🚀 go-pugleaf

South Africa and Mandela are a totally different kettle of fish. On a recent
visit to RSA, I found the market economy vibrant and strong, with more
opportunities than here in the "lucky country."

It's also well known that Mandela repeatedly turned down earlier offers of
release from prison because he feared assassination by the commos aligned
with the ANC.

You can't deny the atrocities by past and present leaders in Ethiopia,
Sudan, Mozambique et al, the majority of whom aligned themselves with
socialist policy and the evil empire.


Brian Paul Lilburn wrote in message ...
>In article <62gr32$2ek$1@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Bob Bryan"
<bobbryan@thewritstuff.com.au> says:
>>
>>No, I think it is more  that the fat Marxist despots that run most African
>>nations consume what wealth is generated to build monuments in their
honour.
>>They all seem well fed, whilst the "proletariat" suffer inhuman
conditions,
>>all in the name of Socialism.
>>
>>Bob
>>>
>So Mobutu and Ahmeen (sp.) and the 'Emperor' Boccassa are (or were) 'fat
>Marxist despots?
>
>Some despots (very few, actually) used Marxism as a leg up into power, and
>then betrayed the working and and peasant people who put them there more
>or less deliberately. The majority did their best but were overcome by
>the difficulties of the colonial heritage and post-colonialist economic
>imperialism that they invited in for 'progress' but then couldn't control.
>Some of them then turned bad on the principle "If you can't beat 'em, join
'em."
>
>Where there has been any improvement in the living-conditions and prospects
>of the ordinary people of africa, it has almost always been within the
>framework of the socialist tradition; even tho some help from the
capitalist
>West has had to be accepted by those who see some form of socialism as the
>only way out of the mess the continent is in. I suppose Mandela would be
>one of those.
>
>'Progress imposes not only new possibilities for the future, but new
restrictions.'
>(Weiner)
>
>Brian
>