[DEBATE] : (Fwd) RW Johnson's Zim spin
azwell at ecsecc.org
Wed May 7 13:35:21 BST 2008
My basic position (theses?) about South Africa and its location in the
global imperialist system is certainly very different form yours, Comrade
Patrick. I think you use the label "subimperilaism" to emphasis your point
about the trajectory SA post 1994 has taken. Essentially, you use this label
for political purposes.
Crudely put, I think that:
1. Since 1652, there have been no discontinuities in the South African
2. Capitalism in South African has used various nationalisms at various
points in time to perpetuate itself.
3. Capitalism in South African since 1652 has been an integral part of the
global capitalist and imperialist system.
4. Just as everywhere where capitalism has nestled, only a Socialist
revolution led by a revolutionary working class can create any
"discontinuity" or "rapture" in capitalism in South African.
Singling out the ANC phase in this unbroken capitalist revolution in South
Africa may be useful in advancing a particular personal political position,
and perhaps for narrow propaganda purposes, but I think that this tends to
conceal the most obvious fact - the unbroken capitalist revolution in South
Africa since 1652, if you like, and its continuing position in the global
From: debate-bounces at debate.kabissa.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at debate.kabissa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Bond
Sent: 07 May 2008 01:52 PM
To: debate: SA discussion list
Subject: Re: [DEBATE] : (Fwd) RW Johnson's Zim spin
Does this help confirm the argument about SA subimperialism, Azwell?
Azwell Banda wrote:
> This is so, oh, so sweet:
> "It was clear that, with a new democratic government, there would be
> immediate British and American help, quickly followed by the EU, the World
> Bank and IMF, with the emphasis on food aid and the restabilisation of the
> currency. One consequence would be that Zimbabwe would cease to be a
> state of South Africa and instead become more generally dependent on
> developed country donors and investors. Doubtless, Mbeki and Mugabe would
> see this as a victory for neocolonialism, though one is bound to say that
> even if the prospect was described in those terms, ordinary Zimbabweans
> would happily vote for it. And, in no time at all, as the Zimbabwean
> revived, South African companies of every kind would move in."
> I have never stopped wondering how, in the same breathe, pieces such as
> one describe Mbeki and Mugabe as "paranoid" about "imperialism" but go on
> perfectly describe what exactly is going to happen - a happier nestling of
> "imperialism" in post Mugabe Zimbabwe!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: debate-bounces at debate.kabissa.org
> [mailto:debate-bounces at debate.kabissa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Bond
> Sent: 07 May 2008 09:50 AM
> To: debate: SA discussion list;
> zimbabwe-fight-on-dont-mourn at googlegroups.com
> Subject: [DEBATE] : (Fwd) RW Johnson's Zim spin
> (How much of the riff below is plausible? For example, in arguing that
> Makoni was Mbeki's preferred man for a run-off with Mugabe, does Johnson
> recall that Makoni - so tellingly silent these days - had a pre-election
> run-off alliance deal with Morgan? Anything else strange
> May 8 2008
> Where do we go from here?
> R.W. Johnson in Zimbabwe
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at debate.kabissa.org
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at debate.kabissa.org
More information about the Debate-list