 10 years as long as the British Government was willing to pay for this compensation. This fact, in combination with the subsequent civil war and other various issues interfered with Mugabe making any significant land reappropriations throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s. Mugabe has only even started making massive moves towards land reappropriation since 2000. These moves have been disasterous.

Wrong again: the ten year grace period mandated by Lancaster House was not interference but part of a negotiated settlement, which Mugabe and the ZANU-PF party were quite willing to and did honour. Mugabe's move toward large scale reappropriation toward 2000, however, wasn't part of any Marxist programme but a move to appear populist to regenerate support and politically neutralise/co-opt the veterans of the Liberation War, who were becoming restive.

And as for recent years, there's been virtually no opposition and the recent challenge doens't count for all that much since Mugabe was able to essentially nullify a national election and outmanoeuver his main opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai.

What in God's name are you talking about? Mugabe has faced massive opposition from the MDC and other groups for years now.

Are we merely imagining that Mugabe is still in power in Harare? He's still president and he still controls the army. The cabinet which is now in office is half composed of Mugabe's old guard. And according to reports, it looks as if the deal may be about to fall apart:

HARARE, Oct. 26, 2009 (Reuters) — Zimbabwe's political crisis deepened Monday after the first meeting between President Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai since the prime minister's MDC party boycotted the unity government, an MDC spokesman said.

Spokesman Nelson Chamisa said the Movement for Democratic Change and Mugabe's ZANU-PF were "worlds apart" after the two leaders met to try to resolve the crisis.

"If they (Mugabe and his ZANU-PF) are facing west we are facing east," Chamisa said.

The crisis hit the fragile coalition earlier this month when the MDC said it would stop attending cabinet meetings in protest against the arrest of one of its senior officials and Mugabe's refusal fully to implement a political agreement.

Mugabe and his old foe Tsvangirai entered the unity government after disputed elections left the impoverished African state in a stalemate and in danger of serious violence.

Difficulties in implementing their agreement have delayed efforts to secure billions of dollars from Western donors, money that is crucial for Zimbabwe's economic recovery.

Chamisa said the MDC would now wait for the outcome of mediation by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and if this failed to end the deadlock the party would start to prepare for elections.

"If that (mediation) fails, unfortunately we have to start to prepare for elections because there is no government without the GPA (Global Political Agreement)," Chamisa told Reuters.

The fact that you continue to apply a term which does not fit Mugabe or his regime on no strength other than your repeated sayso

Once again, he was a Marxist revolutionary during the 1970s and has ruled a Marxist government for most of his career. Frankly, how exactly you people get off flippantly declaring that it is somehow "impossible" that he could even consider being a Marxist is rather perplexing.

And again, you apply rhetoric as your standard, while we look at deeds which show the opposite. Again, by your idiot logic, North Korea is a democratic country simply because it calls itselfs one.

[K. A. Pital]

You are well aware of the violent nature of Chavez's rhetoric.

Um... so? How does violent anti-American rethoric make him a violent anti-colonialist? Iran, Syria, etc. all practice violent anti-American rethorics. That means they are all Marxist now? I can't get your vibe, man. You have to show something differentiating. A criterion that be defining for a Marxist and separate Marxist governments from non-Marxist ones.

Once again, it is entirely possible that Mugabe can be a slightly more moderate in his views and still be a "Marxist."

So anyone can be a Marxist if he so as much as does one thing that Knobbyboy thinks is Marxist, regardless of whether that thing is uniquely Marxist? Thanks, you've been playing that game the entire thread.

Frankly, what do you mean by "uniquely Marxist?

That means they are determining Marxist governments, and a Marxist policy, clearly from a non-Marxist one. Example - nationalization of 90% or more percent of industry. That is a uniquely Marxist policy. That is what all real Marxist nations did. That is also unique, since other nations, non-Marxist, did not implement that.

There - one policy, unique to Marxism, easily quanitfiable, loads of historical examples, and correlates 100% with Marxist governments.

Frankly, the fact that many other governments in Africa aren't a whole lot different doesn't really matter where this fact is concerned

Why? I asked you how you separate a Marxist from a non-Marxist. You failed to answer, and you continue to fail by admitting now that Mugabe's policies are not uniquely Marxist and do not, in fact, constitute sufficient evidence of being a Marxist.

I never said that it was a totally centrally planned economy

A centrally planned economy is a unique feature of a Marxist government. It actually works quite good as a separating criterion of real Marxist governments from non-Marxist governments.

[Knobbyboy88]

OKAY! Before we go any further with this subject, we need to clarify a few points. The sheer obtusity of some of my opponents in simply refusing to even make the effort to try and understand my arguments is really starting to wear thin. It is almost as if we are having two completely different conversations.

If you mean to make the case that Mugabe is not a "Marxist" leader in the same vein as Stalin, Lenin, or Castro, then I wholehearted agree.

Okay? Are we clear on this point? DROP THE FUCKING SUBJECT. I DO NOT CARE.

However, if you mean to argue that ONLY leaders like Stalin, Lenin, and Castro may even dare presume to represent "Marxist" philosophy, then I must take issue with this claim. It is essentially a variation of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

It is basically akin to claiming that only Puritans may be referred to as "true" Protestents and Christians simply because other Protestent and Christian systems do not meet the entirely subjective criteria for Protestentism and Christianity that Puritans themselves have set for these terms. It is dishonest and overly biased in its selection criteria.

Frankly, I do not care whether or not a rabid Marxist-Leninist would consider a comparatively more "soft" regime, like those looked over by Mugabe or Chavez, to represent "true" Marxism. It simply is not relevant.

Let's look at that: the Soviet Union underwent sharp economic decline due to it's military overspending and the CPSU lost confidence in itself and its capacity to continue governance,

You completely misunderstood my point Degan. I did not literally mean that the Iron Curtain fell because of cronyism and corruption (though they obviously played a major role in this general outcome). I was implying that cronyism and corruption generally tended to go hand-in-hand with Marxist government. "Fell victim to" was a turn of phrase meant to illustrate this point.

Do you deny this fact?

Oh yes you are, Bright-Eyes.

Once again, no I'm not.

Who gives a fuck what's "commonly accepted"? Lots of "commonly accepted" things don't hold up factually. That's why something more solid as evidence is demanded here.

But as has been pointed out to you, rhetoric is worthless. Deeds are the standard of judgement

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Besides, as I have already pointed out to you, Mugabe has actually attempted to institute a number of Marxist reforms which have simply been impeded by domestic and external inference.

No, you're the one who says that if they merely call themselves "Marxist" they are Marxist.

No, I am saying that if it looks like a cat, sounds like a cat, and moves like a cat, it very likely is a cat.

Mugabe belonged to a Marxist Revolutionary movement during the 1960s and 1970s. You can provide NO hard evidence to support the claim that he simply went along with these groups in order to bolster his own popularity.

Furthermore, he has attempted to institute Marxist reform in Zimbabwe throughout his term as president.

Wrong again: the ten year grace period mandated by Lancaster House was not interference but part of a negotiated settlement, which Mugabe and the ZANU-PF party were quite willing to and did honour. Mugabe's move toward large scale reappropriation toward 2000, however, wasn't part of any Marxist programme but a move to appear populist to regenerate support and politically neutralise/co-opt the veterans of the Liberation War, who were becoming restive.

At this point you are simply splitting hairs and offering baseless speculation on Mugabe's personal motivations. None of this contradicts what I said earlier.

Are we merely imagining that Mugabe is still in power in Harare? He's still president and he still controls the army.

Once again, you are simply splitting hairs. He still retains control because he is a dictator who holds compete control over Zimbabwe's armed forces. This has no bearing on the strength of the opposition against him in Zimbabwe.

How does violent anti-American rethoric make him a violent anti-colonialist?

Once again Stas, don't be obtuse.

A criterion that be defining for a Marxist and separate Marxist governments from non-Marxist ones.

I have already provided it; socialism, "Marxist" rhetoric, and attempts by the state to "nationalize" important industries or major sections of the economy. You seem to agree with me on this point. It is simply on the issue of the degree to which these must occur before a regime can be considered to be "Marxist" that we seem to be finding conflict.

So anyone can be a Marxist if he so as much as does one thing that Knobbyboy thinks is Marxist,

Don't raise strawmen. A regime can still be clearly socialist and embrace Marxist rhetoric without going to the demented extremes you propose.

That means they are determining Marxist governments, and a Marxist policy, clearly from a non-Marxist one. Example - nationalization of 90% or more percent of industry

Once again, no. This would be akin to declaring that no state can be considered to be "Fascist" unless it fully adopts National Socialism and begins committing wholesale genocide against its native ethnic populations.

As with all the rest of your criteria, your definition is simply far too narrow and too extreme to be of any practical use whatsoever in today's global political environment.

[K. A. Pital]

I have already provided it; socialism

Marxist Socialism implies nationalization of all industry; other forms of socialism are not Marxist. Socialism cannot be a criterion of Marxism. India has written that it's a socialist state in it's constitution. There are many non-Marxist and anti-Marxist socialist parties. Socialism is NOT a criterion of Marxism.

"Marxist" rhetoric

Marxist rethoric uses the ideology of Marxism, or derivatives thereof. Has Mugabe referred to Karl Marx? Lenin at least? Just some Marxist ideologue? Which ideology does he advance? His own? In that case he is hardly using Marxist rethoric.

...attempts by the state to "nationalize" important industries or major sections of the economy

No; the entire economy to a centrally planned economy.

Non-Marxist nations like Western Germany, Scandinavian nations often had large sectors of their economy (which could reach as much as 50% of GDP) nationalized. However, they still operated a market economy and this made them, guess what, not Marxist. Read an econ textbook.

A regime can still be clearly socialist and embrace Marxist rhetoric without going to the demented extremes you propose.

No, it cannot - all real Marxist regimes went to "these extremes" and introduced a CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY. Those which did not and operated a market still, were NOT Marxist, even if they nationalized large portions of their economy (Western Germany, Scandinavian nations).

...no state can be considered to be "Fascist" unless it fully adopts National Socialism and begins committing wholesale genocide against its native ethnic population

Wrong. No state could be considered Nazi (National Socialist) until it commits to the doctrines, and the policies thereof which you so kindly listed above. Fascism includes National Socialism.

[Knobbyboy88]

Marxist Socialism implies nationalization of all industry

No; the entire economy to a centrally planned economy.

Honestly Stas, so long as you insist on maintaining such a uselessly strict definition of Marxism, there is no point in carrying on this converation.

By your logic, neither Hugo Chavez nor Morales would be Marxists either simply by the merit of the fact that they have not nationalized "all industry" or gone out of their way to declare "Marxism" as the official ideology of their nations. Your criteria are puritanical and, quite frankly, absurd.

Once again and for the last time Stas, "Marxism" is not now, nor will it ever be automatically synonymous with "Leninism" no matter how many times you may repeat this falsehood to yourself.

[K. A. Pital]

Honestly Stas, so long as you insist on maintaining such a uselessly strict definition of Marxism

All Marxist states have introduced a CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY.

Hugo Chavez nor Morales would be Marxists

Hugo Chavez at least professed for a plan to install a centrally planned economy. As for Morales, he's just a populist with no clear ideology to speak of. He is not a Marxist.

...gone out of their way to declare "Marxism" as the official ideology of their nations

Hugo Chavez declared that Marxism is an important part of his official state ideology, Bolivarianism. He also publicly proclaimed to follow Marxism. You fail so hard.

Once again and for the last time Stas, "Marxism" is not now, nor will it ever be automatically synonymous with "Leninism"

You are judging whether a state be Marxist by whether it adopts, partly, Marxist-Leninist policies. Therefore, you admit that Marxism is actually Marxism-Leninsm. Otherwise, you would be hard pressed to find any state to be Marxist, or even define "Marxist" ideology. Without Leninism, there is scant few, if not zero, real national Marxist governments outside the current. So you can't just ignore that fact and shout "everything is Marxist".

No, boy, not everything and not everyone who you feel is "left wing" is Marxist. That's why the term "left wing" was invented in the first place - it has more ideologies than Marxism.

[Edi]

Knobbyboy, time to start actually observing the forum rules about evidence or I'm just shutting this thread down. Your screeching and wall of ignorance grows really fucking tiresome.

[Patrick Degan]

OKAY! Before we go any further with this subject, we need to clarify a few points. The sheer obtusity of some of my opponents in simply refusing to even make the effort to try and understand my arguments is really starting to wear thin. It is almost as if we are having two completely different conversations.

Here's the inevitable bluster before Bright-Eyes starts whining like a little bitch about being misunderstood.

If you mean to make the case that Mugabe is not a "Marxist" leader in the same vein as Stalin, Lenin, or Castro, then I wholehearted agree.

Okay? Are we clear on this point? DROP THE FUCKING SUBJECT. I DO NOT CARE.

However, if you mean to argue that ONLY leaders like Stalin, Lenin, and Castro may even dare presume to represent "Marxist" philosophy, then I must take issue with this claim. It is essentially a variation of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Uh uh, asswipe —the problem is not a "No True Scottsman", it's the lack of a Scottsman at all which you keep trying to dishonestly cover up by redefining Marxism to suit your amorphous non-argument.

It is basically akin to claiming that only Puritans may be referred to as "true" Protestents and Christians simply because other Protestent and Christian systems do not meet the entirely subjective criteria for Protestentism and Christianity that Puritans themselves have set for these terms. It is dishonest and overly biased in its selection criteria.

Nope. Because at the end of the day, Puritans and other Protestants can still be classified under the same theology since they both share certain core doctrines and practise them. The same does not hold true for a man who says he's a Marxist (or did at one time) but then completely fails to act according to that ideology in the policies he and his government devise and execute.

Frankly, I do not care whether or not a rabid Marxist-Leninist would consider a comparatively more "soft" regime, like those looked over by Mugabe or Chavez, to represent "true" Marxism. It simply is not relevant.

Oh yes it is —since actions or lack thereof count for more than mere rhetoric. You've been a persistently dishonest little shit on this point and you keep trying to tapdance around your error.

Let's look at that: the Soviet Union underwent sharp economic decline due to it's military overspending and the CPSU lost confidence in itself and its capacity to continue governance,

You completely misunderstood my point Degan. I did not literally mean that the Iron Curtain fell because of cronyism and corruption (though they obviously played a major role in this general outcome). I was implying that cronyism and corruption generally tended to go hand-in-hand with Marxist government. "Fell victim to" was a turn of phrase meant to illustrate this point.

Oh really? DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS, LIAR:

Do you deny that the Marxist regimes of the 20th century fell victim to massive corruption and cronyism?

Once again, Moving the Goalposts. That was you saying that the major Communist governments collapsed due to corruption.

Who gives a fuck what's "commonly accepted"? Lots of "commonly accepted" things don't hold up factually. That's why something more solid as evidence is demanded here.

But as has been pointed out to you, rhetoric is worthless. Deeds are the standard of judgement

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

No we won't, asswipe. You've made claims and now you're being called on them. EIther back your claims or shut the fuck up.

Besides, as I have already pointed out to you, Mugabe has actually attempted to institute a number of Marxist reforms which have simply been impeded by domestic and external inference.

How is land reform (the one major noncapitalist programme of the Mugabe government) exclusively Marxist? Ireland carried out land reform programmes after independence from England in 1922 (and which followed the pattern of Irish land acts passed in the British Parliament from 1870-1903). Does that make the Irish Free State Marxist? You do understand that the concept of land redistribution goes at least as far back as the Lex Sempronia Agraria passed by the Roman Senate in 133 BCE, don't you? No? Didn't think so.

No, you're the one who says that if they merely call themselves "Marxist" they are Marxist.

No, I am saying that if it looks like a cat, sounds like a cat, and moves like a cat, it very likely is just that.

How very simpleminded of you. Here, a higher standard of evidence is actually demanded.

Mugabe belonged to a Marxist Revolutionary movement during the 1960s and 1970s. You can provide NO hard evidence to support the claim that he simply went along with these groups in order to bolster his own popularity.

Except for the fact that Mugabe abandoned Marxist economic and state control policies once ZANU-PF got into actual power.

Furthermore, he has attempted to institute Marxist reform in Zimbabwe throughout his term as president.

And again: How is land reform (the one major noncapitalist programme of the Mugabe government) exclusively Marxist? Ireland carried out land reform programmes after independence from England in 1922 (and which followed the pattern of Irish land acts passed in the British Parliament from 1870-1903). Does that make the Irish Free State Marxist? You do understand that the concept of land redistribution goes at least as far back as the Lex Sempronia Agraria passed by the Roman Senate in 133 BCE, don't you? No? Didn't think so.

And in point of fact, the major reform effort which took place in the late 90s in Zimbabwe was an IMF-mandated programme of austerity and economic restructuring, as pointed out in the 1998 white paper PUBLIC ENTERPRISE REFORM AND PRIVATISATION IN ZIMBABWE: ECONOMIC, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS:

THE PARASTATAL SECTOR IN ZIMBABWE

Emergence and expansion
Zimbabwe inherited at independence a large number of parastatals. More than 60% of the parastatals were established before independence. In particular, almost all the marketing boards date back to the pre-independence period. The expansion of the parastatal sector after independence was not accomplished through expropriation or nationalisation of private assets but through new investments and creation of new parastatal bodies. This is in contrast to what happened in most African countries where massive nationalisation and expropriation was the rule rather than the exception. This distinct nature of the expansion of the sector makes disposal of state assets easier as there are no private claimants to the assets owned by the state. Both the emergence and expansion of the public enterprise sector in Zimbabwe is quite different from the experiences in many other African countries. The role of the state in the economy has grown gradually over a very long period without any sudden change. It seems ideology has played a very minor role in this gradual process. Zimbabwe, in the early eighties was one of a few countries in Africa where private ownership was
a highly dominant feature in industry.

The parastatal sector in Zimbabwe today encompasses a wide variety of economic activities. It is represented in almost all sectors. Most notably in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transport, energy, communication and finance. All in all there are about 90 public enterprises and about 15 statutory bodies. In about 85 of them government is the sole owner, in another 10 government is a majority shareholder and in about 10 government holds substantial minority ownership. The Industrial Development Corporation GDC) alone has ownership interest in 45 enterprises more than half of which are fully owned by the corporation. In terms of legal status, some parastatals are public corporations established under special Acts of Parliament like most of the agricultural marketing boards before their commercialisation in the past couple of years. Others are incorporated under the Private Companies Act with 100% government ownership like Affretair, ZISCO and IDC. There are also a few which are joint ventures with foreign companies like some of the subsidiaries of ZMDC in the mining sector.

The parastatal sector is also very diverse in terms of objectives. Some are purely developmental and promotional like ARDA, AFC; some are strategic like GMB, Zimbabwe Defence Industries, ZIANA and some are predominantly commercial like ZISCO, MMCZ and most of the subsidiaries to ZMDC and IDC.

The legal and institutional framework for public enterprises (PEs) as it is now, imposes constraints on their effectiveness, autonomy and
accountability. For example, from the point of view of alleviating the budget deficit, parastatals are urged to compete effectively and turn out profit, pay income and capital gains tax and dividends to the government. However, from an administrative point of view, parent ministries continue to regard their PEs as coming under the relevant Acts of Parliament in such areas as labour law, investment, borrowing, reporting, supervisory mechanism as well as rules and regulations governing public procurement.

Public enterprise reform in Zimbabwe
In the Framework for Economic Reform (1991-95) (hereinafter called 'the ESAP Document') the Government of Zimbabwe undertook to implement a public enterprise reform programme, aimed at eliminating the large budgetary burden of the PE sector and making the PEs more efficient. The envisaged PE reform programme was broad and its objectives were set out as:

— efficiency improvements and economic development through attraction of foreign investment, technology and know-how, and the harnessing and encouragement of local entrepreneurial skills; and

— generation of revenue from sales and leases;

To achieve these objectives utilization of a full range of options including outright sale of shares and assets, leasing and management contracts and contracting out of services was recommended. However, in the actual implementation, the PE reform programme seems to have been narrowed down to privatization in its most restricted sense. Thus, the actual sale of shares previously held by the state or the state's stake in PEs and the revenue raised therefrom seem to have become the accepted measure of success or failure of the reform programme.

The PE reform programme as spelt out in the ESAP Document above had some obvious shortcomings. For example, no particular requirement, like the setting up of a special capital account, was stated for the utilization of revenue generated from the disposal of state assets. However, the more fundamental weaknesses of the programme were the failure to develop a comprehensive policy statement and the lack of an efficient and transparent legal framework for the implementation of the reforms.

Since the start of the reform programme, several enterprise restructuring measures have been undertaken in preparation for full privatisation. PEs which received earlier restructuring programmes include the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) and the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA). In the case of the NRZ, the restructuring concentrated on its core business and shedding off non-core activities such as the Road Motor Services, now a private company. As for ZESA, a $6 billion agreement with a Malaysian company, YTL Corporation Berhad, was signed for the privatization and expansion of the Hwange Thermal power station. Under the deal there would be established a joint venture company in which the local PE utility, ZESA, would have a 49% equity while the majority shareholding of 51% would be held by the Malaysian company.

Significant reforms were made in the former Agricultural Marketing Boards (CMB, CSC, DMB and GMB) and they focused on rationalization and restructuring to achieve efficiency. The government agreed to take over the $4 billion debt of three major agricultural PEs (CSC, CMB, GMB). At the same time three agricultural PEs (DMB, CMB and CSC) were put on a fast track towards more profound reform. These PEs have moved from being statutory or public corporations under public Acts of Parliament to incorporation under the Companies Act, thereby becoming private companies though with 100% share capital still owned by the government. The PEs thus incorporated under the Companies Act have become known as Dairibord Zimbabwe Limited (DZL), Cotton Company of Zimbabwe
(Cottco) and Cold Storage Commission (CSC). The deliverables of these companies, buying of milk and milk processing, buying of cotton and ginning, and buying of livestock and meat processing, have been liberalized with the entry of competition. In 1997 both Dairibord Zimbabwe Limited and Cottco were privatised through public share offers to institutions and private investors.

Three PEs operating in the mining sector — MMCZ, ZMDC and the Roasting Plant Corporation have been the subject of legislation permitting a new form of corporate structure with private sector involvement. Under amended enabling legislation they have limited liability and provision for share capital, although no capital has yet been issued. At all times the present legislation allows at least 51% of the shares of ZMDC, and the Roasting Plant Corporation and 75% of the share capital of the MMCZ to be held by the state. Some of the PEs in the mining sector have submitted their privatization proposals for approval by government.

With the successful launching of the first privatisation exercise, the government seems to be determined to move faster than before. The PTC is soon to be fully commercialised once its regulatory functions are transferred to other bodies. ZBC is also to see major changes in its operations and to lose its broadcasting monopoly.

As privatisation is gathering momentum, concern has been raised about the effect of the privatisation on wealth distribution in the country, particularly, on the indigenisation of the economy. The government has tried to allay the fear that foreign interests and non-indigenous groups will further consolidate their economic power by establishing the National Investment Trust to warehouse some shares in privatised companies for future disposal to indigenous groups. Another measure suggested is the creation of Employee Stock Ownership Schemes (ESOPs). As ESOPs and the National Investment Trust have been presented as a way of using privatisation as a vehicle of indigenisation, it is necessary to look into the privatisation-indigenisation connection.

—which means that Zimbabwe, since the latter days of colonialism and white minority rule, had shaped itself along the lines of most typical European social democracies of the 50s-80s, continued in that vein through a period following independence as opposed to the more radical wholesale nationalisations being carried out in other former colonial nations, and began a restructuring programme in the 1990s based around commercialisation, gradual privatisation, and divestiture of state assets to qualify for IMF loans. So do explain to the class how this fits into a Marxist paradigm, asswipe.

Wrong again: the ten year grace period mandated by Lancaster House was not interference but part of a negotiated settlement, which Mugabe and the ZANU-PF party were quite willing to and did honour. Mugabe's move toward large scale reappropriation toward 2000, however, wasn't part of any Marxist programme but a move to appear populist to regenerate support and politically neutralise/co-opt the veterans of the Liberation War, who were becoming restive.

At this point you are simply splitting hairs and offering baseless speculation on Mugabe's personal motivations. None of this contradicts what said earlier.

The argument regarding Mugabe's motivations is quite verifiable. No, asswipe, that's not hairsplitting. That's shaving your argument bald.

Are we merely imagining that Mugabe is still in power in Harare? He's still president and he still controls the army.

Once again, you are simply splitting hairs. He still retains control because he is a dictator who holds compete control over Zimbabwe's armed forces. This has no bearing on the strength of the opposition against him in Zimbabwe.

And your "rebuttal" has no bearing on the fact that Mugabe still rules and that he's still in position to maintain that rule no matter what constitutes his opposition.

[Knobbyboy88]

it's the lack of a Scottsman at all

No moron. Once again, Mugabe nominally IS a Marxist. He was a Marxist Revolutionary during the 1960s and 1970s, and he explicitly established Zimbabwe's government as a "one party" Marxist system allied with the Soviet Union.

Frankly, you still have as of yet to provide any evidence to discount this FACT apart from the entirely subjective claim that you simply don't believe that Mugabe behaves in a manner "Marxist enough" for your liking.

Puritans and other Protestants can still be classified under the same theology since they both share certain core doctrines and practise them

Once again dumbass, this isn't any different from Mugabe's situation in Zimbabwe. A Marxist is a Marxist is a Marxist.

If you want to debate whether or not Mugabe can be considered to be a good Marxist, then that is an entirely different issue.

The same does not hold true for a man who says he's a Marxist (or did at one time) but then completely fails to act according to that ideology in the policies he and his government devise and execute.

Frankly Degan, I'm getting sick of explaining this to you only to have you completely ignore my arguments.

Once again, land redistribution in the interests of "nationalization" is an EXPICITLY "Marxist" policy. This fact alone proves that Mugabe has at least made an effort to act in a fashion consistent with "Marxist" principles. Whether this effort has ultimately been successful, was made for honest reasons, or was as extreme as has been the case in soem other "Marxist" nations is completely IRRELEVANT.

I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat this before it finally starts to sink in, but one need not follow an ideology at its most extreme simply to be considered to be in line with its principles.

Oh really? DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS, LIAR:


Knobbyboy wrote:
Do you deny that the Marxist regimes of the 20th century fell victim to massive corruption and cronyism?

You don't read a lot of books, do you? "Fell victim to" in this case is a turn of phrase meant to represent a sentiment roughly similar to "ultimately ended up in a state of."

You are making a strawman argument and you know it Degan.

Once again, Moving the Goalposts. That was you saying that the major Communist governments collapsed due to corruption.

Once again, no it wasn't. Drop the strawman argument.

You've made claims and now you're being called on them.

I have already backed up my claims on this issue numerous times. You still have as of yet to demonstrate why "only deeds" are an effective criteria for judgement.

As far as I'm concerned, intent or even claimed intent are just as good a measure as actual execution.

How is land reform (the one major noncapitalist programme of the Mugabe government) exclusively Marxist? Ireland carried out land reform programmes after independence from England in 1922 (and which followed the pattern of Irish land acts passed in the British Parliament from 1870-1903). Does that make the Irish Free State Marxist? You do understand that the concept of land redistribution goes at least as far back as the Lex Sempronia Agraria passed by the Roman Senate in 133 BCE, don't you? No? Didn't think so.

Honestly Degan, look back over what you just said. The Irish Revolution was explicitly "Socialist" in nature. Of course they instituted land reform. The various land reforms conducted by the Roman Republic to more fairly distribute land among Plebes were explictly "proto-Socialist."

The simple fact of the matter is that "land redistribution" of just about any kind which moves workable properties from the hands of the "eilte" to the downtrodden lower classes is most likely going to fall in line to some degree with Socialist principles as endorsed by Marx.

If you had been listening intead of simply fuming and going out of your way to blow my comments completely out of proportion, you would have realized that I have already established "Socialism" as a fundamental tenant of all Marxist states for exactly this reason. While "Socialism" alone may not be enough to qualify a state as "Marxist," "Socialism" in combination with traditionally "Marxist" rhetoric, ideology (fully or partially instituted), and economic practices (i.e. realized or attempted nationalization of some or all major industries) certainly is. Mugabe simply fits all of these criteria.

Whether or not he meets them well is completely irrelevant.

How very simpleminded of you. Here, a higher standard of evidence is actually demanded

Which I have already provided. Frankly, how on Earth can I expect you to follow my more advanced lines of reasoning when you are having considerable difficulty with a concept so simple as Occam's razor?

Things very likely are what they appear to be.

And in point of fact, the major reform effort which took place in the late 90s in Zimbabwe was an IMF-mandated programme of austerity and economic restructuring, as pointed out in the 1998 white paper PUBLIC ENTERPRISE REFORM AND PRIVATISATION IN ZIMBABWE: ECONOMIC, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS:

What have I told you people about context? Nearly all former "Marxist" regimes (with the exceptions of a few stubborn hold outs like Cuba and North Korea) tried to get on the Western World and the IMF's good sides after the fall of the Soviet Union. How does this prove anything at all as far as Mugabe's allegience to Marxism is concerned?

This fact has obviously not prevented Mugabe from pushing for "Socialist" Land reform in Zimbabwe and even the Nationalization of agriculture in recent years.

In particular, almost all the marketing boards date back to the pre-independence period.

The legal and institutional framework for public enterprises (PEs) as it is now, imposes constraints on their effectiveness, autonomy and
accountability.

In terms of legal status, some parastatals are public corporations established under special Acts of Parliament

The role of the state in the economy has grown gradually over a very long period without any sudden change.

None of this disproves my claim that Mugabe is primarily a Socialist ruler who is simply willing to endorse gradual change. Once again, a "Marxist" need not follow the Stalinist handbook to the letter to be considered to be at least marginally in line with "Marxist" principles.

Besides, as I have already pointed out, Zimbabwe's comparatively slow movement towards nationalization can largely be attributed to domestic and external variables which made such moves impractical. The British persuaded Mugabe to hold off on Nationalization of agriculture for a decade in the 1980s and the subsequent civil war divided Mugabe's support base in later years. In the post-Cold War period, Mugabe simply moved to realign himself with the newly developing "Washington Consensus" like most other "Marxist" leaders of this period did.

The argument regarding Mugabe's motivations is quite verifiable.

Okay...You provided a link to wikipedia and some Journal Article. What exactly is this supposed to prove? That Mugabe is popular with veterans of his Marxist campaign to bring about Zimbabwe's independence or that, in one researcher's opinion, Mugabe is not being honest?

Frankly, neither of these links really prove a damn thing. Even if Stiles is correct, who is to say that a "Marxist" leader cannot simply be corrupt and dishonest?

And your "rebuttal" has no bearing on the fact that Mugabe still rules and that he's still in position to maintain that rule no matter what constitutes his opposition.

Did I ever deny this? What is your point?

[Knobbyboy88]

All Marxist states have introduced a CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY.

Chavez and Morales certainly haven't, and they are arguably the closest things to true "Marxists" that we have left in the world.

Obviously Stas, your thinking on this matter needs to evolve to meet the changing global environment. Your current definition of the term is beyond useless.

Hugo Chavez at least professed for a plan to install a centrally planned economy

Ok, show me the quotes then. I have repeatedly stated that Mugabe has more or less done the same thing at various points over the course of his career, and you have refused to believe me.

Hugo Chavez declared that Marxism is an important part of his official state ideology, Bolivarianism. He also publicly proclaimed to follow Marxism.

Once again, this is in any way different from Mugabe, who actually WAS a "Marxist" Revolutionary and has lead a "Marxist" government for several decades...How exactly?

[Simplicius]

Moved to the topically-appropriate forum.

[Simplicius]

And to participate...

Chavez and Morales certainly haven't, and they are arguably the closest things to true "Marxists" that we have left in the world.

Calling them "the closest thing," whether or not that is true, is a concession that they are not actually that thing, but merely resemble it. Saying "Chavez and Morales, who are not quite Marxists, have not established planned economies" does not disprove the claim that planned economies are a defining condition of Marxism.

Obviously Stas, your thinking on this matter needs to evolve to meet the changing global environment. Your current definition of the term is beyond useless.

Marxism is what it is; as it is a defined, doctrinal ideology it will retain its original definition. If 'classical' Marxists are scarce it is because there are few practicing Marxists in this day and age, not because Marxism somehow changed with the times.

I have repeatedly stated that Mugabe has more or less done the same thing at various points over the course of his career, and you have refused to believe me.

You have stated, but you have not established. You must enumerate the specifically Marxist policies which Mugabe has put in place in Zimbabwe, or you must concede the point.

Once again, this is in any way different from Mugabe, who actually WAS a "Marxist" Revolutionary and has lead a "Marxist" government for several decades...How exactly?

Zimbabwe is a multi-party parliamentary democracy which is presently grappling with Mugabe, who is attempting to run the country as a strongman. Explain how this government is Marxist.

[Knobbyboy88]

Marxism is what it is; as it is a defined, doctrinal ideology it will retain its original definition.

That is all well and good...but only from an academic perspective. If this is the really the direction we are going to take in this discussion, we might as well just admit that "Marxism" is absolutely irrelevant in any real world context, and start using a different term entirely.

It honestly doesn't matter to me. A turd is still a turd regardless of what you may chose to call it. This will not change the fact that Mugabe is a corrupt Left Wing thug with blatant historical ties to the "Red" movement.

I simply think that the term "Marxist" is fitting given Mugabe's historical affiliations and stated goals.

Zimbabwe is a multi-party parliamentary democracy which is presently grappling with Mugabe, who is attempting to run the country as a strongman. Explain how this government is Marxist.

"Officially," Zimbabwe may be a Parlimentary Democracy. Unofficially, however; there can be little doubt that Mugabe has been essentially running the country as a "one party" system where his own Marxist party effectively holds an unfair and quite possibbly illegal absolute monopoly on political power.

For instance...

Elections in March 1990 resulted in another victory for Mugabe and his party, which won 117 of the 120 election seats. Election observers estimated voter turnout at only 54% and found the campaign neither free nor fair.[27][28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#U ... .931979.29

[Samuel]

Once again, land redistribution in the interests of "nationalization" is an EXPICITLY "Marxist" policy.

Land redistribution is the opposite of nationalization.

The various land reforms conducted by the Roman Republic to more fairly distribute land among Plebes were explictly "proto-Socialist."

No. Socialism is when the government runs sectors of the economy. What you are refering to is populism, when the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor in order to insure the power of current government.

The simple fact of the matter is that "land redistribution" of just about any kind which moves workable properties from the hands of the "eilte" to the downtrodden lower classes is most likely going to fall in line to some degree with Socialist principles as endorsed by Marx.

Marx wanted all land owned by the state.

Chavez and Morales certainly haven't, and they are arguably the closest things to true "Marxists" that we have left in the world.

Castro isn't dead yet.

[Simplicius]

That is all well and good...but only from an academic perspective. If this is the really the direction we are going to take in this discussion, we might as well just admit that "Marxism" is absolutely irrelevant in any real world context, and start using a different term entirely.

Words have specific meanings, and it is important to hew to those meaning if you want to make sense. 'Nazi' refers to a specific political party and ideology. 'Fascist' refers to an ideology of which Nazism is a subset. Communists are not fascists. Socialists are not communists. Marxists are not Maoists are not Stalinists are not Marxist-Leninists, though they are all communists.

The only reason we have all these words in the first place is because they all mean different things. And since they all refer back to real-world ideologies, it is not "academic."

It honestly doesn't matter to me. A turd is still a turd regardless of what you may chose to call it. This will not change the fact that Mugabe is a corrupt Left Wing thug with blatant historical ties to the "Red" movement.

If it doesn't matter to you, then why have you bothered to defend the erroneous claim that Mugabe is a Marxist? You could have said this thing pages ago and the debate probably would have ended, or at least changed tack.

I simply think that the term "Marxist" is fitting given Mugabe's historical affiliations and stated goals.

However, what you simply think doesn't necessarily have weight outside your own head. If you use incorrect terminology and are corrected, you can either make a case for your use - which you are struggling to do - or simply admit that you were mistaken.

"Officially," Zimbabwe may be a Parlimentary Democracy. Unofficially, however; there can be little doubt that Mugabe has been essentially running the country as a "one party" system where his own Marxist party effectively holds an unfair and quite possibbly illegal absolute monopoly on political power.

Here we go again...how is ZANU-PF specifically Marxist? You toss that word around like an anarchist does with "fascist," and you look equally foolish.

Fighting wikipedia with wikipedia:

Officially, ZANU-PF is socialist in ideology, and is modeled on communist parties in other countries. The party maintains a politburo.[4] However, the party had abandoned much of the egalitarian aspects associated with conventional Communist Party practice, instead choosing to pursue a mixed economy. But Mugabe has since pursued a more populist approach on the issue of land redistribution: encouraging seizure of large farms – usually owned by members of the white minority – "for the benefit of landless black peasants."

"Mixed economy," "land redistribution" - redistribution, not collectivization - these are not Marxist things. They are populist/socialist/modern 'communist lite,' not Marxist.

Moderator Hat On: put your references in tags. Don't just color plaintext blue; it is very difficult to see on the board's default scheme.