6 ms·

In the interest of some context: Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. While a "political prisoner" he was offered freedom as soon as he would publicly renou

by mrslave 10y ago

In the interest of some context: Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. While a "political prisoner" he was offered freedom as soon as he would publicly renounce violent protest (i.e. terrorism) and he persistently refused to do so. His second wife, Winnie, enjoyed the necklacing opponents. So nice people all round.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
HoopleHead 10y ago
I'm presuming you're an American, seeing as you seem to equate being a Communist with being a terrorist. Communism, as a political ideal, is a perfectly acceptable proposition. The fact that many oppressive regimes have declared themselves to be Communist states should not detract from that —any more than the equally evil actions of states which claim to be Democratic, should tarnish the ideals underpinning Democracy.
- jdimov9 10y ago
  In what twisted mind is communism an acceptable proposition???
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with communism as an ideal. All of its implementations, however, have been seriously lacking, and perhaps it is unviable in practice; this does not mean the concept is unacceptable in theory.
    - jdimov9 10y ago
      You are clearly incompetent about the subject. The "ideal" of communism and the practice of communism are not two different things. Communism is practiced precisely the way it is theoretically intended to work. Communism is a cleptocratic system of ruling and exploiting the manual labour and natural resources of any given territory inhabited by unambitious masses that largely lack individualism. The core of the system relies on individualism and personal achievement being punished and forcefully suppressed, while the masses are continuously promised vague ideals of equality and justice (much like with any other system of government - nothing innovative here. ) There is nothing acceptable about communism - not in theory, not in practice, not in ideals - nothig.
      - danharaj 10y ago
        You sound like an Ayn Rand soliloquy.
        jdimov9 10y ago
        I've been told this a number of times. I've never read any Ayn Rand - probably should. I was, however, born and raised in communism, as were my parents, so I talk from experience.
        danharaj 10y ago
        And i suppose the people of "The Democratic Republic of North Korea" know a thing or two about democracy and republics. There are plenty of communists who categorically reject state communism. They're called anarchists.
        patrickaljord 10y ago
        Leftist anarchists are against private property though and against turning a profit and individualism. We all know how this ends. Also, how do you enforce the no private property rule without a state and without a private security agency?
        danharaj 10y ago
        You realize that private property is defined and enforced by a state, right? It doesn't exist until a social structure says "This is yours and we will guarantee it with force of violence if we need to". Also i'm sure our definitions of individualism are irreconcilably different. Your individualism involves people subordinating others with violence explicit and implicit if you really think capitalism is a pro-individualism system. For me, individualism cannot be separated from collectivism.
        patrickaljord 10y ago
        Why would you want to build anything if anyone can come and grab it because private property is bad? My body belongs to me and so does what I build with it unless I voluntarily give it away. I don't need a state to enforce the protection of my property, I could do it myself or pay someone (a person, a private security agency or yes, a state). > Your individualism involves people subordinating others with violence explicit and implicit if you really think capitalism is a pro-individualism system What is capital(ism) if not the accumulation of things to build more things. In order to build anything, you need a certain capital even in a anarchy world, it could be pieces of wood, bricks, money etc. Now who is better suited to manage this capital? Everyone? Turns out, some people suck at managing capital and some people know best how to manage it because they're the ones who managed to accumulate enough in order to build this capital in the first place. Societies where capital was managed by collectives have historically not done well. Also, I'm not for subordinating people with violence so not sure where you got this idea. I'm ok though with using force to defend your body and the property you acquired peacefully with it (because you built it or because someone agreed to give it to you).
    - blfr 10y ago
      There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with communism as an ideal. There clearly is. Everywhere it has been tried, it led to at least poverty and usually genocide. Communism has been far, far worse than nazism or fascism and holding national socialism as some sort of valuable ideal untainted by the reality is unacceptable almost everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        In practice yes, but not in theory, which is an important distinction. To use an analogy, genocide of Jews is an unacceptable ideal, you don't have to try it out to know its bad. In retrospect, no one thought the nazi's plan could have ended up working in a "good" way. Compare that to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, given communism as an ideal alone, it wasn't inherently flawed or "evil", it just turns out people are selfish enough for this not to work, leading to a lot of collateral damage in the form of bad ideals (like genocide). Fascism is quite similar, though I'm not sure one could say communism is worse than fascism, given that the latter was only tried a couple of times and was put out relatively quickly, while the impact of the former happened over a much longer period of time and under much larger populations.
        blfr 10y ago
        It turns out that public ownership of the means of production actually leads to an even worse world than planned, industrial genocide. Part of the reason why is people clinging to this idea long after it has been shown not viable and leading to absolutely horrific events like Holodomor (a Holocaust level genocide before Holocaust) or The Great Leap Forward. I can see how one might find communism interesting from the perspective of 19th century. I cannot believe anyone still does in the 21st.
        seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        I think you are really misinterpreting the meaning of "an acceptable proposition". It doesn't have to evaluate to T, only that, as an abstraction, it does not evaluate to F based on its structure alone. No we don't want communism (at least I don't), but for someone to say it is illogical is completely incorrect.
  - Koshkin 10y ago
    I am not seeing how communism can become a viable idea on a large scale, but on a smaller scale it is nothing new or unusual. In a family people normally share property, food, money, and products of labor. That's communism. Israeli kibbutz is another example.
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Some aspects are present in large companies too. For instance at many companies teams don't directly pay for infrastructure that they use, it's all provided by the company. Or computer equipment, air conditioning, etc. Of course this has issues of its own, like people under-appreciating the all the VMs they're provisioning, and it gets especially bad if the budget gets tight.
- sandisk5 10y ago
  > I'm presuming you're an American, seeing as you seem to equate being a Communist with being a terrorist. He said: Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. He's not saying what you're claiming. Mandela was a terrorist because he was part of a terrorist organization that intentionally set off bombs in shopping malls and restaurants.
Synaesthesia 10y ago
Of course the government of SA didn't have to renounce violence, which is the way they dealt with any resistance. Violence, torture, intimidation. Refusal to negotiate. Of course we don't call the Apartheid government "terrorists" for these crimes. He was not a communist, but an African nationalist. This is something he has always maintained and was confirmed when he became president, the national economic policy was pretty much neoliberal. The reason why he remained close to the communists is because they were sympathetic to his cause and lent a lot of support.
- sandisk5 10y ago
  > Of course we don't call the Apartheid government "terrorists" for these crimes. Almost everyone agrees that the Apartheid government was horrible. Almost no one holds them up as a positive example. Conversely, almost everyone holds Mandela and his terrorist organization up as an example and as a hero despite them intentionally setting off bombs in civilian locations like shopping malls and restaurants.
  - soneca 10y ago
    From the biographies I read, they never put bombs in public, civilian locations. Only in strategic industrial/infrastructure locations, making sure there was not a person in place. But, of course I read that in biased biographies. Do you have source that a person was killed by these attacks?
    - viiaezumu 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing
    - sandisk5 10y ago
      I'm no expert. Mandela cofounded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings has a list of atrocities committed by them. During most of them Mandela was in prison I believe. I don't know about his influence over the organization during that time or if he condemned these attacks, I'd guess he didn't but am happy to be proven wrong. "five civilians were killed and 40 were injured when MK cadre Andrew Sibusiso Zondo detonated an explosive in a rubbish bin at a shopping centre shortly before Christmas." "a bomb was detonated in a bar, killing three civilians and injuring 69" " terror campaign continued with attacks on a series of soft targets, including a bank in Roodepoort in 1988, in which four civilians were killed and 18 injured. Also in 1988, a bomb outside a magistrate's court killed three. At the Ellis Park rugby stadium in Johannesburg, a car bomb killed two and injured 37 civilians. A multitude[14] of bombs at restaurants and fast food outlets, including Wimpy Bars,[15] and supermarkets occurred during the late 1980s, killing and wounding many people."
yarou 10y ago
Were they as nice as their colonial oppressors?
rorykoehler 10y ago
Meaningless labels of propaganda. Please tell me you don't really believe those terms at face value when they're used by anyone in a position of power or authority.
_nedR 10y ago
Maybe we should redo all the text books to accurately reflect the fact (by the definition you have given) that George Washington and the founding fathers of the US were terrorists.

by mrslave 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

HoopleHead 10y ago

I'm presuming you're an American, seeing as you seem to equate being a Communist with being a terrorist. Communism, as a political ideal, is a perfectly acceptable proposition. The fact that many oppressive regimes have declared themselves to be Communist states should not detract from that —any more than the equally evil actions of states which claim to be Democratic, should tarnish the ideals underpinning Democracy.

jdimov9 10y ago
In what twisted mind is communism an acceptable proposition???
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with communism as an ideal. All of its implementations, however, have been seriously lacking, and perhaps it is unviable in practice; this does not mean the concept is unacceptable in theory.
  - jdimov9 10y ago
    You are clearly incompetent about the subject. The "ideal" of communism and the practice of communism are not two different things. Communism is practiced precisely the way it is theoretically intended to work. Communism is a cleptocratic system of ruling and exploiting the manual labour and natural resources of any given territory inhabited by unambitious masses that largely lack individualism. The core of the system relies on individualism and personal achievement being punished and forcefully suppressed, while the masses are continuously promised vague ideals of equality and justice (much like with any other system of government - nothing innovative here. ) There is nothing acceptable about communism - not in theory, not in practice, not in ideals - nothig.
    - danharaj 10y ago
      You sound like an Ayn Rand soliloquy.
      - jdimov9 10y ago
        I've been told this a number of times. I've never read any Ayn Rand - probably should. I was, however, born and raised in communism, as were my parents, so I talk from experience.
        danharaj 10y ago
        And i suppose the people of "The Democratic Republic of North Korea" know a thing or two about democracy and republics. There are plenty of communists who categorically reject state communism. They're called anarchists.
        patrickaljord 10y ago
        Leftist anarchists are against private property though and against turning a profit and individualism. We all know how this ends. Also, how do you enforce the no private property rule without a state and without a private security agency?
        danharaj 10y ago
        You realize that private property is defined and enforced by a state, right? It doesn't exist until a social structure says "This is yours and we will guarantee it with force of violence if we need to". Also i'm sure our definitions of individualism are irreconcilably different. Your individualism involves people subordinating others with violence explicit and implicit if you really think capitalism is a pro-individualism system. For me, individualism cannot be separated from collectivism.
        patrickaljord 10y ago
        Why would you want to build anything if anyone can come and grab it because private property is bad? My body belongs to me and so does what I build with it unless I voluntarily give it away. I don't need a state to enforce the protection of my property, I could do it myself or pay someone (a person, a private security agency or yes, a state). > Your individualism involves people subordinating others with violence explicit and implicit if you really think capitalism is a pro-individualism system What is capital(ism) if not the accumulation of things to build more things. In order to build anything, you need a certain capital even in a anarchy world, it could be pieces of wood, bricks, money etc. Now who is better suited to manage this capital? Everyone? Turns out, some people suck at managing capital and some people know best how to manage it because they're the ones who managed to accumulate enough in order to build this capital in the first place. Societies where capital was managed by collectives have historically not done well. Also, I'm not for subordinating people with violence so not sure where you got this idea. I'm ok though with using force to defend your body and the property you acquired peacefully with it (because you built it or because someone agreed to give it to you).
  - blfr 10y ago
    There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with communism as an ideal. There clearly is. Everywhere it has been tried, it led to at least poverty and usually genocide. Communism has been far, far worse than nazism or fascism and holding national socialism as some sort of valuable ideal untainted by the reality is unacceptable almost everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      In practice yes, but not in theory, which is an important distinction. To use an analogy, genocide of Jews is an unacceptable ideal, you don't have to try it out to know its bad. In retrospect, no one thought the nazi's plan could have ended up working in a "good" way. Compare that to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, given communism as an ideal alone, it wasn't inherently flawed or "evil", it just turns out people are selfish enough for this not to work, leading to a lot of collateral damage in the form of bad ideals (like genocide). Fascism is quite similar, though I'm not sure one could say communism is worse than fascism, given that the latter was only tried a couple of times and was put out relatively quickly, while the impact of the former happened over a much longer period of time and under much larger populations.
      - blfr 10y ago
        It turns out that public ownership of the means of production actually leads to an even worse world than planned, industrial genocide. Part of the reason why is people clinging to this idea long after it has been shown not viable and leading to absolutely horrific events like Holodomor (a Holocaust level genocide before Holocaust) or The Great Leap Forward. I can see how one might find communism interesting from the perspective of 19th century. I cannot believe anyone still does in the 21st.
        seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        I think you are really misinterpreting the meaning of "an acceptable proposition". It doesn't have to evaluate to T, only that, as an abstraction, it does not evaluate to F based on its structure alone. No we don't want communism (at least I don't), but for someone to say it is illogical is completely incorrect.
- Koshkin 10y ago
  I am not seeing how communism can become a viable idea on a large scale, but on a smaller scale it is nothing new or unusual. In a family people normally share property, food, money, and products of labor. That's communism. Israeli kibbutz is another example.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Some aspects are present in large companies too. For instance at many companies teams don't directly pay for infrastructure that they use, it's all provided by the company. Or computer equipment, air conditioning, etc. Of course this has issues of its own, like people under-appreciating the all the VMs they're provisioning, and it gets especially bad if the budget gets tight.
sandisk5 10y ago
> I'm presuming you're an American, seeing as you seem to equate being a Communist with being a terrorist. He said: Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. He's not saying what you're claiming. Mandela was a terrorist because he was part of a terrorist organization that intentionally set off bombs in shopping malls and restaurants.

Synaesthesia 10y ago

Of course the government of SA didn't have to renounce violence, which is the way they dealt with any resistance. Violence, torture, intimidation. Refusal to negotiate. Of course we don't call the Apartheid government "terrorists" for these crimes. He was not a communist, but an African nationalist. This is something he has always maintained and was confirmed when he became president, the national economic policy was pretty much neoliberal. The reason why he remained close to the communists is because they were sympathetic to his cause and lent a lot of support.

sandisk5 10y ago
> Of course we don't call the Apartheid government "terrorists" for these crimes. Almost everyone agrees that the Apartheid government was horrible. Almost no one holds them up as a positive example. Conversely, almost everyone holds Mandela and his terrorist organization up as an example and as a hero despite them intentionally setting off bombs in civilian locations like shopping malls and restaurants.
- soneca 10y ago
  From the biographies I read, they never put bombs in public, civilian locations. Only in strategic industrial/infrastructure locations, making sure there was not a person in place. But, of course I read that in biased biographies. Do you have source that a person was killed by these attacks?
  - viiaezumu 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing
  - sandisk5 10y ago
    I'm no expert. Mandela cofounded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings has a list of atrocities committed by them. During most of them Mandela was in prison I believe. I don't know about his influence over the organization during that time or if he condemned these attacks, I'd guess he didn't but am happy to be proven wrong. "five civilians were killed and 40 were injured when MK cadre Andrew Sibusiso Zondo detonated an explosive in a rubbish bin at a shopping centre shortly before Christmas." "a bomb was detonated in a bar, killing three civilians and injuring 69" " terror campaign continued with attacks on a series of soft targets, including a bank in Roodepoort in 1988, in which four civilians were killed and 18 injured. Also in 1988, a bomb outside a magistrate's court killed three. At the Ellis Park rugby stadium in Johannesburg, a car bomb killed two and injured 37 civilians. A multitude[14] of bombs at restaurants and fast food outlets, including Wimpy Bars,[15] and supermarkets occurred during the late 1980s, killing and wounding many people."

yarou 10y ago

Were they as nice as their colonial oppressors?

rorykoehler 10y ago

Meaningless labels of propaganda. Please tell me you don't really believe those terms at face value when they're used by anyone in a position of power or authority.

_nedR 10y ago

Maybe we should redo all the text books to accurately reflect the fact (by the definition you have given) that George Washington and the founding fathers of the US were terrorists.