Nelson Mandela 'proven' to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial`

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ismail
Meanwile, in the real world, a bunch of kids just died in Africa because they couldn't AFFORD food and medicine.


Lack of money, and aid is not the primary problem in Africa. The money and aid is treating the symptom not the problem.

The primary problem is they are refugees. People don’t run out into the baron desert for the view. They know they will starve out there, but it’s better than getting killed by the mercenaries.

One of the primary culpabilities the outside world has in regard to Africa is, the push to disarm the innocent people. That makes them sheep for the slaughter. If you armed the villagers, they would kill the mercenaries, and they wouldn’t be pushed out into the desert to die.

Like when they ask Amnesty international about arming the villagers. Amnesty international replied…. “ It would not be a good idea to give the people weapons because it would introduce an amount of uncertainty into the situation.” … Yes, that’ kind of the point! You want their slaughter to be a little less certain.

Groups like Amnesty international, and their disarmament drives are the true cause for the starving in Africa. Not the lack of outside food or medicine.

If anything, we should be sending in troops to kill the mercenaries so the villagers can go back to the fertile ground they was driven off of. For, as long as they remain where they are, No amount of money and aid will be able to make their life sustainable. They need guns to fight their oppressors, nothing else.

Trying to use the situation as a mark against capitalism is a bit warped to say the least.
edit on 10-12-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
When I was a child, I had the benefit of being in an active military family . When I was 10 or 11 ( @1985-87) years old my father (then a major) made me watch videos, that he was privy to, of the ANC, and how they would burn car tires soaked in gas around the necks of those africans who dared to oppose their communist agenda. The images of their atrocities made me realize at a young age how the media spun a butcher as Mandela into a hero. What a farce he is. What a pity to have such a murderous scumbag held up as some kind of freedom fighter to the gullible youth of the west is as big a lie as any!



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
So what if he was?


This was exactly what I was thinking! So what!?!?!



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ltheghost

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
So what if he was?


This was exactly what I was thinking! So what!?!?!


Take ten minutes to read the thread and you'll have your answer -- take special note of those posters from South Africa, who have personal experience.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by ltheghost

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
So what if he was?


This was exactly what I was thinking! So what!?!?!


Take ten minutes to read the thread and you'll have your answer -- take special note of those posters from South Africa, who have personal experience.


Does it change the work he has done? Or change the history of South Africa? I'm not going to waste my time worrying about him being a Communist. No offense, I just don't see the significance of it, other than trying to tarnish his legacy. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ltheghost
 


Again, take a few minutes to read the thread and see what South Africans have to say about him. Ignoring that is to simply accept what the mainstream media has painted him as being.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Yet here we sit, without an answer to that simple question, leading to the conclusion that your "true" communism is a fantasy, and what is closest to your ideal has been tried, and not merely failed, but failed in such a spectacular fashion that it took perhaps a hundred million living, breathing human beings with it.
not only what you said but i find it astonishingly frequent that the only "society" used to explain this "theory" in function is the ever SO fictional, Star Trek series


perhaps it isn't the 'in person teachers' as much as that idiot box thingy ??



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Dude what on earth are you frikkin' talking about ?

What mercenaries ? What refugies ? What villagers ? Give who guns ?

What action-movie planet do you live on ?

Africa is a whole ferking continent, not the simplistic Rambo flick you appear to believe it is. This is just getting better and better. Are you for real ?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by domasio
I don't see why people have such hatred for communism. In it's essence, it's probably one of the best ideologies that there is.

You shouldn't bemoan the ideology, only the people that hijack it and take advantage to become a dictator in an ideology that is not supposed to have one leader.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



I think that IS the problem though. Why the need to constantly make excuses? May as well say: Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
I think that IS the problem though. Why the need to constantly make excuses? May as well say: Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?


It's only a problem because people are kept ignorant.

The Bolsheviks could never had taken state power under the guise of "communism", if the people were all educated about what communism really was.

The state keeps people ignorant for a reason. Most people are ignorant about what communism/socialism actually is, and that is no accident.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 


Let me get this right here…..
In your world view, over a million people just showed up one day out in the baron wasteland starving to death in various places all across Africa.?
For no rime nor reason?
No war, no apartheid?
They are just there, and it is everyone else’s never ending responsibility to feed them, and take care of them?
And we should not ask as to HOW they got there?

Please excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor…..

Here a link, and quotes explaining one of the many causes of the largest example of “children starving to death.”
en.wikipedia.org...



Origins of the conflict
The conflict's origin goes back to land disputes between semi-nomadic livestock herders and those who practice sedentary agriculture.

Since the population of Darfur is predominantly Muslim, the conflict may not be only about race or religion, but about resources as the nomadic tribes facing drought are going after the territory of sedentary farmers.

Arab Apartheid Allegation
In the beginning of 1991, non-Arabs of the Zaghawa people of Sudan complained that they were victims of an intensifying Arab apartheid campaign. Sudanese Arabs, who control the government, are widely referred to as practising apartheid against Sudan's non-Arab citizens. The government is accused of "deftly manipulat(ing) Arab solidarity" to carry out policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing against non-Arabs in Darfur.



The Janjaweed were put at the center of the new counter-insurgency strategy. Though the government consistently denied supporting the Janjaweed, military resources were poured into Darfur and the Janjaweed were outfitted as a paramilitary force, complete with communication equipment and some artillery. The military planners were doubtlessly aware of the probable consequences of such a strategy: similar methods undertaken in the Nuba Mountains and around the southern oil fields during the 1990s had resulted in massive human rights violations and forced displacements



The better-armed Janjaweed quickly gained the upper hand. By the spring of 2004, several thousand people – mostly from the non-Arab population – had been killed and as many as a million more had been driven from their homes, causing a major humanitarian crisis in the region. The crisis took on an international dimension when over 100,000 refugees poured into neighbouring Chad, pursued by Janjaweed militiamen, who clashed with Chadian government forces along the border. More than 70 militiamen and 10 Chadian soldiers were killed in one gun battle in April. A United Nations observer team reported that non-Arab villages were singled out while Arab villages were left untouched:


Destroyed villages as of August 2004
The 23 Fur villages in the Shattaya Administrative Unit have been completely depopulated, looted and burnt to the ground (the team observed several such sites driving through the area for two days). Meanwhile, dotted alongside these charred locations are unharmed, populated and functioning Arab settlements. In some locations, the distance between a destroyed Fur village and an Arab village is less than 500 meters.[40]


What they mean by “better armed” is, the Fur villagers had machetes and spears. The janjaweed had fully automatic machineguns. That is what I call a disparity of force.

There is countless other examples I can point to all across Africa. But this is one of the largest current “humanitarian crises” that is happening in Africa.

Without situations like this, there would be no “humanitarian crises” in Africa.

If someone said that the nomadic tribes needed help because of the current drought, then I would have no problem with that. But as soon as the nomadic farmers start driving the other population off their own fertile lands, then the only thing that the nomadic tribes need is shot!
edit on 11-12-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Malcher
I think that IS the problem though. Why the need to constantly make excuses? May as well say: Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?


It's only a problem because people are kept ignorant.

The Bolsheviks could never had taken state power under the guise of "communism", if the people were all educated about what communism really was.

The state keeps people ignorant for a reason. Most people are ignorant about what communism/socialism actually is, and that is no accident.
Lenin took his philosophy directly from Marx ... so he perverted it to suit his desires, what makes you or anyone else think such subversion wouldn't be repeated ?
we certainly have our share of "lenins" the world over.

{heck, i'm pretty sure i could find a few down the block. i know there's a bunch in Chicago, Pittsburgh and few other choice cities}

since it only takes one ... what are the chances for success of such a system over the wannabe tyrants waiting in the wings ?

ETA - and ... since this should develop as a chain of free associating artisans, does the old adage "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" still apply ?
300 million is an awful lot of links.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Betty Friedan, who wrote the infamous "The Feminine Mystique" also was Communist and hid her connections for fear the exposure would land her in jail or at least out her as an activist.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Malcher
I think that IS the problem though. Why the need to constantly make excuses? May as well say: Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?


It's only a problem because people are kept ignorant.

The Bolsheviks could never had taken state power under the guise of "communism", if the people were all educated about what communism really was.

The state keeps people ignorant for a reason. Most people are ignorant about what communism/socialism actually is, and that is no accident.


I think that the main thing is to not be a tool. You can be a tool, you can drink the Kool-Aid (remeber Jim Jones?) but dont demand others to. In that way you can always say "my records clean, like my conscious".

Did you ever stop to think that it is YOU who are the ignorant one? You should consider it since history tells a far different tale than the one you mimic...'cause your tale is a fairytale. It is like being stuck in a room with known serial killers and someone tells you "ya but they were abused as children" at that point does it really matter? Your fresh meat and they're gonna put you in the grinder.

Listen to yourself and the other poster making one excuse after another, but what are you making excuses for? FFS, the other guy even said (paraphrasing) "the problem with communism are the dictators" Well the real problem is we have to live in reality not lies and fantasies written on a piece of paper. At some point the wall will come down on you and that wall is made of brick and mortar, then they will give you a toothpick to take it down...you'll be picking with your tooth pick saying "where is the communism i read about by that guy selling the communism book sold me"...but you cannot take down a brick wall with a toothpick, by then it is too late.

And in reality it's just the same BS do as i say not as i do. Look at it this way: You need to get from point A to point B, you can travel linearly or you can turn here, turn there and take the long way but point B didnt change...it's still point B.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Dude I have been researching labour history and socialism for 30 years. Yes long before the internet when you actually had to read books and have face to face discussions with people. I used to listen to the old Whitechapel socialists and anarchists debate in London. I was a member of Militant in the 80's. I hung out with Class War, Crass and Conflict. I was an active libertarian socialist for years.

You haven't read anything, but just accepted what the mainstream education system and media told you.

I know I am not wrong, and can prove it over and over again.

Do you think Chomsky is wrong? He is a linguist, you know someone who studies language. If he doesn't know the meaning of words he would lose his credibility. Have you ever actually watched this....



If that's not enough here's some more education for you...


The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these...
Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995



The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority. Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.

Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995



The 20th century experienced or witnessed every variety of state socialism, and learned that if its rulers are ruthless enough, they can impose, for a while, the most bizarre regimes and describe them as socialism. As socialism has been grossly misrepresented, so anarchism suffers from the widely held view that it is simply another variety of millenarianism, the belief in the eventual arrival, ‘after the revolution’, of a period of ultimate happiness when all the problems that beset humanity will have been solved, permanently. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.3 p.31, 1995


So you know who Colin Ward is...


Colin Ward (14 August 1924 – 11 February 2010) was a British anarchist writer. He has been called "one of the greatest anarchist thinkers of the past half century, and a pioneering social historian." [1]


Colin Ward


As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people. From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908



Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers. He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops, and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. He also contributed the article on anarchism to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.[1]


Peter Kropotkin


Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both. From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.



Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the widest freedom.

Anarchism is stateless socialism. 'Stateless Socialism: Anarchism', Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.



Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (Russian: Михаил Александрович Бакунин; IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil ˌbaˈkunʲin]) (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 – 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary, philosopher, and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general.[2]


Mikhail Bakunin

Using your definitions all this would be contradictory.

You should educate yourself before trying to tell me I'm wrong mate. I might sound arrogant but one thing I am 100% sure on is this.

edit on 12/12/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ltheghost
 


Again, take a few minutes to read the thread and see what South Africans have to say about him. Ignoring that is to simply accept what the mainstream media has painted him as being.


Thank you....

Now please allow me to add my ZAR 0.02c..... before the entire works of Marx/Lenin/and every other book on Communism are quoted in this thread..

Nelson Mandela was indeed tried and convicted for acts of terror against the ruling Government. Whether or not the government was right or wrong or he was a communist or not...... pales into insignificance when you consider what he did after all that...

While in prison, he continued to fight for what he believed was right for the people of South Africa. After 27 years in jail, he walked out a free man and sat down with the man who represented the government that jailed him and made peace....

That is a true Leader and Statesman.....

So what if he was a member of the communist party in the 60's.. That is about as relevant as saying that all those people who had teddy bears as kids must be Furries....

I will put my bits on a block that 99% of what the foreign media have said about South Africa - especially back in Those days... is mostly bollocks.... and when foreigners, who know nothing about the country, quote media that knows nothing about the country..... then it's a case of monkey see, monkey regurgitate....

It is sad however, that those who have followed on from him have pretty much screwed all his efforts up.... but we can save that discussion for another day..

And now this thread can go back to being a discussion on the collective works of whoever..... or the illuminati....



Did you know that one of my teachers told me once that I was quite a bright kid..... guess that makes me illuminatus....



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




You should educate yourself before trying to tell me I'm wrong mate. I might sound arrogant but one thing I am 100% sure on is this.


I dont find you arrogant, but i think you are limiting yourself. Your posts are full of antiquation. The annotations were wonderful. I appreciate all perspectives.

ETA: I love old Russian literature. I read Crime and Punishment when i was 12. Now that i think about it, I have no idea why i picked that book up. It probably only cost a few dollars, i am sure i must have liked the cover, brown border appealed to me.

My previous post shows my literary influences and a degree of existentialism.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Thinking about South African history, and it is quite complex.
The ANC probably goes back as far as 1912, and a league of black gentlemen who felt appeals to Britain would be effective to secure native land and political rights.

The first real Communist Party was founded around 1921.
The first "red uprising" focused on a miner's strike (that was a wholly white affair) in 1922.
The main issue here was the fear of unskilled white labor being replaced by black labor, and indeed, following the strike 15 000 whites lost their jobs.
(Peter Joyce: Suid-Afrika in die 20ste Eeu. Struik Uitgewers: 2000. P.55.)

The strike almost became a full-scale insurrection, and it took 4 days to put down, and 153 people died (72 of them from law enforcement).

Then, strangely enough, the Communist Party became multiracial.
How this happened is somewhat complicated, and communist segregationists eventually joined the National Party.
www.marxists.org...

Eventually those involved in the Struggle mixed memberships in some cases.
However, there were other significant splits, even after communist ideas gained acceptance in the Freedom Charter of 1955.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Pan Africanist Congress split from the ANC around 1960, mainly over the membership of Asians and whites in the ANC (whom the PAC considered "foreigners"):


But not everyone in the ANC agreed with the policy of non- racialism. A small minority of members who called themselves Africanists, opposed the Freedom Charter. They objected to the ANC`s growing co-operation with whites and Indians, who they described as foreigners. They were also suspicious of communists who, they felt, brought a foreign ideology into the struggle.

www.anc.org.za...

Another movement called Black Consciousness also had mass dominance in the 1970s.
This movement was eventually violently suppressed, or channeled into ANC camps.
It was not supported by the pro-ANC donor countries or the Western press, and even today the ANC is often accused of capitalizing on events like Sharpville (PAC) or the 1976 uprising in black schools (Black Consciousness).

Around 1994 there were three camps within the ANC.
One focused on the "old men" who had been imprisoned on Robben Island.
Another represented the ANC in exile, from Western countries to African headquarters like Zambia.
This group also eventually ran MK (the military wing of the ANC).
This group is also often blamed for the rot and the start of shady business dealings and trafficking, as well as despotic activities, like running concentration camps for members who dared to ask questions.
A third represented the ANC in South Africa, mainly through broadly based organizations like the United Democratic Front.
The spirit of this third movement is also very much alive in SA, with grassroots activism like the TAC, or to defend our constitution from media censorship.

The ANC now is not a simplistic movement.
It is broad and has many fractures.
ANC leadership conferences can be unpleasant, chaotic and even violent.
The ANC has reasonable social democrats, it has business tycoons, and it has "property is theft" type radicals (especially in the Youth League).
It has communists, Africanists and humanists.
Sometimes it seems like it will all unravel into different parties, and sometimes it seems like different parts are trumpeting out different messages.
Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?
Does one hand say openly what the other will do?
Is one hand just a show for the world, while the other commits massive corruption and genocide?
It's really an enigma.

There are many good people in the ANC, and there is a notion of loyal dissent within the party.

The ANC is itself in a current tripartite alliance, including the ANC, COSATU and the Communist Party.
Whether this alliance can hold as increasing tolls and taxes are placed on the poor and the middle class, while the well-connected live a decadently self-enriching life via corruption is questionable.
edit on 14-12-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
Your posts are full of antiquation.


There is nothing antiquated about the definitions of these terms. Those Colin Ward quotes are from 1995.
Real socialists from the 1840's to now will tell you the same thing. Socialism is socialism and capitalism is capitalism, the meaning of those words cannot change from the original, who has the right to change them?

The original definitions are still relevant.

The problem is the modern definitions are wrong and for a reason. That reason is to keep people from knowing the truth and being a threat to the capitalist class. They need stupid ignorant people to create their wealth for them with questioning it.

Let's take the word 'libertarian' for example. Originally used by anarchists in the 1800's to mean a system of stateless socialism. Now the term has been hijacked by right-wing capitalists, about as far from liberty there can be. Stateless capitalism would be liberty for property owners and tyranny for the rest of us.


“libertarian was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” Murray Bookchin The Ecology of Freedom p. 57, 1982


The right-wing establishment has misappropriated and twisted left-wing terms to mean the opposite of their original meanings. They did this in order to keep people ignorant. Because when the people are educated and aware this happens....

1936-1939: The Spanish civil war and revolution

The west was just a little more smart than the East when it came to controlling their populations. The East still uses force, the west learned a much more effective method, mind conditioning.

edit on 12/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join