Ebrima Ceesay,
I am sure you will be suprised to see my contribution here regarding your
request for those who can comment on whether "socialism has failed or not."
This is not a contribution as I would like. Time is the factor.
-
Anyway, Let me first thank you for the material on Africa. It was a good
piece and my only advice to you is nothing more than to encourage you to
continue with the work for a better future for our long suffering people.
The burden of that lies on the shoulders of us calling ourselves
intellectuals and the broad masses of our people. When we meet again, we
shall further discuss it. Back to the point.
Has socialism failed? To this question I can say no. Has socialism ever
existed since 1917? I can further still say no. Socialsim has never existed
and so can not fail. What has then failed? Stanlinism failed in 1989. The
West that has been responsible for Africa's super exploitation and arrested
development will definitely propagate that socialism has failed and
capitalism is best for humanity.I am not here to defend any system. My
concern is the liberation of Africa. But one thing that must be cleared to
us is that the collapse of East Europe is a lesson for Africans. To this, I
shall relate to your question regarding the failure of socialism.
The sad thing about the success of the 1917 revolution in Russia is that
Lenin never live long to see some of his programes develop. He died in 1924.
Stalin took over through a brutal manner. The first thing he abandoned was
Lenin's economic programes in enhancing the development of productive forces
in all aspects of Russian life. Stalin changed mass struggle to personal
appropiation based on the falsication of history. I can not go into details
here. To developed Russia in order to challenge the forces of Western
imperialsim, Stalin embarked on creating internal colonies of minority
groups and slave labour of the rest of larger groups in the name of
'proletariat revolution' led by an intellectual vanguard. The vanguard
became the ruling elites of Russia. Forces within that saw the danger of
Stalinism where eliminated,exiled or imprisoned. Whatever Stalin does or did
in Russia internally, Africans need to compare that with what the West did
to Africa inorder to make correct judgements rather than blindly following
propaganda.
By the end of the second world war, the world was at a different stage with
regards to the colonies. Stalin sensed that the entire war was nothing more
than the desire of the West to control the sources of raw materials and
markets, extended the influence the former Soviet union to the Eastern
Europe countries. The interesting point here historically was that the West
was concerned about the restless colonies seeking independence after the
war. Towards the 1950s, they could not stop the desire of the colonized
peoples' of Asia and Africa for inpendence. By the 1960s, the West was
forced to give independence politcally, by leaving the running of state
power in hands of stooges who have no interest of their peoples', but that
of former colonialists. Neo-colonialism emerged and the elimination of
qenuine leaders who represented the interest of Afircans. One need to look
for similarities here as far as power for expolitation is concerened.
In the case of the former Soviet union under Stalin ,the situation was that
they suceeded in creating Neo-colonial states in the Eastern Europe, for
cheap labour, raw materials and markets protected by a military power block
called Warsaw pack. That of the west was and still called NATO.The cold war
came to life. Two power blocks emerged, The Soviet block and Western block.
Two imperialist bolcks struggling to dominate resources. The soviet union
succeeded in fooling the oppressed nations that they were socialist and
therefore allies. The West also succeeded in forging similar allies in the
rest of the so called Third world. Leaders of the oppressed either side with
one of this blocks and betrayed the interest of their peoples' or go it
alone like China. This is the point Africans need to learn from.
By 1989, the oppressed peoples' of the West revolted against Soviet
imperialism. The West, that has been exploiting Africa for the last five/six
hundred years now telling us that Socialism has collapsed. What they can not
admit openly is that it was an imperialist
system that has collapsed, becuase the rest of the oppressed world will then
question their own roles and puppet regimes they have been backing. The day
the Africans and the rest of Third world masses revolt against their own
backward regimes, the West will also collapse. They know that and that is
why since 1989, they have been telling African leaders to democratise, but
for whose interest? This is the question we should in fact be asking.
Ebrima, I can not go further than this as I was just passing when a friend
who has access to Gambian L kidnapped me to say something about your topic.
I have been avoiding to be part of this stuff.
Wassa Fatty.
----Original Message-----
From: ebrima ceesay <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 30 July 1999 14:20
Subject: Why has Socialism failed?
>Gambia L,
>
>As I was going through my letters a few minutes ago, I saw one e-mail
>written to me in private, in which the writer - a Gambia L subscriber
>studying political science - has asked me to help him tackle these two
>questions - why has Socialism failed and whether it does have a future or
>not - as part of his research.
>
>Well, I do know that the writer is asking these questions in private and
>would therefore want/expect my answers to be posted to him, also, in
>private.
>
>But I've decided to send my comments through the L, so that people who know
>better might also help him in tackling these questions for the research he
>is conducting. Someone rightly said the other day on the L that no one has
a
>monopoly of ideas.
>
>"Why has Socialism failed? Does it have a future a future?", are the two
>questions he asked. Well, because of lack of research as I write this
piece,
>I'll have to be briefed.
>
>All the same, it is, of course, an open secret that Socialism has indeed
>suffered reverses and not lived up to expectations. However, having said
>that, it is also a fact that in human history, it is not unusual nor
>unprecedented for ideas to suffer such reverses and bounced back with time
>to fulfill their mission. Therefore, an idea rejected with bitterness today
>may well emerge the wisdom of another time.
>
>For instance, no one would have thought - or believed - that the sun will
>ever rise for capitalism when its foundations crumbled in the 1930s, during
>the dreary depression.
>
>I am of the view that the failure of capitalism then and the failure of
>Socialism today is but a failure in truthfully implementing an idea. They
>say a brilliant idea in the wrong hands may prove a disaster.
>
>The real problem of Socialism was the dogmatism and rigidity with which the
>implementors went about their task. And needless to say that a good
ideology
>must be flexible and adaptive. Brother Saiks, please feel free to correct
>me. Your input/thoughts would be most appreciated.
>
>In m view, what must be acknowledged is the fact that many of the
>implementors of Socialism were not genuine or sincere at all!! For example,
>throughout the history of socialist rule, ever since the Bolsheviks
>triumphed in 1917, it had been the maxim in socialist press theory that
like
>all institutions, the press must be under the firm control of the
>proletariat, here translated to mean control by the communist party.
>
>To achieve this control, censorship laws were resorted to. But I was taken
>aback, or surprised, when I discovered - some time ago - what Marx himself,
>father of Socialism, had said on the question of the press which the
>implementors had buried/hidden as they killed Marxism on the altar of their
>own political survival. This is why I have been emphasizing that this is an
>era of endless reading.
>
>Condemning press censorship and encouraging press freedom, Marx had
written,
>among other things, that..."The censored press has a demoralising effect.
It
>is a potentiated evil from which hypocrisy is inseparable, and from this
>fundamental evil flow all its other weaknesses. The government hears only
>its own voice, and yet fixes itself in the delusion it is hearing the voice
>of the people and demands of the people that they, too, affix to this
>delusion"...
>
>It is unfortunate that as I write this piece, I do not have the whole
>statement Marx had given, in relation to press freedom, but it is,
>nonetheless, clear - based on these quotations - that there are indeed
>enough guidelines in Marxism to support genuine democratic rights. The
>problem of Socialism therefore had to do with its implementors' lack of
>sincerity and also their lack of flexibility.
>
>Capitalism, as seen by Marx and Engels, had also shown that rigidity as the
>bourgeoisie became slaves to their greed. However, what saved capitalism
was
>the preparedness of modern capitalists to trim off the ugly edges by
>introducing socialist recommendations, by giving it a human face, by
>stressing the welfare component, which ultimately increase the profits for
>the owners.
>
>Therefore, the future of socialism, in my view, lies in adopting capitalist
>methods or any other device that will enhance the attainment of a society
>which guarantees that every citizen can have decent standard of living.
>Where modern socialism went wrong was to plunge into the past and use
>feudalist practices to achieve socialism.(Again I stand to be corrected)
>
>Finally, it is interesting to observe that while America's capitalism
claims
>victory over socialism, thousands are homeless in the land of plenty, where
>some people have 20-bedroom mansions. The US is bathing in a bloodbath;
>crime and violence marks the skyline and what the books do not say is that
>capitalism is what breeds the malaise.
>
>Last night I was glued to my TV, watching CNN's live coverage of yet
another
>shooting, this time in Atlanta Georgia, in which 12 people were reportedly
>killed and several others injured. It is indeed regrettable that while
>cities in the USA should be in a race to find out who has done more for its
>residents, the race is about crime statistics, about how many people have
>been killed in a month.
>
>Because of lack of research, I do not have the statistics of the current
>killings in the US, but while I was there in 1995, thousands were slain in
>the whole of the US for that particular year. Hundreds were slain in New
>york alone.
>
>At the time, homicide had outstripped other causes as the leading killer of
>black males aged 14 to 25 and random killings had also soared. In fact,
>there were cities which even set murder records.
>
>Surely, America is an advanced/developed country, but it is also a fact
that
>it has shown retrogression in other aspects. Isn't it therefore
ironic/funny
>when you read in the newspapers that the US is sending so much aid to
Africa
>and other parts of the world, and yet thousands of its citizens are
homeless
>and begging on the streets?
>
>Ebrima Ceesay,
>Birmingham, UK.
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
