Zimbabwe

When one of the architects of Zimbabwe’s low-key coup landed in Beijing last week he was met by two of the most senior members of the world’s largest military force.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/16/zimbabwe-army-chief-trip-c...

Quote:

"Reports suggest some popular sympathy for the coup..."

Just a wee, tiny minority who resent living under a dictatorship.  Everyone else likes the autocratic rule, and welcomes his mistress/wife as his legitimate heir to complete power (free and fair elections notwithstanding).

Of course there's some sympathy for this.  Geez.  It's not like they could have a different government by voting differently.

1)The attempted land confiscations Mugabe staged were a good example of a fairly just objective being twisted into excessive actions.  It is basically wrong that a handful of wealthy white Zimbabweans(people who probably still think of themselves as "Rhodesians")own a massive chunk of the arable land and some type of land redistribution clearly had to happen.  But in Mugabe's hands, this just objective became a pretext for the encouragement of personal violence and essentially theft.  It was a disaster as handled; yet this still needs to be addressed in a humane and democratic way later, since it isn't possible to create a just society in Zimbabwe or anyplace else without egalitarian control of wealth and resources.

2) Mugabe used to be thought of as a figure of the Left, but his endorsement of the Conservative Party in the 2010 UK elections means he should now be seen as essentially an authoritarian reactionary.  If he loses power, it's no loss to the actual Left, and the Left is not responsible for Mugabe's actions.

3) Do we know anything about the officers who have staged a coup and does anyone think we can trust THEIR intentions?

Ken Burch wrote:

2) Mugabe used to be thought of as a figure of the Left, but his endorsement of the Conservative Party in the 2010 UK elections means he should now be seen as essentially an authoritarian reactionary.  If he loses power, it's no loss to the actual Left, and the Left is not responsible for Mugabe's actions.

Don't forget his raging homophobia.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

LOL

Another subtle indication something's up is that he isn't using a TelePrompTer.

WWWTT wrote:

Ok here’s a link from China. 

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/africa/

From what I recalcreading Mugabe was never the target. Instead there are alleged corrupt ministers in government.

Well, from what I'm reading, his wife was DEFINITELY one of the targets. And, assumming that Mugabe really did want Grace to succeed him, it would be a bit of a tightrope act for the miltiary to say that they won't allow him to name his successor, but they're otherwise going to continue recognizing his authority as president.

Going Underground: Army Taking Over Zimbabwe (and vid)

https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/410265-zimbabwe-issue-morgan-...

"In this episode we look at the developing situation in Zimbabwe with the former chief adviser of UK-backed opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, and the head of Mugabe's Zanu-PF's UK chapter."

George Galloway on Zimbabwe/Mugabe

https://youtu.be/y_VRMLdD_04

"I'm going to start with the $400 slaves you can now buy in Libya...I mention it not just because it's worthy of itself that in 2017 there are slave-markets in a country liberated by NATO, [led by a Canadian general] by us, but because it contrasts with other parts of Africa that are more significantly in the news. It's a strange kind of coup that has taken place in Zimbabwe..."

voice of the damned wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Ok here’s a link from China. 

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/africa/

From what I recalcreading Mugabe was never the target. Instead there are alleged corrupt ministers in government.

Well, from what I'm reading, his wife was DEFINITELY one of the targets. And, assumming that Mugabe really did want Grace to succeed him, it would be a bit of a tightrope act for the miltiary to say that they won't allow him to name his successor, but they're otherwise going to continue recognizing his authority as president.

 

 

 

ya when the military steps into the government than things are pretty bad. I don’t follow politics from the African continent much unfortunately. I figured it a good idea to post a link with an different respective non white colonial

Agreed, but of course that is easier said than done.

Zimbabwe's Mugabe Defies Expectations of Resignation in Address To Nation

https://on.rt.com/8smi

"Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has shocked expectations by pledging to remain on as leader of the ZANU-PF party in an address to the nation. That despite the party removing his as leader earlier in the day...."

And...he's gone.

The Guardian has a few more details. Apparently, the impeachment proceedings were underway when he called it quits.

http://tinyurl.com/ybcxapb2

Quote:

What is Behind the Military Coup in Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe thinking he could just "will" the Presidency of Zimbabwe to his wife, like leaving her his golf clubs.

Hehe.  Always with that yankee Bogeyman.

I guess it remains to be seen whether or not the new President will or will not be "chummy" with those darn Americans.  But it's interesting to note that this wasn't a coup by the opposition, and the new President was at least sufficiently in agreement with Mugabe to be his VP, until Grace Mugabe wanted to reach for the stars.

Should the people of Zimbabwe fear a President who'll court international investment again (albeit with Capitalists)?  Or a President who basically just does more of the same?  Maybe this guy will repatriate the stolen land from Mugabe's war buddies and give it to his own buddies.  Only time will tell.

From WSWS:

Mugabe did nothing to wage a genuine offensive against big-business interests. He responded by combining attacks on the working class in the urban centres with encouraging limited land seizures to cement ZANU-PF’s overwhelmingly rural base—with Mugabe declaring, “Our roots are in the soil and not in the factories.”

An old tension among Marxist governments. Apparently, Stalin was appalled that Mao saw the peasantry rather than industrial workers as the revolutionary class.

These African politics I find real hard to get my head around???  I don’t understand why anyone in Zimbabwe would feel it necessary to seek out the support of a western white colonial/former colonial country. China and Russia I can understand   Here’s a link with a little background for some insight 

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/chinas-investments-in-africa-whats-the-real-story/

And here’s another insightful link!

https://www.thoughtco.com/african-countries-that-are-landlocked-4060437

now I believe that most Nations in Africa are seriously deprived of infrastructure on a full scale from schools hospitals and research facilities. Water and energy supply including irrigation. Energy production.

And then there’s the lingering dehumanizing effects of colonialism. Clearly the people’s of all the African nations have many challenges to overcome so that they may develop a large pool of intellect to develop their own creative solutions to their inherited diverse dilemmas 

WWWTT wrote:

These African politics I find real hard to get my head around???  I don’t understand why anyone in Zimbabwe would feel it necessary to seek out the support of a western white colonial/former colonial country. China and Russia I can understand   Here’s a link with a little background for some insight 

 

Well, depending what you mean by "support" here, realpolitik would likely dictate that it's a bad idea to have all your support coming from one particular country or even one particular block of countries.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, the trots often have a relatively clear-headed analysis, class-based and avoiding the romanticization of nominally left-wing regimes that so blights certain other progressive commentators. But they really gotta tone down the apocalyptic urgency.

Or at least be a bit less obviously partisan about it.

Somehow it's ALWAYS the U.S., the EU, or NATO who are recklessly leading the world toward war.

Russia wanting Ukraine back isn't leading us to war, but somehow Ukraine (and NATO!  And the U.S.!) resisting is what's leading us to war (and has been for years now).  What if they predicted a war and nobody came??

 

In fairness, I think when the WSWS opposes US policy in eastern europe, it's because they genuinely think the US is in the wrong, not because they just sat down and said "What would be the best thing for Russia in this situation?"

Historically, with the exception of those Maoists who stuck with China during the Sino-Soviet split, the trots have probably been the least pro-Soviet/Russian of the major Marxist tendencies, and even when they've taken pro-Russian positions(as with the Crimea), it's always with a lot of caveats about the nature of the Soviet or Russian regime. In contrast to certain pro-Russian websites(not mentioning any names) that can't discuss the Crimea without also mentioning Russia's glorious history of fighting off the enemies of civiliation, going back to the Mongol hordes.

For those who would like a closer look at 'Trotskyism', here is the website of the Fourth International, the organization started by Leon Trotsky.

International Viewpoint

I think most would find this more restrained, analytical and sane, than WSWS.

progressive17 wrote:

wsws is but one tendency of Trotskyism. There are dozens, if not hundreds more. However, Maoism is by no means a tendency of Trotskyism. If united by anything, Trotskyism is opposed to Stalinism. Maoism is a flavour of Stalinism.

By the way, people who subscribe to the ideals of Leon Trotsky (in whatever tendency) are not "trots" or even "Trotskyites", but Trotskyists. Saying "trot" is like saying "commie" or "pinko", and surely we do not do that here.

There are even some Trotskyists who believe that the (mostly Stalinist and very imperfect) Soviet Union should have survived because since its downfall, things have become much worse for the working class.

OK...I hope I can ask this without offending you, because I respect a lot of things people who are inspired by Trotsky do and have to say, but can you tell me why the term "Trotskyist" is ok,  but "Trotskyite" is some sort of an insult?  I've often heard people in or near the Fourth International tradition say that it was, but never got a clear explanation from anyone as to why-and it's especially puzzing from a linguistic standpoint to hear people insist on being referred to as "Trotskyists" when they (properly, in my view)use the term "Stalinist" to derde the handful of deluded people who still defend the way the Soviet Union was run after 1924.

progressive:

Yes, I'm aware that Maoists are not a faction of Trotskyists. I was saying that Maoists were the only group of MARXISTS who were less pro-Soviet than the Trotskykists.

As for "trot", I've heard Trotskyists themseves use the term, so I always figured it was okay, sort of like "dippers" for the NDP. I'm in a hurry, so can't write more.

Back to Zimbabwe, a High Court has ruled that the army's actions don't constitute a coup.

https://tinyurl.com/yanoan58

progressive17 wrote:

Stalinists say ¨Trostkyite" and Trotskyists say ¨Trotskyist¨, in a nutshell.  

You'd think the Trotskyists would give it back by calling their rivals "Stalinites", then.

Sounds like it's basically the sectarian version of five year olds calling each other "booger eater" and "poopyhead".