Marxism (Split from RCC thread)

[Knobbyboy88]

If it doesn't matter to you, then why have you bothered to defend the erroneous claim that Mugabe is a Marxist?

I don't think that it is erroneous. The issue here seems to primarily be a result of the fact that I apparently carry a broader definition of the word "Marxism" than some other members of this board.

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.

True enough. However, the word "Marxist" can be used far more broadly than "Nazi," "Leninist," or "Stalinist." As Marx was essentially responsible for the modern form of this system, "Marxism" can be thought of as broadly covering any ideology which can be considered to be "Communist."

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."

As far as I am concerned, this only proves that point. Mugabe was definitely a "Marxist" in the past, and his present ideology still retains many of these same principles. It still has not renounced "Communist" ideals.

Frankly, "communism lite" is still "communism," which finds its basis in "Marxism."


There are, of course, also situations like this...

The government organised a referendum on the new constitution, despite having a sufficiently large majority in parliament to pass any amendment it wished. Had it been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation. Despite vast support in the media, the new constitution was defeated, 55% to 45%. There was wild jubilation by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)'s local and foreign supporters, prompting end-of-Mugabe headlines in the British and Zimbabwean media.

A few days later, the pro-Mugabe War Veterans Association organised like-minded people (not necessarily other war veterans, as many of them were too young to have fought in the Liberation War) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. As the march continued, seizing began. When the violence ended, a total of 110,000 square kilometers of land had been seized.

...which occured in 2000, and this...

On June 10, 2004, a spokesperson for the British embassy Sophie Honey said: [7]

The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British Government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.

"Since [Zimbabwe's] independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.
The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it."

The Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement John Nkomo had declared five days earlier, that all land, from crop fields to wildlife conservancies, would soon become state property. Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years. There have since been denials of this policy, however.

...which occured in 2004. The kind of push towards "nationalization" by force shown in these events isn't even particularly "communist lite" so much as it is simply "communist."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_refor ... babwe#2000

[K. A. Pital]

However, the word "Marxist" can be used far more broadly than "Nazi," "Leninist," or "Stalinist."

You use it so broadly to include any government that has made any kind of policy you think is socialist. Hence why the board took issue with your definitions. Not because you're using a "broad" definition (incidentally, what right do you have to define Marxism "broader" than the actual ideology of Marx, anyhow?).

Like I said, you repeatedly ignore non-Marxist nations doing the same kind of reform and even widespread nationalization, however, without fully converting to a state planned economy, which includes a vast multitude of nations like European countries (France, Germany, Scandinavian nations) et cetera.

You have offered no explanation as to how these nations are not Marxist. I have offered one - because they do not possess a planned economy.

As for your demand for Chavez quotes:

Encouraged by the experience of the workers, with the proposals that have been made, proposals that have emerged from the depths of the working class, let us make real this plan for a Great Integrated, Collective Industrial Complex. Now, let's nationalise the iron briquette sector! There is nothing to discuss! We have been on this path for a long time, and we should have done this long ago! Let us begin the process of nationalisation straight away in order to create this Industrial Complex!

...A few years back I noticed plainly that no basic industry, be it iron or steel, bauxite and aluminium, or petrochemicals, none of them can be sustainable in the medium or long term if they are not brought together into a centralized network of industries of social property from raw materials to finished goods

A real socialist planned economy has nothing in common with the bureaucratic totalitarian state that existed in Stalinist Russia. It is based on the democratic participation and control of the economy at all levels by the working people themselves, including the scientists, engineers, agronomists, planners, architects, and economists. Freed from the dictatorship of private profit, the economy will expand at an unprecedented rate. Unemployment would disappear overnight and the basis would be laid for a general increase in living standards. As the economy expands and the conditions of the masses improve, it will be possible to bring about a general reduction in working hours without prejudicing productivity … In a socialist planned economy, the generalized application of new technology will lead to a reduction in working hours, which is the prior condition for the participation of the masses in the running of industry and the state and in art, science, and culture. This, and no other, is the real material basis upon which socialism of the 21st century will be built

The private property must be subjected to the social function … We are referring here to the collective property, instituting the change of the property models toward socialism

So, while he has not yet converted Venezuela to a planned economy, it could be argued that he intends to do such by virtue of his proclaimed goals. And you're right, he's one of the few new world leaders who can be considered a Marxist. He also proclaimed a critically important policy - the conversion of private property (on capital) to collective property - the most defining trait of a real Marxist. He also claimed to follow the legacy of Lenin/USSR:

You can criticize the Soviet Union's political government all you want, but the legacy of the USSR is vast. I recently visited Minsk. A machine plant, and I want to build one like that in my nation. And think of it - the first stones of this plant were laid down in the end of World War II, when the soil was still red with the blood of true heroes! ... Lenin is one of the key thinkers of Russia, and the Revolution in Russia was heroic

I am particulary fond of visiting Belorussia, for this nation is the fulfillment of Vladimir Lenin's goal of building the society freed from capitalist exploitation. We must fulfill Lenin's goal of destroying the exploit of man by man.

So why do I consider Chavez a Marxist? See above. He claimed to aim to build a socialist planned economy. He acted to build it. He claimed that Marx, Lenin et cetera are the basis of his ideology. This is how Chavez is critically different from Mugabe and other non-Marxist populists, socialists and the like. Chavez actually founds almost his entire economic and political theory on Marxism. I doubt Mugabe does.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

I have provide the evidence, you fucking liar. I grow tired of your endless handwaving. Mugabe embraced Marxist rhetoric to gain credibility with the Liberation movement in the 70s. After his party ascended to power, he demonstrably enacted policies which were anything but Marxist as the attached articles to this thread attest, and your constant, sheep-like bleating that "he called himself Marxist therefore is a Marxist" counts for exactly dick. And no, he did not establish the post-colonial government as a one-party state nor as a Soviet ally.

In March 1980, the UK agreed to provide £75 million in training and aid to the Zimbabwean army. That same year, Mugabe turned down a deal for Soviet-built hardware that had been brokered by Joshua Nkomo, declaring that he did not want to enter into the ongoing trade relationship of buying spares and hiring Soviet instructors that this purchase would necessitate (The Guardian 11.6.1980). The following year, British Aerospace sold eight Hawk Jets to Zimbabwe for £20 million, thus cementing the relationship and effectively bringing Zimbabwe ‘on side’ in the battle for influence over the developing world. The Zimbabwean military continued to buy UK planes throughout the 1980s, including six Hawker Hunters and additional Hawk jets to replace some which were destroyed in 1983 by arsonists. This arsenal was augmented in 1985 by the purchase of seven additional Hawks and 13 Hawker Hunters.

In the mid-eighties Zimbabwe received a large shipment of arms from Poland and other eastern bloc countries. It also negotiated with the Soviet Union for the purchase of MiG-29 fighters but, in 1987, turned down the deal. During 1987, the UK government offered Harrier and Hawk jets to Zimbabwe, possibly with the express intention, and certainly with the effect, of heading-off the deal with Moscow. Zimbabwe cancelled a further £400 million in orders for Soviet Union arms in 1992.

External and Internal Alignments

Mr Mugabe’s 1980 decisions regarding UK or Soviet arms purchases can be seen to have two distinct meanings, one primarily international and one of internal significance. Firstly, the decision to buy British and not to have a direct relationship with Moscow can, as indicated above, be viewed as a means of aligning Zimbabwe with the West. Mugabe’s statement suggested that the purchase of arms was not merely about the particular hardware acquired, but about the establishment of international relationships.

The second way in which this event was indicative of broader trends lay in Mugabe’s rejection of Joshua Nkomo as a legitimate leader in the new administration. Increasingly the members of ZAPU felt disenfranchised by the ZANU government. The ZANU decision to stand alone for the general election rather than on a joint ticket with ZAPU came as a shock to many from ZAPU who had worked alongside ZANU during the war of independence. Those who had trained and fought for ZIPRA felt under-represented in the army. When a special presidential guard, the 5th Brigade, was trained by North Korea, Mugabe stated that one of its purposes would be to counteract ‘dissidents’, obliquely referring to the growing unrest among ex-ZIPRA fighters and their leaders (The Times 30.10.1981). Mugabe accused Nkomo and ZAPU of plotting to undermine the new government and the discovery of stored armaments on ZAPU property in 1982 seemed to confirm this. There followed a campaign of anti-government guerilla activity between 1982 and 1987 in Matabeleland. A small number of ex-ZIPRA guerrillas took up arms again, now against their former allies. There is some evidence that tensions between the nationalist groups was exacerbated by South African operatives deliberately attempting to destabilize the new nation. But while some of the dissidents were supported by South African arms, many ex-ZIPRA guerrillas were persecuted in the national army (the ZNA), and felt they had been driven to take up arms in defence of their lives.

Zimbabwe has never been a one-party state, as even a cursory read of the country's history attests.

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.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. Your argument has already been stripped of its validity by every poster in this thread and by the evidence posted which you persistently ignore, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit.

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

No, we will not debate your red herrings. Go fuck yourself.

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.

I don't ignore your arguments, shitwit, I find them laughably simpleminded and dishonest.

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.

You do realise, don't you, that land redistribution goes at least as far back as the Lex Sempronia Agraria passed by the Roman Senate in 133BCE, don't you? No? Didn't think so. Further, liar, Mugabe's land redistribution was not pursued with the object of nationalisation. You are simply plucking that right out of your ass.

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, we are quite prepared to have to keep knocking down your Wall of Ignorance for as long as it takes before you've finally had enough humiliation. This goes on as long as you think you're up for the game.

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.

No, liar, I am calling you out on your direct claim. NOT a strawman.

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 can try to run away from your arguments, Knothead, but you can't hide from them.

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.

No, you just keep repeating the same non-argument while ignoring every item of evidence that contradicts you. Keep it up and you're going to keep getting called on it.

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

To put it bluntly, who fucking cares what your subjective concerns are? Evidence is the only valid criteria for judgement and so far you've provided nothing.

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."

No, moron, the Irish revolution was explicitly a national independence movement borne out of eight centuries of English oppression. And you really are parading your ignorance to label any action of the Roman Republic as "socialist" or even "proto-socialist". I think I'm going to drop a note on this one to the several Roman history experts in residence here so they can have a good laugh at your idiocy.

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.

Nevermind that land redistribution is neither explicitly socialist, explicitly Marxist, and predates both by at least 1500 years in history. I look forward to your eventual investiture as our latest Village Idiot.

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.

Because you say so, naturally.

Whether or not he meets them well is completely irrelevant.

Deeds, not rhetoric. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you, given how simple it is.

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

Which I have already provided.

Repetition of the same broken argument is not evidence.

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?

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. What would you know about Occam, shitwit? Especially as you continue to just ignore the logical explanation yielded by the observable evidence.

Things very likely are what they appear to be.

By the appearance of Mugabe's deeds, Mugabe is not a Marxist, his prior rhetoric notwithstanding. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

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?

The fact that it actually does not exist. Especially as Mugabe was making arms deals with Britain in 1980 and not with the Soviet Union, and pursuing a market-oriented economic policy and not a Soviet-style collectivist one from 1980 through 2005 before the economy crashed altogether. Did you even bother to read that extract (or any other part of the white paper) and see that it referred to policies and actions of the Mugabe government stretching back to independence? Which took place in 1980? You can't even get the timeline right, can you?

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

And again, land reform is not an exclusively or necessarily socialist policy, nor has there been any evident move toward nationalisation of agriculture —the hallmark of which would be the reorganisation of all farmland into collectives.

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 [/b]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.

How you wildly conflate terms to try to keep up this little tapdance of yours. The existence of public enterprises do not make for a socialist political or economic order in and of themselves and certainly not a Marxist one, which does not recognise private property at all. In short, a thing is not "Marxist" simply by your declaration that it is so.

Besides, as I have already pointed out, Zimbabwe's comparatively slow movement towards nationalization can largely be attributed to domestic and external variables which blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah....

The same broken-record argument. Ignore.

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?

I've provided evidence of his history and how his deeds have clearly contradicted his rhetoric. You've provided dick.

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?

Denial does not a rebuttal make, shitwit.

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?

That you have no point.

[Samuel]

Degan, I think you did misunderstand his "fell victim to" comment. Personally suffered would have been a better way to phrase it. Aside from that... wow.

[Simplicius]

I don't think that it is erroneous. The issue here seems to primarily be a result of the fact that I apparently carry a broader definition of the word "Marxism" than some other members of this board.

It is true that Marxism is a broad category of thought, but there are nevertheless specific defining characteristics. You have yet to show that Mugabe presently displays those characteristics, or has consistently displayed them, otherwise you are grossly distorting the definition of Marxism to include him.

Does he see human history as an evolving story of class struggle? Does he consider capitalism to be an exploitative condition? Is he a proponent of working class revolution to take collective ownership of the means of production? And if he does all of these things, please describe how.

True enough. However, the word "Marxist" can be used far more broadly than "Nazi," "Leninist," or "Stalinist." As Marx was essentially responsible for the modern form of this system, "Marxism" can be thought of as broadly covering any ideology which can be considered to be "Communist."

Incorrect. Marxism can be broadly used to label those forms of communism which derive from Marxism, but not those which do not. Anarcho-communism and Christian communism both predate Marxism, and are therefore cannot be Marxist.

Within the broad category of Marxist-derived ideologies are the 'pure' Marxists, the Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. But it is sloppy work to simply slap a broad definition on someone, especially in a debate concerning the nature of that person's ideology.

As far as I am concerned, this only proves that point. Mugabe was definitely a "Marxist" in the past, and his present ideology still retains many of these same principles. It still has not renounced "Communist" ideals.

The point is hardly proven. According to the quote I posted it 'abandoned' collectivism and central planning, egalitarianism, rhetoric of the class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat, and the spreading of the communist revolution abroad, to name just a few - assuming these ideals were ever held in the first place, which you have not proven.

Frankly, "communism lite" is still "communism," which finds its basis in "Marxism."

And 'communism lite' - so-called 'market communism' - really only exists in those states which have market economies but are still run by a Communist Party, such as China. Since ZANU-PF has "pursued a mixed economy" - i.e. a non-communist economy - and is not a communist party - "socialist," the quote says; not the same thing at all - ZANU-PF is not a 'market communist' party.

The kind of push towards "nationalization" by force shown in these events isn't even particularly "communist lite" so much as it is simply "communist."

False. Henry VIII seized land by force. The government of the French Revolution seized land by force. They were not communist institutions. Nationalization and land reform are not intrinsically communist, whether by force or not.

Nor is it intrinsically communist for the state to be a majority landowner. In Israel, 93 percent of all the country's land is publicly-owned and leased to private citizens for 98-year or shorter terms; very similar to John Nkomo's proposed policy in Zimbabwe. That Israeli public land may not be sold to private interests, according to Basic Law. Is Israel communist?

[Thanas]

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

They were not and anybody who knows even the slightest thing about the Roman Republic would not make such a statement. Truly, your ignorance is only rivalled by your arrogance. A most potent combination, I would say.

The land reforms by Augustus were part of a blatant power-grab to get loyalty from veterans. The reforms by the Gracchi were used to enhance their own political power. You have no case.

[Knobbyboy88]

I think that it is high time that we all took a step back, and looked over the controversy which underlies this issue.

Unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I am), we have established so far that some form of endorsement for "Socialism" in either practice or ideal is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient condition for a leader, party, or state to be considered "Marxist." We have also established that such "Socialism" must go hand-in-hand with at least some measure of endorsement for "Marxist" ideology for these same elements to be truly considered to be in line with "Marxist" principles.

"Marxist ideology" in this case of course referring to such matters as state control over the means of production, populism, and an acceptance of class warfare and violent conflict in pursuing these goals.

Am I correct in these assumptions? Given that I am correct in assuming that a majority of the debators on this board accept this criteria, It would seem to me that the major conflict we are facing in this discussion is one of semantics and personal perception, not actual political reality.

EDIT: Sorry about the formatting errors towards the bottom of the page. I can't seem to get rid of them.


To Address the issues raised by Stas Bush

You use it so broadly to include any government that has made any kind of policy you think is socialist.

I do not. I have been following the criteria I named above.

what right do you have to define Marxism "broader" than the actual ideology of Marx, anyhow?).

Marx died almost 150 years ago. Ideologies routinely grow beyond the scope their inventors originally envisioned for them. Times change in ways that are not always easy to predict and so do practical standards. It is perfectly possible for a political movement to roughly follow the "gist" of what a certain ideology preaches without conforming to its every subjective standard.

As I said before, some things work very well on paper which do not work so well in reality.

From my perspective, the fact of the matter here remains that, if the world can be observed to be positively full of leaders and political parties claiming the title of "Marxist" and not one of them embraces "Marxist" ideology as it fits your definition, it is clearly time to either reevaluate your definition of the term as being too narrow in scope or simply shelf the term "Marxist" entirely and come up with some other more fitting label. Frankly, I don't really see any of these movements as being all that fundamentally different from one another for there to really be a need to adopt the latter measure.

Like I said, you repeatedly ignore non-Marxist nations doing the same kind of reform and even widespread nationalization, however, without fully converting to a state planned economy, which includes a vast multitude of nations like European countries (France, Germany, Scandinavian nations) et cetera.

Once again, do these nations endorse "Marxist" ideology? There are certainly political parties in each of these nations which can be seen to endorse "Marxist" principles by the measures I have outlined above.

If the leader of one of these "Marxist" parties were to take power in one of these nations, and begin implimenting heavily "Socialist" policies, I would basically make the same argument in their case that I am currently making for Mugabe. Namely, I would argue that while the nation itself might not necessarily be "Marxist," the policies currently being implimented and the leaders responsible for them certainly are. The greater the degree of power said "Marxist" leaders hold and the broader the reforms they seek to impliment, the more in line with "Marxist" principles I would rate this nation to be in general.

The alternative you have provided, namely that we only consider those states which fully conform to the extreme precedent set by the Marxist-Leninist regimes of the 20th century to be truly "Marxist," is simply far too specific and far too narrow in scope to be of any practical use is making sense of or classifying modern political movements.

So, while he has not yet converted Venezuela to a planned economy, it could be argued that he intends to do such by virtue of his proclaimed goals. And you're right, he's one of the few new world leaders who can be considered a Marxist.

However, by your own definition of the concept, all that these quotes can really be said to prove is that Chavez can "talk the talk" where his denouncements of capitalism and his endorsements for "Marxism" are concerned.

The reality of the situation, however, has been far different. He is essentially guilty of the same corruption, cronyism, and populist rabble rousing you accuse Mugabe of.

http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1114

Defying the hegemony of Acciуn Democrбtica (AD) and Copei, the two main political parties in Venezuela whose power had been waning since the late 1980s, Chavez’s election seemed to mark a fundamental change in Venezuelan politics. Here was a president who appeared to represent the greater population—most of which is of mestizo (mixed European and Native American) background and at least 80 percent of which now lives below the poverty line. Venezuela was no longer to be led, in Chavez’s own words, by the “putrid cupules” of a corrupt and self-serving oligarchy, but by a democratic and revolutionary government committed to the needs of the people.

Three years later, the country finds itself mired in a deep recession, plagued by political instability and social divisiveness. Support for Chavez has dwindled from a high of 80 percent to a mere 30 percent. The government faces widespread strikes, and a coup in April 2002 deposed Chavez for 48 hours. Yet the president still clings to power, aided by the illusion of democratic procedure and international support. Governing in the style of Juan Perуn in Argentina, he has attempted to legitimize his reign by citing his own “democratic” election, holding frequent elections, and passing referenda such as the formation of a new constitution and a representative body, the Asamblea Nacional. However, democracy in Venezuela is more theater than substance.

Chavez’s Venezuela is a prime example of illiberal democratic governance, a term elaborated by Fareed Zakaria in a 1997 Foreign Affairs article as a democracy with too much emphasis on representation and too little on liberalism. Chavez’s 1998 electoral bid was steeped in emotional and populist rhetoric. The population responded positively to his lambasting of the business and old political elite and his call for a revolution leading to a “Fifth Republic” to ameliorate the severe income and opportunity inequality in Venezuela. Once president, Chavez lacked a concrete plan to fulfill his promise to cure social inequalities. The “Five Point Plan,” the skeleton of his platform supporting economic, social, political, and cultural stability, is a mere restatement of the social democratic principles of AD and Copei and a clichйd statement of the rights of man. His actual plan was a redistributive agenda in line with the second phase of illiberal, populist democratic governance.

In 2000, Chavez began Plan Bolнvar 2000, a social welfare program that is the essence of populism. By providing social services such as schools, public works, and “popular markets” where the military distributed food at discounted prices, Plan Bolнvar continues to harness support from Chavez’s core constituency—the poor. However, this measure, like all recent populist efforts in Venezuela, failed to address the root of the problem: Venezuela’s dependence on oil, endemic cronyism, and corruption. As such, it was ultimately a fiscally irresponsible and socially unproductive policy. A recent Latin America-wide poll in The Economist demonstrates that while the Venezuelan economy has been weakened during Chavez’s presidency, he has nevertheless maintained popular support through temporary social programs. The poll shows that at a time when Latin America is deep in economic woes and Venezuela in particular faces a 4.5 percent contraction in gross domestic product and inflation of nearly 20 percent, Venezuelans are the only South Americans who rate their economic situation as better than in 1996.

Chavez has further consolidated his hold on the government by violating the separation of powers, silencing the media, and practically encouraging corruption. The new Asamblea Nacional, packed with Chavez supporters, allowed him to pass many of his populist laws. Chavez also began to rule with help from additional powers granted to him by an enabling law, Ley Habilitante 2000. At the same time, censorship of the press, though discontinuous and on a small scale, has occurred during periods of increased political opposition. Shortly before the attempted coup in April 2002, the government interrupted radio and television signals. An even worse problem is Venezuela’s widespread corruption. For example, US$1 billion recently disappeared from the budget; the government claims to have used the money for undisclosed “wages and bonuses.” Plan Bolнvar 2000, often called “Plan Billuyo 2000” (Plan Money 2000) by the opposition, created widespread corruption among army officials coordinating the program. This pervasive corruption, coupled with temporary economic relief and violations of liberal rights, has completely undermined basic democratic principles and removed responsibility and accountability from Venezuelan society.

These realities have rendered Venezuela an illiberal democracy, a conclusion with three far-reaching consequences. First, it demonstrates the need to focus on economic and social progress in the developing world. The real problem is not Chavez, but the underlying socioeconomic ills that create leaders like him. Second, it challenges the world to rethink its unconditional support for Venezuela and other illiberal democratic regimes. European and Latin American countries in particular support Chavez’s government because it is ostensibly democratic, but this approach is politically unviable. Third, Chavez’s increasingly repressive strategy for maintaining power mandates that the Venezuelan opposition and the international community work for change. The world is democratizing today more than ever, and it is time to define what separates an actual democracy from an illusory one.

As Chavez consolidates his power on the Venezuelan social, economic, and political structures, as the opposition is relegated to a secondary and precarious role in the political arena, and as illiberal democracy solidifies in Venezuela, the international community must reassess its attitude toward the Chavez government. The world must react to the evolving Venezuelan regime not simply based on its populist veneer, but on the deeper and more long-term issues of democratic accountability and responsibility.

If you claim that this simply means that Chavez "isn't a Marxist," that only compounds the issue further. Technically speaking, just about every "Marxist" regime to ever exist has suffered from these same problems.

http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no4/no04gorb.html

The Western media have enjoyed the spectacle of the leader of ‘‘actually existing socialism’’ trying to prop up an economy predicated on the superiority of the planning principle with the operation of the laws of supply and demand. But the failures of the Soviet economy are not the result of collectivized property. They originate in the monopoly of political decision-making jealously guarded by the Soviet bureaucracy. The prerogatives of Gorbachev and his caste are antithetical to the imperatives of working-class democracy—the indispensable requirement for the proper operation of a system based on collectivized property.

As far as Mugabe's "Socialist" credentials go, there are quite a few arguments in favor of it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 36,00.html

On his being a Marxist. I think I am a practicing one, but also a practical one. We do not want to see a society divided into classes; we want to build an egalitarian society.[/i] [But] we recognize that there has been a capitalist system in this country that has established a viable infrastructure. We recognize that to overthrow that system would be to create no base at all but to create chaos. Therefore, we cannot go around nationalizing the multinationals. We do not believe in the forcible seizure of property.

While here it would seem that he is a rather moderate "Marxist" if a "Marxist" at all, recent events (lik those displayed here) would seem to demonstrate otherwise.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31505.html

President Robert Mugabe announced yesterday that he wanted Zimbabwe to become a hardline socialist economy and warned that he would seize commercial businesses being forced to shut by tough new price controls.

Mr Mugabe told companies that did not agree with the policy to "pack up and go".

The Zimbabwe government imposed price cuts of between 5 per cent and 20 per cent on bread, milk, cooking oil, margarine, meat, maize meal and other commodities last Friday. Manufacturers, already reeling from the near-collapse of the Zimbabwe economy, responded by stopping production. This caused panic buying and widespread shortages of goods, particularly bread.

Mr Mugabe – addressing mourners at the burial ceremony of Clement Muchachi, a former cabinet minister – insisted that he would hold firm on the price controls despite pleas from manufacturers. "Let no one on this front expect mercy," he said. "We will as a state take over any businesses that are closed and reorganise them with the workers, and at last that socialism we wanted can start again."

Zimbabwe abandoned its socialist ambitions 10 years ago when it embraced IMF- sponsored economic liberalisation. Yesterday, however, Mr Mugabe declared an end to "structural adjustment" – the process of adopting free market economic reforms – saying: "It will be no more."

Mr Mugabe also repeated claims that manufacturers were unfairly increasing prices for political reasons. He accused the business sector of not supporting his drive to seize white-owned land for resettling black peasants.

Nathan Shamuyarira, the ruling Zanu-PF party's secretary for information and publicity, said the price controls had been introduced to stop manufacturers from profiteering. He accused manufacturers of unjustifiably increasing prices to rouse public discontent against the government and sabotage Mr Mugabe's campaign to be re-elected next year.

[Knobbyboy88]

To address the issues raised by Degan, Samuel, and Simplicitus


Degan.

Mugabe embraced Marxist rhetoric to gain credibility with the Liberation movement in the 70s

Once again Degan, this is nothing more than baseless speculation. You cannot prove a word of it.

After his party ascended to power, he demonstrably enacted policies which were anything but Marxist as the attached articles to this thread attest

Once again, a corrupt "Marxist" cannot still be a "Marxist?" Since when? As I have already demonstrated, ALL "Marxist" regimes have ended up violating their own principles at one point or another.

What dream world do you live in where politicians only do what they say they are going to do?

And no, he did not establish the post-colonial government as a one-party state nor as a Soviet ally.

Once again, he has done both. His party has held an absurdly large majority in parliment for practically his entire term in office. Furthermore, it has been almost universally agreed upon by the UN and most other outside observers that the elections held to choose this parliament are "neither fair nor free."

Mugabe rules over what for all intents and purposes consititutes a "one party regime" whether he wants to openly call it that or not.

As far as his dealings with BOTH the West and the old Soviet Bloc are concerned, so what? "Marxists" can't pragmatically play both sides of the field? When was this decided?

Go fuck yourself.

After you, sir...

You do realise, don't you, that land redistribution goes at least as far back as the Lex Sempronia Agraria passed by the Roman Senate in 133BCE,

As I have already pointed out, this measure can be viewed as being vaguely "proto-socialist." In fact, most "Marxist" philosophers interpret this event as simply being an historical incidence of "class wafare" at its most blatant.

we are quite prepared to have to keep knocking down your Wall of Ignorance

I honestly fail to see where all of this talk of "ignorance" is coming from. Just because our entirely subjective interpretations of a highly controversial economic and political system differ, I must be ignorant?

I think its time to get over yourself Degan.

To put it bluntly, who fucking cares what your subjective concerns are?

Fair enough. In that case, who the fuck cares what YOUR subjective concerns are? You have offered no more "evidence" for them than I have for mine.

the Irish revolution was explicitly a national independence movement borne out of eight centuries of English oppression.

It was lead by the IRA, which definitely possessed "socialist," if not necessarily "Marxist" elements you ignoranmous. Nationalists cannot endorse socialist policies all of the sudden?

Once again, since when?

And again, land reform is not an exclusively or necessarily socialist policy

Once again, land distribution in the context of "taking from the rich to give to the poor" most certainly is.

nor has there been any evident move toward nationalisation of agriculture

*Sigh*....OK then. So what in the Hell do you call this moron?

The government organised a referendum on the new constitution, despite having a sufficiently large majority in parliament to pass any amendment it wished. Had it been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation

The Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement John Nkomo had declared five days earlier, that all land, from crop fields to wildlife conservancies, would soon become state property. Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years.

It looks a Hell of a lot like "Nationalization" to me.

How you wildly conflate terms to try to keep up this little tapdance of yours. The existence of public enterprises do not make for a socialist political or economic order in and of themselves and certainly not a Marxist one, which does not recognise private property at all. In short, a thing is not "Marxist" simply by your declaration that it is so.

Once again, "Marxist-Leninism" and "Stalinism" are not all there is to "Marxism." It is entirely possible for a more moderate political leader to still be considered "Marxist."

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

Simplicitus

As I have already responded to most of your arguments in my post to Stas, I will just hit the high notes.

Incorrect. Marxism can be broadly used to label those forms of communism which derive from Marxism, but not those which do not. Anarcho-communism and Christian communism both predate Marxism, and are therefore cannot be Marxist.

If either of these systems had any bearing whatsoever on Mugabe (who is rather obviously not a Christian or Anarcho-Communist), this would be a valid point. However, they most certainly do not, and as such this constitutes little more than a nit pick.

The only really relevant forms of "Communism" pertaining to nation states in our modern world are derived from Marx.

According to the quote I posted it 'abandoned' collectivism and central planning, egalitarianism, rhetoric of the class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat, and the spreading of the communist revolution abroad, to name just a few.

Seeing as how Mugabe seems to have taken several of these ideals upon himself with a vengence in the last decade, this would seem to be a moot point.

assuming these ideals were ever held in the first place, which you have not proven.

The articles I provided to Stas should demonstrate some of this.

And 'communism lite' - so-called 'market communism' - really only exists in those states which have market economies but are still run by a Communist Party, such as China. Since ZANU-PF has "pursued a mixed economy" - i.e. a non-communist economy - and is not a communist party - "socialist," the quote says; not the same thing at all - ZANU-PF is not a 'market communist' party.

"Market Communism" is essentially just Capitalism under authoritarian management. This is not what Mugabe represents.

He appaers to simply be a pragmatic Leftist who is willing tolerate a certain degree of (heavily regulated) Capitalism so long as it suits his purposes. Besides, as I have already pointed out, he seems to have reneged on this as of late.

Henry VIII seized land by force. The government of the French Revolution seized land by force.

I'm going to need more information on this. You're not referring to the so called "tragedy of the commons," are you? If so, I would hardly say that this example helps your case.

Besides, the French Revolution was something of a special case. It was not explicitly "socialist" in natire but it definitely shared some rather "socialist" tendencies.

In Israel, 93 percent of all the country's land is publicly-owned and leased to private citizens for 98-year or shorter terms

I would actually say that this is more or less "Communist" after a fashion. It simply is not Marxist or "Left Wing" Communism embraced for primarily egalitarian or "economic" reasons.


....................................................................................................................................
Samuel

Land redistribution is the opposite of nationalization.

How do you figure?

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.

You do realize that "Socialism" is very often "Populist," right?

Castro isn't dead yet.

As I have already pointed out, Castro is hardly walking the "straight and narrow" Marxist path at the moment either.

[Simplicius]

I think that it is high time that we all took a step back, and looked over the controversy which underlies this issue.

Unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I am), we have established so far that some form of endorsement for "Socialism" in either practice or ideal is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient condition for a leader, party, or state to be considered "Marxist." We have also established that such "Socialism" must go hand-in-hand with at least some measure of endorsement for "Marxist" ideology for these same elements to be truly considered to be in line with "Marxist" principles.

I am correcting you, because you are mistaken. You say that "endorsement" is sufficient; this is patent nonsense because people are defined by what they do, not by what they say.

I ask you yet again: what specific aspects of Marxist thought and action are visible in the way Mugabe and ZANU-PF are running Zimbabwe? Refer back to my previous post, or to any basic reference to Marxist thought and Leninist practice if you need help.

Given that I am correct in assuming that a majority of the debators on this board accept this criteria, It would seem to me that the major conflict we are facing in this discussion is one of semantics and personal perception, not actual political reality.

So far your opponents have taken issue with your definition of Marxism and your characterization of Mugabe. It appears that no-one other than Reuben accepts your criteria.

If either of these systems had any bearing whatsoever on Mugabe (who is rather obviously not a Christian or Anarcho-Communist), this would be a valid point. However, they most certainly do not, and as such this constitutes little more than a nit pick.

The only really relevant forms of "Communism" pertaining to nation states in our modern world are derived from Marx.

The existence of Christian communism and anarcho-communism disproves your statement that the words "Marixism" and "communism" may be used interchangeably.

Seeing as how Mugabe seems to have taken several of these ideals upon himself with a vengence in the last decade, this would seem to be a moot point.

You keep saying this. Now prove it. Make a list of all of the specific tenets of pure Marxism, or Leninism, or Maoism, or whatever kind of Marxist you think Mugabe is, and how he fits each one.

The articles I provided to Stas should demonstrate some of this.

They demonstrate socialism at best, not communism - via Mugabe's own words and actions. Find new proof, or concede.

He appaers to simply be a pragmatic Leftist who is willing tolerate a certain degree of (heavily regulated) Capitalism so long as it suits his purposes. Besides, as I have already pointed out, he seems to have reneged on this as of late.

"Pragmatic leftist" != Marxist. Are you really admitting that Mugabe appears not to be what you've been labeling him as all along?

I'm going to need more information on this. You're not referring to the so called "tragedy of the commons," are you? If so, I would hardly say that this example helps your case.

Besides, the French Revolution was something of a special case. It was not explicitly "socialist" in natire but it definitely shared some rather "socialist" tendencies.

What the hell are you talking about? They seized and sold Church land, you half-wit.

As for your second point about the French Revolution, it is a failure on multiple fronts. Most importantly, it is a backpedal and implicit concession on your part, because socialism and communism are not the same thing. You therefore admit land reform is not intrinsically communist, which is precisely the point I made.

I would actually say that this is more or less "Communist" after a fashion. It simply is not Marxist or "Left Wing" Communism embraced for primarily egalitarian or "economic" reasons.

How? How, you weasel? By more than just your say-so, I hope. Your definitions are becoming so wildly inaccurate that your say-so is dipping into the realm of meaninglessness. All communism is "left-wing communism," for crying out loud.

Also, if Israel is purportedly communist but not Marxist, then you have admitted that non-Marxist communism is "really relevant...to nation states in our modern world." Touché.

[Knobbyboy88]

You say that "endorsement" is sufficient; this is patent nonsense because people are defined by what they do, not by what they say.

I am sorry, but we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this point if this is the stance you insist on taking on the issue.

As I have already pointed out, not even the actions of the USSR were ever totally in line with the ideology Marx outlined.

Why is it so hard for you people to conceptualize the idea of a somewhat moderate "Marxist?" Honestly, why? Was the USSR's Cold War era propaganda really just so damn successful that it has brainwashed all of you into thinking that absolutely nothing can be considered to be truly "Marxist" that does not absolutely conform to what Lenin espoused?

The existence of Christian communism and anarcho-communism disproves your statement that the words "Marixism" and "communism" may be used interchangeably.

Excuse me for thinking that no one would be anal enough to try and work Monasteries and Religious welfare states into a definition of modern Communism.

You keep saying this. Now prove it. Make a list of all of the specific tenets of pure Marxism, or Leninism, or Maoism, or whatever kind of Marxist you think Mugabe is, and how he fits each one.

Once again, I provided several in my post to Stas.

They demonstrate socialism at best, not communism - via Mugabe's own words and actions. Find new proof, or concede.

Once again, so long as you people insist on saying that anything Mugabe does, no matter how stringently he may blatantly declare that it represents the interests "Marxism" and "Socialism," simply isn't "Marxist enough" to meet your criteria, there is absolutely no point in continuing this conversation.

As I said before, this seems to be more an issue of semantics and perception than anything else. Apparently you people feel that anything which does not look exactly like Marxist-Leninism is not "Marxism." Frankly, I disagree.

Are we simply going to have to leave it at that? We don't seem to be getting anywhere.

[Samuel]

How do you figure?

Land redistribution involves moving property from one owner to another. Nationalization involves placing something under control of the government.

You do realize that "Socialism" is very often "Populist," right?

Except when it is fascist of course. Populist is a political style while socialism is an economic system.

As I have already pointed out, Castro is hardly walking the "straight and narrow" Marxist path at the moment either.

What are you talking about? Was there a sudden change I missed? I'm pretty sure the economy is still state run.

Excuse me for thinking that no one would be anal enough to try and work Monasteries and Religious welfare states into a definition of modern Communism.

Didn't liberation theology vear close to communism? That was only 40 years ago.

[Knobbyboy88]

Land redistribution involves moving property from one owner to another. Nationalization involves placing something under control of the government.

Unless the state nationalizes the land with the explicit purpose of deciding who gets to live there and what they will produce in the first place that is.

Except when it is fascist of course. Populist is a political style while socialism is an economic system.

True enough. However, you cannot really deny that the majority of "Marxist" and "Socialist" regimes in the Third World have been populist in nature.

What are you talking about? Was there a sudden change I missed? I'm pretty sure the economy is still state run.

Tourism, which is pretty much the only thing keeping Cuba together at the moment, certainly isn't.

Didn't liberation theology vear close to communism? That was only 40 years ago.

Yes, but "Liberation Theology" is pretty much just "Marxist Christianity" anyway.

[Simplicius]

I see. When people lay down very clear and easy-to-meet requirements and you cannot meet them, it is time to "agree to disagree."

Why is it so hard for you people to conceptualize the idea of a somewhat moderate "Marxist?"

Why is it so hard for you to realize that Marxism has a specific meaning, that Leninism has a specific meaning, and communism, and socialism, and populism, and that you cannot just dismiss wrongly using any of these terms by waving your hands and saying "But he's only a moderate [x]; your definitions are far too narrow!"

The concept is so outrageously simple that I am surprised you have not even begun to grasp it. If someone does not adhere to the tenets of Marxism then they are not a Marxist, though they may at times resemble one. If someone is socialist but not communist, then they are socialist. They are not "moderate communist." The end.

Honestly, why? Was the USSR's Cold War era propaganda really just so damn successful that it has brainwashed all of you into thinking that absolutely nothing can be considered to be truly "Marxist" that does not absolutely conform to what Lenin espoused?

Excuse me for thinking that no one would be anal enough to try and work Monasteries and Religious welfare states into a definition of modern Communism.

Anarcho-communism is as modern as Marxist communism, having originated at around the same time. Christian communism pre-dates Marxist communism, but still exists today.

Once again, I provided several in my post to Stas.

Do you think I didn't read that post? I did, and you posted one quote. In that quote he says that he will nationalize some businesses - only those that have already closed, mind - to restore socialism. That is not "several," and that does not link Mugabe to any Marxist tenets, because socialism is not Marxism.

Once again, so long as you people insist on saying that anything Mugabe does, no matter how stringently he may blatantly declare that it represents the interests "Marxism" and "Socialism," simply isn't "Marxist enough" to meet your criteria, there is absolutely no point in continuing this conversation.

If Mugabe was in fact Marxist, you could very easily blow us all out of the water by showing us exactly how Mugabe adheres to some existing form of Marxist-derived ideology. However, you have not managed to do this. You have not shown Mugabe doing anything that Marxists do that other political-economic ideologies do not do, and indeed have not done. Therefore you have failed to show that Mugabe adheres to any of the classical branches of Marxism.

You could also make headway in this debate by actually defining, academically, a new branch of Marxist thought that Mugabe has made his own. However, in order to do that you would have to perform some actual analysis on both the use and evolution of Marxism in post-colonial Africa, and a history of Mugabe's and ZANU-PF's policies and statements and how they fit. What you have done in this debate is simply not enough to accomplish that. You have said "Mugabe says he's a Marxist," but you have also said that Mugabe is apparently not a Marxist. You have said that his government is redistributing land, is nationlizing land, is nationalizing some businesses, is instituting price controls - but since these things have all been done by non-Marxist governments, you would have to actually define, academically, how these fit into some new branch of Marxism. You have not.

There are very straightforward things that could advance the debate, but the onus is on you to perform them because you are making the assertions. We won't simply adopt your definitions because you ask us to; the purpose of debate is to persuade.

[Knobbyboy88]

I see. When people lay down very clear and easy-to-meet requirements and you cannot meet them, it is time to "agree to disagree."

Frankly, I have met your requirements and then some. I have even set a few of my own which have been completely ignored.

The only response I have gotten out of any of you in return is a sneery "that's not good enough." When I bother to ask why, the only response I get is "Because we say so."

If someone does not adhere to the tenets of Marxism then they are not a Marxist

I don't disagree. I am only pointing out that your conception of these tenants is far too narrow.

Mugabe really hasn't done anything less "Marxist" than Chavez has. He simply hasn't been quite so vocal in his trash talk.

Anarcho-communism is as modern as Marxist communism, having originated at around the same time. Christian communism pre-dates Marxist communism, but still exists today.

Once again, both of them are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. How many "Anarcho-Communist" states have there been? How many Marxist Communist?

[Simplicius]

Frankly, I have met your requirements and then some. I have even set a few of my own which have been completely ignored.

You have yet to either: a.) Place Mugabe within an existing school of Marxist thought, or b.) define a new school of Marxist thought of which Mugabe is an adherent and/or founder.

You have shown that he is a socialist, but that is not the same thing.

What requirements have I specifically ignored? Bear in mind that I am not taking on any of Stas's, Deegan's or Samuel's arguments.

The only response I have gotten out of any of you in return is a sneery "that's not good enough." When I bother to ask why, the only response I get is "Because we say so."

It's not "Because we say so," it's because you are not making a very strong argument.

It's very simple. If we were all operating under the same definition of Marxism, then all you would have to do is show that Mugabe falls under that definition. Because you are using a different definition of Marxism, you have even more work to do. You must show that Mugabe is Marxist, and you must show that your definition of Marxism is the most valid one. You have not yet accomplished the first point because you have not yet accomplished the second, and since your opponents are on the side of scholarly and historical consensus that will be a steep hill to climb, because you somehow have to overturn that consensus.

If you want to make your argument easier, you may concede whatever part of it you feel is a needless hindrance.

I don't disagree. I am only pointing out that your conception of these tenants is far too narrow.

I am merely hewing to the source material. If you have a logical argument as to why the source material is no longer correct about itself, present it. (Hint: Saying "The times have changed" is not an actual argument.)

Mugabe really hasn't done anything less "Marxist" than Chavez has. He simply hasn't been quite so vocal in his trash talk.

The Chavez strand of this debate is between you and Stas. I haven't taken the time to evaluate Chavez because I haven't based any part of my arguments on him so far.

Once again, both of them are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. How many "Anarcho-Communist" states have there been? How many Marxist Communist?

It's not irrelevant because there are two main strands of this debate: your characterization of Marxism, and your characterization of Mugabe. Anarcho- and Christian communism do address the first matter, if not the second, by forcing you to clarify your terminology.

You said "'Marxism' can be thought of as broadly covering any ideology which can be considered to be 'Communist.'" I showed that this is false. What you ought to do now is adopt a more specific description of Mugabe: is he 'Marxist' in the sense of pure Marxism, or just 'belonging to some derivation of Marxist ideology'? Is he 'communist' in the sense of non-Marxist communist (you say no; I agree), or in the colloquial sense of Leninist (which you have not yet demonstrated)?

Whatever choice you make gives you a straightforward way to prove that you are correct about Mugabe - but first you have to settle on specific definitions.

[Patrick Degan]

Mugabe embraced Marxist rhetoric to gain credibility with the Liberation movement in the 70s

Once again Degan, this is nothing more than baseless speculation. You cannot prove a word of it.

You really are too stupid to know when to come in out of the rain, aren't you? Not only did Robert Mugabe not govern Zimbabwe according to Marxist tenets, as the country's capitalist economic policy from independence has demonstrated, he officially abandoned Marxism-Lenninism in the 1990s (further reinforced by the deletion of all references to Marxism-Leninism from the Zimbabwean constitution in 1991). Beyond that, the evidence has been posted in this thread and you have consistently maintained your denials in the face of it.

Once again, a corrupt "Marxist" cannot still be a "Marxist?" Since when? As I have already demonstrated, ALL "Marxist" regimes have ended up violating their own principles at one point or another.

And why should we accept your valuelessly-vague definition of "Marxism" as a determiner of anything? You simply use it as a universally-applicable buzzword.

And no, he did not establish the post-colonial government as a one-party state nor as a Soviet ally.

Once again, he has done both. His party has held an absurdly large majority in parliment for practically his entire term in office. Furthermore, it has been almost universally agreed upon by the UN and most other outside observers that the elections held to choose this parliament are "neither fair nor free."

Mugabe rules over what for all intents and purposes consititutes a "one party regime" whether he wants to openly call it that or not.

Explain the existence of multiple parties in Zimbabwe, then, liar. That Mugabe has manipulated elections and aggrandised power for ZANU-PF has never been under dispute. But there was never a move in parliament to outlaw other political parties and the artificial dominance of ZANU-PF has only existed for an eight year stretch in the country's history since independence. Furthermore, no alliance with the Soviet Union was ever concluded or even understood to exist. But I suppose you can actually present evidence of such an alliance since you insist there was one, now can't you?

As far as his dealings with BOTH the West and the old Soviet Bloc are concerned, so what? "Marxists" can't pragmatically play both sides of the field? When was this decided?

And why should we accept your valuelessly-vague definition of "Marxism" as a determiner of anything? You simply use it as a universally-applicable buzzword.

Go fuck yourself.

After you, sir...

Oh lookee, it's attempting to be clever.

You do realise, don't you, that land redistribution goes at least as far back as the Lex Sempronia Agraria passed by the Roman Senate in 133BCE,

As I have already pointed out, this measure can be viewed as being vaguely "proto-socialist." In fact, most "Marxist" philosophers interpret this event as simply being an historical incidence of "class wafare" at its most blatant.

Thanas has already pointed out your blatant idiocy (which you now begin to backpedal from) in making this assertion of yours: land redistribution according to the aforementioned law passed by the Roman Senate was outright populism; as were the later land redistributions carried out by Augustus Caesar to compensate army veterans and ensure their political loyalty to the new principate. And as Marxist philosophers interpret everything in terms of class warfare, that so-called observation is essentially meaningless. Nor does it bear upon the actual question before the bar.

I honestly fail to see where all of this talk of "ignorance" is coming from. Just because our entirely subjective interpretations of a highly controversial economic and political system differ, I must be ignorant?

To put it bluntly, your subjective interpretations of anything are worthless.

I think its time to get over yourself Degan.

Look who's talking.

To put it bluntly, who fucking cares what your subjective concerns are?

Fair enough. In that case, who the fuck cares what YOUR subjective concerns are? You have offered no more "evidence" for them than I have for mine.

Lie. I've backed my arguments with evidence which you have either tried to just handwave away or have outright ignored. You haven't even offered that much —barring a Time article from 1980 which is hopelessly outdated especially in the wake of the actual development of the Zimbabwean economy and state before the recent crash, and the Independent article which does not at all support the assertion that Mugabe is Marxist.

the Irish revolution was explicitly a national independence movement borne out of eight centuries of English oppression.

It was lead by the IRA, which definitely possessed "socialist," if not necessarily "Marxist" elements you ignoranmous. Nationalists cannot endorse socialist policies all of the sudden?

Your definition of "socialism" seems to be about as valuelessly-vague as your definition of "Marxism": nothing more than a universally-applicable buzzword for your convenience.

And again, land reform is not an exclusively or necessarily socialist policy

Once again, land distribution in the context of "taking from the rich to give to the poor" most certainly is.

It most certainly is not, as Samuel has pointed out. And again, your definition of "socialism" seems to be about as valuelessly-vague as your definition of "Marxism": nothing more than a universally-applicable buzzword for your convenience.

nor has there been any evident move toward nationalisation of agriculture

*Sigh*....OK then. So what in the Hell do you call this moron?

The government organised a referendum on the new constitution, despite having a sufficiently large majority in parliament to pass any amendment it wished. Had it been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation

The Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement John Nkomo had declared five days earlier, that all land, from crop fields to wildlife conservancies, would soon become state property. Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years.

It looks a Hell of a lot like "Nationalization" to me.

First, you endlessly dishonest little fuck, you do not even provide a link to this extract or even the source, forcing me to do your homework for you. Secondly the aforementioned measure was part of the 2000 constitutional referendum which was defeated. Thirdly, you VERY CONVENIENTLY snipped off this part of the extract:

...while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years. There have since been denials of this policy, however.

You really are an imbecile to imagine that you can play so fast and loose with the facts and not get caught at it.

And last, since it is bound to come up, the amendment of Section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe refers to the transfer to State control lands acquired under the Fast Track programme of the 1990s and not all land in the country.

How you wildly conflate terms to try to keep up this little tapdance of yours. The existence of public enterprises do not make for a socialist political or economic order in and of themselves and certainly not a Marxist one, which does not recognise private property at all. In short, a thing is not "Marxist" simply by your declaration that it is so.

Once again, "Marxist-Leninism" and "Stalinism" are not all there is to "Marxism." It is entirely possible for a more moderate political leader to still be considered "Marxist."

And once again: why should we accept your valuelessly-vague definition of "Marxism" as a determiner of anything? You simply use it as a universally-applicable buzzword.

[Knobbyboy88]

Not only did Robert Mugabe not govern Zimbabwe according to Marxist tenets, as the country's capitalist economic policy from independence has demonstrated, he officially abandoned Marxism-Lenninism in the 1990s (further reinforced by the deletion of all references to Marxism-Leninism from the Zimbabwean constitution in 1991).

Being as intentionally obtuse as humanly possible will only get you so far Degan. As I have already pointed out, EVERY "Marxist" regime on the planet (including Cuba and North Korea) moved to realign itself in at least some fashion with the West following the end of the Cold War. This proves absolutely nothing other than that Mugabe is a political coward who is willing to play fast and loose with his stated beliefs when the worst comes to worst.

Once again, since when aren't "Marxists" allowed to stoop to such means?

If Mugabe had remained on this course and gone the way of China or Vietnam, you might have a point. However, he did not. He has consistently made a point, even during the periods where he claimed to support "Market reform," of retaining some semblence of "socialist" control over his economy, and has actually reverted back to his pre-1990s policies since 2000.

And why should we accept your valuelessly-vague definition of "Marxism" as a determiner of anything? You simply use it as a universally-applicable buzzword.

I have disproven this claim more times than I care to count Degan. I tire of repeating myself.

Explain the existence of multiple parties in Zimbabwe, then, liar.

What part of "bloody civil war that ground into a unwinnable stale mate" don't you understand exactly? This turn of events obviously tied Mugabe's hands to a certain extent. However, even this fact aside the truth of the matter remains that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZANU-PF

[edit] Patriotic Front (PF)
The Patriotic Front (PF) was originally formed in 1976 as a political and military alliance between ZAPU and ZANU during the war against white minority rule in Zimbabwe (then called Rhodesia). The Patriotic Front included ZAPU led by Joshua Nkomo operating mainly from Zambia, and ZANU (Zimbabwe National People's Union) led by Robert Mugabe and operated mainly from neighboring Mozambique. Both movements contributed their respective military forces: ZAPU's military wing was known as Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) and ZANU's guerrillas where known as Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). The objective of the Patriotic Front was to overthrow the white minority regime of Ian Smith by means of political pressure and military force.

Their common goal was achieved in 1980 with the formal independence of Zimbabwe. During the 1980 election campaign the Patriotic Front alliance partners split into their respective factions and competed separately as ZANU-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and Patriotic Front-ZAPU (ZAPU-PF). The election was won by Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF, with Joshua Nkomo and his PF-ZAPU retaining a stronghold in the province of Matabeleland.

In December 1987 a Unity Accord was signed between the two parties; PF-ZAPU was merged into ZANU-PF, effectively establishing a one-party state dominated by Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Joshua Nkomo became one of two vice-presidents of Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, no alliance with the Soviet Union was ever concluded or even understood to exist. But I suppose you can actually present evidence of such an alliance since you insist there was one, now can't you?

Wrong on both counts. Your own sources prove that Mugabe had rather significant ties with the Soviet Union and othert "Red" Bloc nations, but that he was simply willing to trade with the West as well when they made better offers. In fact, if you would bother to look up the subject, you would see that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2% ... _relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_re ... f_Zimbabwe

Russia-Zimbabwe relations date back to January 1979, during the Rhodesian Bush War. The Soviet Union supported Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union, and supplied them with arms; Robert Mugabe's attempts to gain Soviet support for his Zimbabwe African National Union were rebuffed, leading him to enter into relations with Soviet rival Beijing. After the end of the white regime in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe had strengthened his relations with both Beijing and Moscow as a result of intense western pressure on him. The USSR soon established diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe on February 18, 1981 and Russia still maintains an embassy in Harare. Both Russia and China still maintain strong economic and political ties with Zimbabwe and both countries had vetoed the UN resolution imposing UN sanctions on Zimbabwe which was proposed by both the US and the UK on July 12, 2008.

The People's Republic of China supported Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union while the Soviet Union supported Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union, competing militant Marxist organizations that sought an end to Rhodesia and the establishment of a one-party Communist state in its place.[1] The PRC's initial investment in Mugabe has continued. China has invested more in Zimbabwe than any other nation with 35 companies spending over $600 million USD.[2] The close economic relationship between Zimbabwe and China is partly driven by sanctions imposed by Western nations in response to the Zimbabwean government's "continued human rights abuses."[3]

Li Ke, China's Vice-Minister for Economic Relations, visited Zimbabwe for 13 days in September 1980. Mugabe visited China on October 13 and met with Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang.[4]

In June or July 2006 the Zimbabwean government secretly bought Chinese rifles, bullets, anti-riot gear and other military equipment in return for 30 tons of ivory, violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which forbids the sale of ivory. Interpol and CITES, an ivory-watchdog organization, are investigating the sale.[5] The Zimbabwean government bought six military aircraft from China in 2005 and another six aircraft from three Chinese firms on August 23, 2006.[6] Two days later the Zimbabwe National Army said it bought 127 trucks for $1.2 million.[7]

The Chinese government donated farm machinery worth $25 million to Zimbabwe on April 21, including 424 tractors and 50 trucks, as part of a $58 million loan to the Zimbabwean government. The Mugabe administration previously seized white-owned farms and gave them to blacks, damaging machinery in the process. In return for the equipment and the loan the Zimbabwean government will ship 30 million kilograms of tobacco to the People's Republic of China immediately and as much as 80 million kilograms over the next five years.[3] John Nkomo, Speaker of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe, praised Cramshina's investment on April 24, 2007 during a state dinner in Harare held during the four-day visit of Jia Qinglin, Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, to Zimbabwe.[2] Misheck Sibanda, the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet, Edna Madzongwe, President of the Senate, cabinet ministers, and legislators from both ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change attended the dinner.[8]

Thanas has already pointed out your blatant idiocy (which you now begin to backpedal from) in making this assertion of yours: land redistribution according to the aforementioned law passed by the Roman Senate was outright populism;

Once again dumb ass, "Socialism" usually is "Populist." Frankly, what part of an ideology that explicitly advocates the taking of goods and property of the rich by popular uprising and then redistributing it among the "down-trodden" and oppressed" lower classes ISN'T inherently "Populist?"

Granted, the Romans didn't have explicitly "Socialist" motives in mind when they made this legislation, but that is exactly why I referred to this incident as representing only "proto-Socialism" as opposed to actual "Socialism" to begin with.

To put it bluntly, your subjective interpretations of anything are worthless.

Lol. Once again, so are yours. Do you just plain not understand the concept of a "subjective" field of study, or what?

This isn't math or science where everything is laid out all nice, pretty, clean, and in clear cut little boxes. "Ideology" is one of the single most subjective and controversial subjects know to mankind. There usually is no one "right" or "wrong" answer.

No matter how futile the attempt may be, this is exactly the point I have been trying to hammer into your collectively thick skulls for the last several days. You people have a serious problem with "thinking outside the box."

Your definition of "socialism" seems to be about as valuelessly-vague as your definition of "Marxism": nothing more than a universally-applicable buzzword for your convenience.

There you go wanting to place everything into neat little boxes as usual.

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Even text book definitions of Socialism underline the incredibly vague nature of this system.

In any case, however; you cannot deny that the Irish Revolution contained many blatantly "Socialist" movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Soci ... ican_Party

The Irish Socialist Republican Party was a pivotal Irish political party founded in 1896 by James Connolly. Its aim was to establish an Irish workers' republic. It split in 1904 following months of internal political rows.

Despite its small size (According to the ISRP historian Lynch, the party never had more than 80 members) the ISRP is regarded by many Irish historians as a party of seminal importance in the early history of Irish socialism and republicanism. It is often described as the first socialist and republican party in Ireland, and the first organisation to espouse the ideology of socialist republicanism on the island. During its lifespan it only had one really active branch, the Dublin one. There were several attempts to create branches in Cork, Belfast, Limerick, Naas, and even in northern England but they never came to much.

First, you endlessly dishonest little fuck, you do not even provide a link to this extract or even the source

First off you obtuse twit, I have posted those same quotes at least eight times already. Just look at one of the several other posts where I actually did provide the link.

Secondly the aforementioned measure was part of the 2000 constitutional referendum which was defeated.

Failed "Marxist" legislation is still "Marxist" legislation. How many times do I have to tell you that intent is just as important as execution?

Besides, did you totally miss the point where it was stated that...

A few days later, the pro-Mugabe War Veterans Association organised like-minded people (not necessarily other war veterans, as many of them were too young to have fought in the Liberation War) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. As the march continued, seizing began. When the violence ended, a total of 110,000 square kilometers of land had been seized.

Apparently Mugabe has absolutely no problem with seizing by force what he cannot gain legally. This is a typically "Marxist" view on the matter.

Quote:
...while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years. There have since been denials of this policy, however.


You really are an imbecile to imagine that you can play so fast and loose with the facts and not get caught at it.

This proves absolutely nothing other than that Mugabe has a history of flip-flopping on important issues.

You still have as of yet to demonstrate how exactly political cowardice automatically excludes someone from being considered to be a "Marxist."

[Thanas]

Thanas has already pointed out your blatant idiocy (which you now begin to backpedal from) in making this assertion of yours: land redistribution according to the aforementioned law passed by the Roman Senate was outright populism;

Once again dumb ass, "Socialism" usually is "Populist."

Patriotism usually is also "Populist". The fact remains the two are not the same.

Frankly, what part of an ideology that explicitly advocates the taking of goods and property of the rich by popular uprising and then redistributing it among the "down-trodden" and oppressed" lower classes ISN'T inherently "Populist?"

Fascism had a long-winded argument about how the rich (jews) used to backstab and oppress poor ordinary Germans. In fact, one of Hitler's key programs was a redistribution of wealth. Were the fascists socialists now?

Granted, the Romans didn't have explicitly "Socialist" motives in mind when they made this legislation, but that is exactly why I referred to this incident as representing only "proto-Socialism" as opposed to actual "Socialism" to begin with.

Ah, so when Augustus was redistributing land to his soldiers, he was a proto-socialist? Do you even know what proto means? Learn some greek, it will do you good. Fact is, you know next to nothing on the subject you debate.

Augustus was not a socialist. The Romans were not socialists. If anything, they were a bit fascistic, but that is a rotten term to use because after all fascism as the concept did not exist back then. So the Romans were not proto-socialists, quasi-socialists or semi-socialists. They were nothing of the sort and your continuing ignorance on the subject has crossed the line from being amusing to tiresome.

[Knobbyboy88]

Patriotism usually is also "Populist".

"Populism" is not necessary for "Patriotism" to exist. This isn't really the case where "Socialism" or "Marxism" are concerned.

Both ideologies more or less explicitly state that some kind of either political or militant popular uprising (i.e. "populism") is necessary to bring about change in society, and that the "people"(as uselessly vague as this concept may be) should have the ultimate say in matters of the economy.

Fascism had a long-winded argument about how the rich (jews) used to backstab and oppress poor ordinary Germans. In fact, one of Hitler's key programs was a redistribution of wealth. Were the fascists socialists now?

While "Fascism" is a pretty incredibly vague concept in and of itself, it cannot really be denied that German Fascism was technically a form of "National Socialism."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialism

As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, democratic socialism and liberalism.[1] It may also oppose certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied. Several political parties other than the Nazis in Germany have used the name National Socialist Party or National Socialist Movement, and the name has been adopted since then by neo-Nazi groups in other countries. Maurice Barrès was the first to coin the term "national socialism".[2] Barrès's conception of national socialism was similar to later kinds, although his rejection of pluralism, individualism, and materialism was rooted in a particular combination of the counter-revolutionary right (antisemitism, purging of enemies such as democrats and internationalists) and the anti-liberal left (socialism, nationalism, republicanism) in 19th century France; this amalgamation is seen by historian Robert Tombs as being exemplified in Boulanger, who was popular amongst royalists and the urban left alike.[3][4]

https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots ... s_afx2.htm

proto
first
prototype, protocol, protagonist, protozoan, Proterozoic, protoindustrial

I do not claim to be any expert on Greek, but I have been around the block more than enough times to know what the prefix "proto" means.


While I realize that it would be foolish to claim to know more about history than you do (seeing as how you are the moderator of the history forum and a self described "expert" on classical history), I do know enough about this particular issue to at least have an opinion on it. The matter largely speaks for itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Sempronia_Agraria

Seeking to improve the lot of the poor, Ti. Gracchus proposed a law known as Lex Sempronia Agraria. The law would reorganize control of the ager publicus, or public land; meaning land conquered in previous wars that was controlled by the state. Previous agrarian law specified that no one citizen would be allowed to possess more than 500 iugera (that is, approximately 125 hectares) of the ager publica and any land that they occupied above this limit would be confiscated by the state. However this law was largely ignored[7] and rich landowners continued to acquire land, then to work it with slave labour, alienating and impoverishing free Roman citizens. Tiberius saw that reform was needed. He proposed his law in 134 BC, and to mollify these landowners, they would be allowed to own their land rent free, and would be entitled to 250 iugera per child, above the legal limit.[8]

The 500 iugera limit was a reiteration of previous land laws, such as the Licinian Laws passed in 367 B.C., which had been enacted but never enforced. As it stood in Ti. Gracchus's time, a good deal of this land was held in farms far in excess of 500 iugera by large landholders who had settled or rented the property in much earlier time periods, even several generations back. Sometimes it had been leased, rented, or resold to other holders after the initial sale or rental.

Furthermore, Tiberius Gracchus called for the redistribution of the re-confiscated public land to the poor and homeless in Rome, giving them plots of 30 iugera upon which to support themselves and their families, not to mention that the redistributed wealth would make them eligible for taxation and military service. Thus the law sought to solve the twin problems of increasing the number of men eligible for military service (thereby boosting Rome's military strength) and also providing for homeless war veterans.[9]

The Senate and its conservative elements were strongly against the Sempronian agrarian reforms, and were also particularly opposed to Tiberius’ highly unorthodox method of passing the reforms. Because Tiberius clearly knew the Senate wouldn’t approve his reforms, he sidestepped the Senate altogether by going straight to the Concilium Plebis (the Popular Assembly) who supported his measures. This was neither against the law or even against tradition (Mos Maiorum), but it was certainly insulting to the Senate and it alienated Senators who otherwise might have shown support.

If you were to transplant this issue into the mid 20th century, you cannot tell me that Gracchus would not immediately be branded a "Socialist." Quite literally all of the traditional prerequisites for "Socialist" legislation
(class warfare, redistribution of wealth, state intervention on issues of productive property, etca, ecta) are there.



In any case, I should probably get started on the Coliseum.

[Patrick Degan]

Not only did Robert Mugabe not govern Zimbabwe according to Marxist tenets, as the country's capitalist economic policy from independence has demonstrated, he officially abandoned Marxism-Lenninism in the 1990s (further reinforced by the deletion of all references to Marxism-Leninism from the Zimbabwean constitution in 1991).

Being as intentionally obtuse as humanly possible will only get you so far Degan.

Again, look who's talking.

As I have already pointed out, EVERY "Marxist" regime on the planet (including Cuba and North Korea) moved to realign itself in at least some fashion with the West following the end of the Cold War. This proves absolutely nothing other than that Mugabe is a political coward who is willing to play fast and loose with his stated beliefs when the worst comes to worst.

Once again, since when aren't "Marxists" allowed to stoop to such means?

And once more, WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT YOUR VALULELESSLY-VAGUE DEFINITION OF MARXISM WHICH YOU JUST USE AS A BUZZWORD? You have utterly failed in the course of this entire thread to demonstrate how Mugabe has governed his country in a Marxist political paradigm. You won't even acknowledge that the regime itself officially struck all references to Marxism or even socialism from the country's constitution —EVEN THOUGH THIS IS FUCKING HISTORICAL FACT. I grow tired of your endlessly dishonest evasions on this.

If Mugabe had remained on this course and gone the way of China or Vietnam, you might have a point. However, he did not. He has consistently made a point, even during the periods where he claimed to support "Market reform," of retaining some semblence of "socialist" control over his economy, and has actually reverted back to his pre-1990s policies since 2000.

Really? Has he nationalised the entire economy? Has he collectivised the farms? Furthermore, dishonest one, a "semblance" of "socialist control" does not make a regime Marxist. Once again, you conflate terms wildly.

And why should we accept your valuelessly-vague definition of "Marxism" as a determiner of anything? You simply use it as a universally-applicable buzzword.

I have disproven this claim more times than I care to count Degan. I tire of repeating myself.

In what parallel-universe have you effected this? Simply saying you've disproven something does not mean you have actually done so, no matter what the voices in your head tell you to the contrary. And no, you quite obviously do not tire of repeating yourself since you keep restating the same non-arguments.

Explain the existence of multiple parties in Zimbabwe, then, liar.

What part of "bloody civil war that ground into a unwinnable stale mate" don't you understand exactly? This turn of events obviously tied Mugabe's hands to a certain extent. However, even this fact aside the truth of the matter remains that...

Patriotic Front (PF)
The Patriotic Front (PF) was originally formed in 1976 as a political and military alliance between ZAPU and ZANU during the war against white minority rule in Zimbabwe (then called Rhodesia). The Patriotic Front included ZAPU led by Joshua Nkomo operating mainly from Zambia, and ZANU (Zimbabwe National People's Union) led by Robert Mugabe and operated mainly from neighboring Mozambique. Both movements contributed their respective military forces: ZAPU's military wing was known as Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) and ZANU's guerrillas where known as Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). The objective of the Patriotic Front was to overthrow the white minority regime of Ian Smith by means of political pressure and military force.

Their common goal was achieved in 1980 with the formal independence of Zimbabwe. During the 1980 election campaign the Patriotic Front alliance partners split into their respective factions and competed separately as ZANU-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and Patriotic Front-ZAPU (ZAPU-PF). The election was won by Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF, with Joshua Nkomo and his PF-ZAPU retaining a stronghold in the province of Matabeleland.

In December 1987 a Unity Accord was signed between the two parties; PF-ZAPU was merged into ZANU-PF, effectively establishing a one-party state dominated by Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF Joshua Nkomo became one of two vice-presidents of Zimbabwe.

Which is fine... except you do not explain away the OTHER political parties which continued to exist alongside the merged ZANU/ZAPU organisation, nor do you explain away the fact that the country is still legally a multiparty state:

Under British auspices, a new constitutional settlement obtained PF approval in 1979, and the elections of 27–29 February 1980 were contested by nine parties, including ZANU-Patriotic Front, led by Robert Mugabe, and ZAPU (which registered under the name Popular Front). Of the 80 Assembly seats elected from the common rolls, ZANU-Patriotic Front took 57, Popular Front (or ZAPU) 20, and UNAC 3. In the July 1985 elections, ZANU-PF won 63 seats, PF-ZAPU, 15. After much enmity and bitterness during most of the 1980s, ZAPU and ZANU finally agreed to merge in late 1987 under the name of ZANU-PF and the merger was consummated in December 1989.

President Mugabe declared his intention to make Zimbabwe a one-party state by 1990. He regarded his party's victory in the 1990 elections as a mandate to proceed with his plans to establish ZANU-PF as the only legal party. He was soon turned away from that scheme by strong pressure from creditor governments abroad and a chorus of opposition domestically, including from within ZANU-PF. Zimbabwe got caught up in the general press throughout tropical Africa for greater decentralization of power and competitive party politics.

New parties began to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s in preparation for the expected elections in 1995. Tekere's Zimbabwe Unity Movement (ZUM) contested the 1990 elections with some success. The UANC, still led by Muzorewa, merged with ZUM in January 1994. In January, longtime Mugabe rival Sithole returned from exile and created his own party, also using the ZANU rubric of ZANU-Ndonga or sometimes ZANUSithole.

In March 1993, former Chief Justice Enoch Dumbutshena launched the Forum Party, an outgrowth of the pressure group, Forum for Democratic Reform. The CAZ is still active, as is the Democratic Party, which has emerged from a split within ZUM.

In 1996 elections for Executive President, Robert Mugabe, the longtime ruler of Zimbabwe, won 93% of the vote, while his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front, won 98% of the available seats in elections held a year earlier. However, in both elections it was widely accepted that the result had been predetermined. The Zimbabwe government made little pretense of conducting a free and fair election.

Parliamentary elections were scheduled for April 2000, but were postponed until June. Two new strong political parties were formed to challenge Mugabe's ZANU-PF. The United Democratic Front (UDF) party was launched by Lupi Mushayakarara, former Rhodesian leader Ian Smith, Abel Muzorewa, and Ndabaningi Sithole, a pack of leaders that Mugabe dismissed as "ghosts of the past." A more formidable opponent emerged in the form of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) led by Morgan Tsvangirai. The MDC successfully campaigned against a government-sponsored draft constitution in the national referendum held in February 2000 with the government securing 45% of the national referendum votes against 55% for the opposition. The opposition argued that the draft constitution further entrenched executive rule allowing Mugabe to dissolve cabinet and parliament, and to rule by decree. Led by the MDC, opposition parties won nearly half of the seats in the House of Assembly in the June 2000 elections.

Challenges to the future viability of the MDC include leadership, credibility on the streets, articulation of position on contentious issues, and resource base. It remains to be seen whether the MDC can transform itself in a sustainable way from a broad-based civic movement opposed to Mugabe into an organized political entity representing and voicing the interests of a defined constituency all the while contesting power.

Read more

I await your puerile attempt to handwave this one away.

Furthermore, no alliance with the Soviet Union was ever concluded or even understood to exist. But I suppose you can actually present evidence of such an alliance since you insist there was one, now can't you?

Wrong on both counts. Your own sources prove that Mugabe had rather significant ties with the Soviet Union and othert "Red" Bloc nations, but that he was simply willing to trade with the West as well when they made better offers. In fact, if you would bother to look up the subject, you would see that...

RIGHT on both counts. Zimbabwe joined the Non-Aligned Nations bloc after independence, and held the Secretariat-General of that body from 1983-1986. Furthermore, Mugabe's policies in office clearly favoured Western economic and arms-purchasing arrangements over any such deals with either the Soviet Union (until it ceased to exist) or China (which ceased to be part of any unifed "Red Bloc" upon the Sino/Soviet split in the 1960s).

Russia-Zimbabwe relations date back to January 1979, during the Rhodesian Bush War. The Soviet Union supported Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union, and supplied them with arms; Robert Mugabe's attempts to gain Soviet support for his Zimbabwe African National Union were rebuffed, leading him to enter into relations with Soviet rival Beijing. After the end of the white regime in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe had strengthened his relations with both Beijing and Moscow as a result of intense western pressure on him. The USSR soon established diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe on February 18, 1981 and Russia still maintains an embassy in Harare. Both Russia and China still maintain strong economic and political ties with Zimbabwe and both countries had vetoed the UN resolution imposing UN sanctions on Zimbabwe which was proposed by both the US and the UK on July 12, 2008.

The People's Republic of China supported Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union while the Soviet Union supported Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union, competing militant Marxist organizations that sought an end to Rhodesia and the establishment of a one-party Communist state in its place.[1] The PRC's initial investment in Mugabe has continued. China has invested more in Zimbabwe than any other nation with 35 companies spending over $600 million USD.[2] The close economic relationship between Zimbabwe and China is partly driven by sanctions imposed by Western nations in response to the Zimbabwean government's "continued human rights abuses."[3]

Li Ke, China's Vice-Minister for Economic Relations, visited Zimbabwe for 13 days in September 1980. Mugabe visited China on October 13 and met with Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang.[4]

In June or July 2006 the Zimbabwean government secretly bought Chinese rifles, bullets, anti-riot gear and other military equipment in return for 30 tons of ivory, violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which forbids the sale of ivory. Interpol and CITES, an ivory-watchdog organization, are investigating the sale.[5] The Zimbabwean government bought six military aircraft from China in 2005 and another six aircraft from three Chinese firms on August 23, 2006.[6] Two days later the Zimbabwe National Army said it bought 127 trucks for $1.2 million.[7]

The Chinese government donated farm machinery worth $25 million to Zimbabwe on April 21, including 424 tractors and 50 trucks, as part of a $58 million loan to the Zimbabwean government. The Mugabe administration previously seized white-owned farms and gave them to blacks, damaging machinery in the process. In return for the equipment and the loan the Zimbabwean government will ship 30 million kilograms of tobacco to the People's Republic of China immediately and as much as 80 million kilograms over the next five years.[3] John Nkomo, Speaker of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe, praised Cramshina's investment on April 24, 2007 during a state dinner in Harare held during the four-day visit of Jia Qinglin, Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, to Zimbabwe.[2] Misheck Sibanda, the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet, Edna Madzongwe, President of the Senate, cabinet ministers, and legislators from both ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change attended the dinner.[8]

Your first Wikipedia link ignores the aforementioned fact of Zimbabwe's arms and military training arrangements with the UK and the cancellation of the arms purchase, as well as the fact that the increased relationship with Moscow and Beijing was taking place in 1996-2005 after the fall of the Soviet Union (in fact it gives no timeline at all for these events). Your second link says nothing of particular significance, since China's relations with other nations were either predicated on rivalry with the Soviet Union or, increasingly since the mid-80s, a matter of pure business as opposed to ideology.

Thanas has already pointed out your blatant idiocy (which you now begin to backpedal from) in making this assertion of yours: land redistribution according to the aforementioned law passed by the Roman Senate was outright populism;

Once again dumb ass, "Socialism" usually is "Populist." Frankly, what part of an ideology that explicitly advocates the taking of goods and property of the rich by popular uprising and then redistributing it among the "down-trodden" and oppressed" lower classes ISN'T inherently "Populist?"

Socialism is most assuredly NOT populism, shitwit. Socialism is a broad and comprehensive programme centred upon the peoples' democratic control of the means of production and the mechanics of organisation for that system. Populism has no particular agenda, is not even particularly tied to any one political or economic issue, and is simply a tool for short-term political advantage and nothing more than that —such as the land-redistributions of the Gracci in Rome or the current Tea Party and anti-immigration movements. You don't even have the first fucking clue about what you presume to talk about and are again simply conflating terms wildly to suit whatever argument you try to flog.

Granted, the Romans didn't have explicitly "Socialist" motives in mind when they made this legislation, but that is exactly why I referred to this incident as representing only "proto-Socialism" as opposed to actual "Socialism" to begin with.

The Romans didn't have any socialist motives in mind. Socialism simply did not exist as a concept in Roman times and your continued backpedaling and entirely made-up terminology will not save you in this thread.

Do you just plain not understand the concept of a "subjective" field of study, or what?

This isn't math or science where everything is laid out all nice, pretty, clean, and in clear cut little boxes. "Ideology" is one of the single most subjective and controversial subjects know to mankind. There usually is no one "right" or "wrong" answer.

No matter how futile the attempt may be, this is exactly the point I have been trying to hammer into your collectively thick skulls for the last several days.

Political science is not at all a "subjective" study, imbecile. The differences between ideologies and political systems are both observable and quantifiable in terms of what each programme's main philosophical features are and their means of organising the execution of policy objectives.

You people have a serious problem with "thinking outside the box."

Translation from Knobby-speak: "WAAAAAAAH! You meanies won't swallow my bullshit WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!" More seriously, we don't know what half-assed little internet playpen you came from before landing here, but on this board, words actually mean things.

Your definition of "socialism" seems to be about as valuelessly-vague as your definition of "Marxism": nothing more than a universally-applicable buzzword for your convenience.

There you go wanting to place everything into neat little boxes as usual.

There you go thinking you can bullshit your way through an adult discussion. I foresee a very unpleasant and brief stay for you here at Stardestroyer.net.

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Link

Even text book definitions of Socialism underline the incredibly vague nature of this system.

Nowhere near vague enough for you to simply be able to conflate Socialism with Marxism and vice-versa.

In any case, however; you cannot deny that the Irish Revolution contained many blatantly "Socialist" movements.

If you are actually going to try to tell us that the Irish Revolt was about socialism, then we shall have to invent whole new classifications of imbecility to describe you.

The Irish Socialist Republican Party was a pivotal Irish political party founded in 1896 by James Connolly. Its aim was to establish an Irish workers' republic. It split in 1904 following months of internal political rows.

Despite its small size (According to the ISRP historian Lynch, the party never had more than 80 members) the ISRP is regarded by many Irish historians as a party of seminal importance in the early history of Irish socialism and republicanism. It is often described as the first socialist and republican party in Ireland, and the first organisation to espouse the ideology of socialist republicanism on the island. During its lifespan it only had one really active branch, the Dublin one. There were several attempts to create branches in Cork, Belfast, Limerick, Naas, and even in northern England but they never came to much.

Yawn...

The immediate causes for the radicalisation of Irish nationalism were the Ulster Crisis, the effects of the First World War, and the Easter Rising and its aftermath. Nonetheless there had been massive changes in attitudes before and since the fall of Parnell in the late 1880s/early 1890s which were also critical in explaining the speed of the Irish revolution. In retrospect the IPP (Irish Parliamentary Party) had reached its zenith with the introduction of the the First Home Rule Bill in 1886 and had been on the decline even before the disasterous Parnell split. In these years a whole host of social, cultural, and political movements developed an appeal which was never to be effectively countered by the IPP.

The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) was the most popular of all, appealing particularly to the young and soon the object of a clash between the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) and the Catholic Church for its control. Its county-based structure was a focus for local pride and identity centred on small towns. To start with the Irish language movement, the Gaelic League, established in 1893, had had far fewer members than the GAA, but by the first decade of the new century it had led a successful campaign for compulsory teaching of the Irish language in schools and had established itself widely in urban areas. The cultural revival was reinforced by the work of W.B. Yeats, Lady Gregory and J.M. Synge amongst many others, and by the foundation of the Abby Theatre in Dublin.

The commemoration of the centenary of the 1798 Rebellion and the organisation of protest against the royal visits of Queen Victoria and Edward VII resulted in the formation of political pressure groups, most notably Cumann na nGaedheal and Arthur Griffith's National Council, both of which amalgamated with the more radical and Northern-based Dungannon Club to form Sinn Fein in 1907. By advocating economic protectionism to develop Irish industry, Griffith looked forward to planning for an independent Ireland's future.


pp 11,12


In the recess of the General Post Office, Michael Collins shook his head with disgust at the impractical tactics and the chaos caused by the strategy. It is often argued that the sacrifice of Pearse, Clarke and their comrades proved to be justified by subsequent events. However, Irish revolutionary socialism was never to recover from the loss of the intellectual and charismatic leadership of James Connolly. The Rising also produced a good deal of recrimination within the nationalist ranks. Many, notably Eamon deValera and Cathal Brugha blamed the IRB for what went wrong and argued that in future the reliance should be on public institutions and that secret organisations should be wound up. The leadership of the Cork Volunteers was put on trial by the IRB for surrendering their arms, and the Kerry leaders were heavily blamed for the debacle of the arms landing and the arrest of Sir Roger Casement on Fenit Strand. Thus the legacy of 1916 had negative as well as positive effects.

Nonetheless, the Cork IRA leader and historian Florie O'Donoghue held that the Rising had served its purpose by restoring the soul of the nation, and its memory played an important role in the regeneration of advanced nationalism. The cult of the 1916 martyrs and the religious symbolism of Eastertide underpinned the development of the Sinn Fein movement during 1917. The choice of individuals connected with the Rising as candidates at crucial by-elections established this link at the same time as completely different political strategies were adopted. The emphasis was to be on responding to general opinion rather than, as in 1916, being in advance of it.


pp 13,14


It was the conscription crisis which finally brought both the church and moderate opinion into line with the Sinn Fein outlook. The hierarchy's hardline resistance to physical force nationalism had mellowed somewhat by 1917. Their attitude to the Easter Rising had been ambivalent and bishops followed opinion rather than lead it when it came to criticism of the Irish Parliamentary Party and the British government in 1917. There was, and remained, a divide between older and younger priests, with the latter sharing the sympathy of their small farmer class backgrounds to advanced nationalism. Individual bishops, however, like Bishop Fogarty of Killaloe, publicly supported Sinn Fein. The Catholic hierarchy's enthusiastic participation in the popular campaign against conscription was a rare example of opposition to established government on their part.


pg 17



The Irish Revolution was not to be concerned with the redistribution of wealth. Sinn Fein and the IRA continued to be overwhelmingly dominated, with a few local exceptions, by the small farmer class and by artisans and traders in urban areas. They did reflect majority opinion within the twenty-six counties and represented an emerging ruling class but excluded others; many disparate interests in Irish society, including Southern Unionists, prosperous farmers, farm labourers and the working class in general were largely unrepresented in the Dail. The historian Fergus Campbell has stressed the importance of the survival of land protest in the west as demonstrated by the continuity in membership between the United Irish League of the early years of the twentieth century and the Sinn Fein party post-1916. The widespread agrarian agitation of 1920, threatening the security of so many graziers, had the potential to move the Irish revolution in a more radical direction. If it is also true, however, that the Irish revolution was not "innately conservative", by 1921 social considerations had been overwhelmed by narrow political ones


pg 20


Any possibility of a radical programme being followed soon died in the course of 1919. Discussion of the merits of co-operative schemes in the farming and fishing industries never advanced beyond the theoretical. The Democratic Programme of social welfare reforms was never followed up. Kevin O'Higgins was later to comment: "We were probably the most conservative-minded revolutionaries that ever put through a successful revolution". For the most part, British constitutional forms were followed by the Dail.

. . .

A series of economies and cost-cutting measures had to be implemented at once, with only limited financial support from the Dail. Workhouses were consolodated into single institutions and tuberculosis hosptials closed; in some counties the mentally-ill were left uncared for and destitute, though care continued to be provided through religious orders. By the time of the Truce, much of the Irish social and legal system was in a state of collapse following the demise of the British administration and the false promise of the Dail government. In social and economic affairs the revolution was reactive rather than proactive.

pp 44,45

Those extracts from Micheal Hopkinson's The Irish War Of Independence (ISBN 0-7735-2835-7) clearly demonstrate that the character of the Irish nationalism and the revolution was dominated by cultural ideology, not political: based on Irish pride, the revival of Gaelic culture, and Catholicism. The conservative character of the revolutionary movement all but guaranteed that any socialist currents would be swept under and the economic realities of post-independence Ireland made any socialist or even remotely progressive programme an impossibility.

And as for your Irish Socialist Republican Party, YOUR OWN SOURCE shows what a tiny and insignificant movement it was. Something you might have noticed if not for your galloping idiocy in trying to characterise the Irish revolution as socialist.

the aforementioned measure was part of the 2000 constitutional referendum which was defeated.

Failed "Marxist" legislation is still "Marxist" legislation. How many times do I have to tell you that intent is just as important as execution?

And again, you utterly fail to demonstrate how land redistribution is an inherently or exclusively Marxist programme. How many times must this be pointed out to you or should we start using words of no more than two syllables to accommodate your evidently poor level of comprehension?

Besides, did you totally miss the point where it was stated that...

A few days later, the pro-Mugabe War Veterans Association organised like-minded people (not necessarily other war veterans, as many of them were too young to have fought in the Liberation War) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. As the march continued, seizing began. When the violence ended, a total of 110,000 square kilometers of land had been seized.

Apparently Mugabe has absolutely no problem with seizing by force what he cannot gain legally. This is a typically "Marxist" view on the matter.

No, that is a populist view taken to its extreme conclusion. And as I also cited the War Veterans Association action on Mugabe's behest as a blatant attempt to shore up his own political base by co-opting a potential source of opposition, you have no argument no matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really, really want to believe you do.

...while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years. There have since been denials of this policy, however.

You really are an imbecile to imagine that you can play so fast and loose with the facts and not get caught at it.

This proves absolutely nothing other than that Mugabe has a history of flip-flopping on important issues.

No, it proves that you are utterly dishonest and that you cherry-picked the evidence. The smart thing right now would be for you to cease trying to defend your little editing job, but it's obvious you're far too stupid to take the hint.

You still have as of yet to demonstrate how exactly political cowardice automatically excludes someone from being considered to be a "Marxist."

Asked and answered. And answered, and answered, and answered...

[Patrick Degan]

And I see that Knothead has now trotted out that tired old saw about the Nazis being socialists. Pity that any reading of Hitler's weird definition of the term shows his concept to be built around blood & soil based German nationalism and general opposition to every and any ideology that was in his view "non-German" rather than anything remotely socialistic.

[Thanas]

Patriotism usually is also "Populist".

"Populism" is not necessary for "Patriotism" to exist. This isn't really the case where "Socialism" or "Marxism" are concerned.

Both ideologies more or less explicitly state that some kind of either political or militant popular uprising (i.e. "populism") is necessary to bring about change in society, and that the "people"(as uselessly vague as this concept may be) should have the ultimate say in matters of the economy.

You tried to weasel your way out of using incorrect definitions by claiming that a common element in both repudiates your mistake. It does not.

Just because there are some similarities does not mean they are the same concepts, which is what I tried to explain with my analogy and which you missed. Spectacularly.

Fascism had a long-winded argument about how the rich (jews) used to backstab and oppress poor ordinary Germans. In fact, one of Hitler's key programs was a redistribution of wealth. Were the fascists socialists now?

While "Fascism" is a pretty incredibly vague concept in and of itself, it cannot really be denied that German Fascism was technically a form of "National Socialism."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialism

As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, democratic socialism and liberalism.[1] It may also oppose certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied. Several political parties other than the Nazis in Germany have used the name National Socialist Party or National Socialist Movement, and the name has been adopted since then by neo-Nazi groups in other countries. Maurice Barrès was the first to coin the term "national socialism".[2] Barrès's conception of national socialism was similar to later kinds, although his rejection of pluralism, individualism, and materialism was rooted in a particular combination of the counter-revolutionary right (antisemitism, purging of enemies such as democrats and internationalists) and the anti-liberal left (socialism, nationalism, republicanism) in 19th century France; this amalgamation is seen by historian Robert Tombs as being exemplified in Boulanger, who was popular amongst royalists and the urban left alike.[3][4]

How does any of this makes the fascists socialists now?

https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots ... s_afx2.htm

proto
first
prototype, protocol, protagonist, protozoan, Proterozoic, protoindustrial

I do not claim to be any expert on Greek, but I have been around the block more than enough times to know what the prefix "proto" means.


While I realize that it would be foolish to claim to know more about history than you do (seeing as how you are the moderator of the history forum and a self described "expert" on classical history), I do know enough about this particular issue to at least have an opinion on it. The matter largely speaks for itself.

You're opinion is wrong and worthless. I demand proof for the following claims which you made:
a) The land reform were socialists
b) Augustus was a socialist or a proto-socialist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Sempronia_Agraria

Seeking to improve the lot of the poor, Ti. Gracchus proposed a law known as Lex Sempronia Agraria. The law would reorganize control of the ager publicus, or public land; meaning land conquered in previous wars that was controlled by the state. Previous agrarian law specified that no one citizen would be allowed to possess more than 500 iugera (that is, approximately 125 hectares) of the ager publica and any land that they occupied above this limit would be confiscated by the state. However this law was largely ignored[7] and rich landowners continued to acquire land, then to work it with slave labour, alienating and impoverishing free Roman citizens. Tiberius saw that reform was needed. He proposed his law in 134 BC, and to mollify these landowners, they would be allowed to own their land rent free, and would be entitled to 250 iugera per child, above the legal limit.[8]

The 500 iugera limit was a reiteration of previous land laws, such as the Licinian Laws passed in 367 B.C., which had been enacted but never enforced. As it stood in Ti. Gracchus's time, a good deal of this land was held in farms far in excess of 500 iugera by large landholders who had settled or rented the property in much earlier time periods, even several generations back. Sometimes it had been leased, rented, or resold to other holders after the initial sale or rental.

Furthermore, Tiberius Gracchus called for the redistribution of the re-confiscated public land to the poor and homeless in Rome, giving them plots of 30 iugera upon which to support themselves and their families, not to mention that the redistributed wealth would make them eligible for taxation and military service. Thus the law sought to solve the twin problems of increasing the number of men eligible for military service (thereby boosting Rome's military strength) and also providing for homeless war veterans.[9]

The Senate and its conservative elements were strongly against the Sempronian agrarian reforms, and were also particularly opposed to Tiberius’ highly unorthodox method of passing the reforms. Because Tiberius clearly knew the Senate wouldn’t approve his reforms, he sidestepped the Senate altogether by going straight to the Concilium Plebis (the Popular Assembly) who supported his measures. This was neither against the law or even against tradition (Mos Maiorum), but it was certainly insulting to the Senate and it alienated Senators who otherwise might have shown support.

If you were to transplant this issue into the mid 20th century, you cannot tell me that Gracchus would not immediately be branded a "Socialist." Quite literally all of the traditional prerequisites for "Socialist" legislation
(class warfare, redistribution of wealth, state intervention on issues of productive property, etca, ecta) are there.

They are not. For example, you neglect to mention that the class that would benefit from this was not what socialists would describe as their classes, but only a miniscule segment of that class, namely Roman citizens. This is nowhere near the general definition of workers and farmers at all. Furthermore, the aim of the program - increasing the military power of Rome and the political power of the Gracchi - clearly conflicts with the socialist goal of a class-less society. In any case, it cannot be called socialist because it did nothing to abolish the class divide.

And what state intervention? The state could not intervene because in ancient Rome, there was no distinction between state and private issues. That distinction only happens later when we have an Imperial bureucracy.