• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Lim Chin Siong was a Communist

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
South Africa communist leader drives a BMW
Blade Nzimande's $137,000 official car, purchased with government money, disappoints followers of the party leader who has railed against greed and capitalism.


By Robyn Dixon

September 10, 2009

Reporting from Johannesburg, South Africa - Speaking recently on Nelson Mandela Day, the chief of South Africa's Communist Party urged citizens to stick to values of equality and selflessness. He sometimes sports a Mao-style cap, and as minister of higher education, he has called for revolutionary content in university schooling.

So why did he choose a $137,000 BMW for his official car, and buy it with government money?

His party says he needs it for security reasons; his ministry casts it as a money-saving gesture, saying it ended the expensive car rentals of his first few months in office.

On the other hand, Blade Nzimande's union allies disapproved. Disappointed bloggers asked why Nzimande was so afraid of the masses -- given that no government minister had been attacked since the advent of democracy in 1994.

The opposition Democratic Alliance has dubbed the purchase "Cargate."

The extravagance of the new Cabinet has been the most serious embarrassment for President Jacob Zuma since he took office in May. But Nzimande broke no rules. Government ministers are allowed to spend the equivalent of 70% of their salaries on any car they like.

Communications Minister Siphiwe Nyanda got two BMWs totaling about $280,000. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa also bought two BMWs for a total of $172,450.

Then there was Transport Minister Sbu Ndebele, who accepted a Mercedes as a gift from a group of contractors. An outcry ensued and he eventually returned it. (Zuma told him he could keep the car if he wanted.) He also gave back the two cattle thrown in with the present.

Critics are asking how the purchase of such an expensive car, and Nzimande's reported fondness for fine red wines, squares with his Communist credentials.

In a recent speech, he said that no capitalist ideas would solve South Africa's economic problems and blamed capitalism for the global recession.

Nzimande urged South Africans in his June speech honoring Mandela to stick to the values of equality and selflessness: "It is through the consistent inculcation of these values that we can roll back the greed, corruption and selfishness of capitalism," he said.

Short-statured with a reedy, singsong voice, he has called for the inclusion of revolutionary content in university education.

Ministry spokeswoman Ranjeni Munusamy said Nzimande was "opposed to any form of unnecessary extravagance. Minister Nzimande does not condone wasteful expenditure under any circumstances and stands firm in his condemnation of greed, corruption and selfishness in society."

Nzimande was one of the key ANC supporters to swing behind Zuma, helping to deliver him the presidency.

At Zuma's last rally before the election this year, Nzimande broke into a song: "My mother was a kitchen girl. My father was a garden boy. That's why I'm a comm - u - nist! I'm a communist! I'm a communist!"

One reader on a popular political website, devastated by Nzimande's BMW splurge, wrote: "I'm in tears. I first heard this [song] at a rally and I heard it from Blade. It struck a chord. . . . NOW THIS???"

Another, under the signature Mgababa, wrote: "I am so disappointed in the minister, first it was red wine and now it is BMW. Is Blade still a true communist?"

The red wine reference was to a recent jibe by Julius Malema, the fiery president of the governing African National Congress' Youth League, who attacked "a small group of elites in the alliance [of the ANC, Communist Party and unions] who present themselves as working-class leaders, while there is very little to show that in everything they do. They spend most of their time drinking red wine."

Nzimande is so well known in ANC circles as a lover of red wine that everyone assumed Malema was attacking him.

The Communist Party accused the opposition of trivializing the issue by questioning the BMW.

But its stance was undermined by the news that Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan had bought a more modest Lexus for $74,000 and an Audi for $78,000. And millionaire Cabinet Minister Tokyo Sexwale announced that he was driving his own car to work, and flying economy to save money.

The Communist Party's traditional allies, the trade union confederation, said that even if the ministers had broken no rules, they had been highly insensitive.

"Spending so much money on vehicles is a slap in the face of the unemployed and people living in shantytowns. It gives politics a bad name," the union group said.

Kerala a state within India had a communist state government for decades. Interestingly though the they were deep into marxist/leninist literature, the pay scale and reward system were capitalist in nature. It was never close to any of the communist states that failed. Kerala has one of the highest literacy rates in the world.

.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
what kind of communism is this???...socialism with capitalism & authoritarian dictatorship perhaps...but not communism...

there are many muntants of communism. to blatantly raise a wand and unilaterally declare that communism is a failed notion is being simplistic. china is a communist country with many capitalist characteristics. is it a failed notion? india is a capitalist country. is it a successful country?

many things in life is not just black and white. there is always a bit of grey and yellow in it. that's what makes life interesting.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
i think that is rubbish...central planned economy characteristics do not dilute the strong capitalist factors at play...i would think marx would probably say rojak socialism...

whichever way you look at it...true communism is an ideal...a search for the utopian society...From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)

Bro, you are back. Thought I lost you last week. Yes, they are indeed excellent examples of a centrally planned economy. There was a economics seminar years ago and one speaker said that if Karl Marx was vain and he woke up from his grave, he would immediately say that Singapore was a communist country while Russia, China, North Korea were totalitarian regimes.

.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
to me the states are the best egs...illustrates what happens when communists take power...invariably end up as failures...

btw can anyone tell me the difference between a "non-communist" and an "anti-communist"...

Not referring to these states as you have mentioned. Reference is towards practising democracies in capitalist states which allow for communist parties to participate.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
generally speaking extreme left seems to be in the realms of communism whereas the extreme right seem to be in the realms of fascism...

Sinkapore is not that far off from a totalitarian regime actually. I think the "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" political labels should be changed into something less misleading. Many don't realise that if a country goes extreme Left or Right, they become under the same kind of totalitarian rule. eg. Nazi Germany is alot like North Korean today.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
this is an interesting point...

marxists have asserted that most hunter-gatherer and primitive agricultural societies were characterized by a communal economic system...i gather nn marxism this is called "primitive communism"...

there have been a number of attempts to practice the principle in small groups, in the midst of societies based on other economic systems...these attempts have not necessarily been directly inspired by marx or marxism...for egs... :

Diggers

Kibbutz

Anarchist Catalonia

Commune

United Order

be that as it may...i still personally think "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is a utopian ideal...sounds nice and noble/laudable but in reality not workable because of flawed human nature...

<style></style>There is something more than mere human psychology at play bro.I couldn't really put my finger into this but perhaps someone else could.How to explain that in a society or a tribe isolated from the rest of humanity.Commune form of living where no individual owns more than others and shares everything else regardless of his/her ability works quite well.Besides how capitalistic can one be say in a tribe numbered 100 where just 1 individual owns everything and others nothing say by their gambling habits.---can that society function at all?

Now put that against the current globalized village where communism crumbles like a pack of card--Why? Because of lack of understanding of human behavioral pattern aka human psychology ?..There is certainly something more than that.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
hmmmm...i wonder why no one has mentioned Schumpeter thus far?...

Dear Ah Guan,

State Welfarism is NOT a Communist Concept but rather Socialist concept.

Welfarism is treated as an "equalizer" when one realize that the FREE MARKET will tend to skewed unevenly towards the rich and powerful. While we still need the free market mechanism to price efficiently but we must also realize that such mechanism has its folly in terms of social-political context.

In Communism, you don't really need State Welfarism because everybody is supposedly to be "EQUAL" already, even though it means "EQUALLY POOR". :wink:

Goh Meng Seng
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
what about his colleague at NYT?:wink:

Our One-Party Democracy

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 8, 2009


Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

Look at the climate/energy bill that came out of the House. Its sponsors had to work twice as hard to produce this breakthrough cap-and-trade legislation. Why? Because with basically no G.O.P. representatives willing to vote for any price on carbon that would stimulate investments in clean energy and energy efficiency, the sponsors had to rely entirely on Democrats — and that meant paying off coal-state and agriculture Democrats with pork. Thank goodness, it is still a bill worth passing. But it could have been much better — and can be in the Senate. Just give me 8 to 10 Republicans ready to impose some price on carbon, and they can be leveraged against Democrats who want to water down the bill.

“China is going to eat our lunch and take our jobs on clean energy — an industry that we largely invented — and they are going to do it with a managed economy we don’t have and don’t want,” said Joe Romm, who writes the blog, climateprogress.org.

The only way for us to match them is by legislating a rising carbon price along with efficiency and renewable standards that will stimulate massive private investment in clean-tech. Hard to do with a one-party democracy.

The same is true on health care. “The central mechanism through which Obama seeks to extend coverage and restrain costs is via new ‘exchanges,’ insurance clearinghouses, modeled on the plan Mitt Romney enacted when he was governor of Massachusetts,” noted Matt Miller, a former Clinton budget official and author of “The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.” “The idea is to let individuals access group coverage from private insurers, with subsidies for low earners.”

And it is possible the president will seek to fund those subsidies, at least in part, with the idea John McCain ran on — by reducing the tax exemption for employer-provided health care. Can the Republicans even say yes to their own ideas, if they are absorbed by Obama? Without Obama being able to leverage some Republican votes, it is going to be very hard to get a good plan to cover all Americans with health care.

“Just because Obama is on a path to give America the Romney health plan with McCain-style financing, does not mean the Republicans will embrace it — if it seems politically more attractive to scream ‘socialist,’ ” said Miller.

The G.O.P. used to be the party of business. Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business. No one needs immigration reform — so the world’s best brainpower can come here without restrictions — more than American business. No one needs a push for clean-tech — the world’s next great global manufacturing industry — more than American business. Yet the G.O.P. today resists national health care, immigration reform and wants to just drill, baby, drill.

“Globalization has neutered the Republican Party, leaving it to represent not the have-nots of the recession but the have-nots of globalized America, the people who have been left behind either in reality or in their fears,” said Edward Goldberg, a global trade consultant who teaches at Baruch College. “The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”


paul krugman comes across as too far to the left.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
what about his colleague at NYT?:wink:

friedman comes across to me as a neo-con. but it's interesting to notice in this article of his that he seems to be getting fed up, frustrated, with how things work in washington. u.s., the champion of democracy and once the leader of capitalism and super-capitalism have capitulated. the system is not without flaws. it's just that the flaws are gradually cumulative and become like a message storm in a network or a slow clog in the sewage pipe - takes time to build up and when the shit hits the fan, it hits everyone. i would say the cycle happens every 40 years or so, or multiples of 80 depending on whether there's a world war. i believe the right economic model that perpetually works without a hiccup is somewhere between the two extremes -super-capitalism and communism - now that's an obvious one - it's just that the sweet spot of the perpetual engine is never figured out. :biggrin:
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
All those in economics are invariably socialist. Its no surprise that Economics as a discipline falls under social science and many institutions accord a degree in social science - economics. After all we are dealing with optimal allocation of resources.

The current battle in Congress, EU, Wall Street and the Feds is on the issue of Fat Cats. Are they necessary? EU Economists think that fat cats should not be part of the system and thus the capping of pay. The US thinks that they are necessary purely on rewarding based on absolute amounts.

For the first time in the US, socialist leaning pundits are having a bit of sun shining on them.

what about his colleague at NYT?:wink:

Our One-Party Democracy

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 8, 2009


Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
 

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
this is an interesting point...


be that as it may...i still personally think "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is a utopian ideal...sounds nice and noble/laudable but in reality not workable because of flawed human nature...

<style></style>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does work and had worked before.But , and with a very big but- not as a political doctrine.In short through out the history there were great men who had contributed immensely and took only according to their needs...So,where is the crack and why did communism fall with such a noble cause in a globalized village?.Let me hazard a guesstimate.It has to do with the expectation of a society(the invincible hand ) or rather how a society measures a man's worth.Simply put everything is now monetized.The more a man acquires the greater his value in the eyes of the society he lives .Here is an interesting read on this subject,"The New Golden Age"---The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos ..
http://www.amazon.com/New-Golden-Age-Revolution-Corruption/dp/1403975795
 
Last edited:

angry_one

Alfrescian
Loyal
Just a side note, china has long ceased to be a communist country. Its economic model is staunchly capitalistic, and its political scene resembles chaotic feudal times. I've been told by friends doing business there, that there were many times the central government's direct orders were defied by the local 'warlords' - and there's nothing they can do about it.
 

Hope

Alfrescian
Loyal
Just a side note, china has long ceased to be a communist country. Its economic model is staunchly capitalistic, and its political scene resembles chaotic feudal times. I've been told by friends doing business there, that there were many times the central government's direct orders were defied by the local 'warlords' - and there's nothing they can do about it.
In my humble view,China is still a communist country,but indeed those fairly intelligent commie have leart fr their grand master,MM LKY,that is

Political-extrem communist dressed as democratic-tat is PRC ultimate's goal now
Economic-extra right model of USA,Republican party.

So in actual fact,USA,PRC and Sinkie do share some similirities,but the only major difference and the only one that matters is that

In USA-there is a legitimate,powerful alternative who can take over legally and indeed it has taken over fr Bush Junior,the extrem right.and a good buddy of LKY & LHL.

In PRC and Singapore-there is no such thing.

Pardon me for being using strong language-Spore and PRC sure DIE-it is only a matter of time
 

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
In my humble view,China is still a communist country,but indeed those fairly intelligent commie have leart fr their grand master,MM LKY,that is.Political-extrem communist dressed as democratic-tat is PRC ultimate's goal now.Economic-extra right model of USA,Republican party.So in actual fact,USA,PRC and Sinkie do share some similirities,but the only major difference and the only one that matters is that.In USA-there is a legitimate,powerful alternative who can take over legally and indeed it has taken over fr Bush Junior,the extrem right.and a good buddy of LKY & LHL.In PRC and Singapore-there is no such thing.Pardon me for being using strong language-Spore and PRC sure DIE-it is only a matter of time


<style></style>I agree with you.That China ,Arab Middle East and Russia are keen to study how Leegime's method of oppression works.And I would guess Uncle Sam allows Leegime to exist as a test tube laboratory simply because it also serves its needs.For 2 reasons I guess.First Uncle Sam's foreign policies traditionally had great allies with dictatorships only and turbulent relations with real democracy.Secondly the US needs a presence in the Malayarchipelago and monitoring.Caught in-between are SG citizens.But that would be a collateral damage to Uncle Sam.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
i think you are right...he seems to be a big fan of PRC and Singapore's way of governance...and those who fit in that mould would probably be the likes of cheney, rumsfeld, pearl etc...going back to tricky dicky himself (some one whom harry admired which is not surprising)...

and while we on the topic of economics and neo cons...i gather cheney and rumsfeld once had lunch with supply side economist arthur laffer where laffer apparently sketched his famous "laffer curve" concept on a napkin for them...i.e. an illustration of tax elasticity which asserts that, in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues...

friedman comes across to me as a neo-con.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
i think that is perhaps too sweeping a statement bro...just like when you said marx was not an economist...

as for us socialists...well i think they first had their day in the sun under FDR 70 odd years ago...

All those in economics are invariably socialist.

For the first time in the US, socialist leaning pundits are having a bit of sun shining on them.
 
Top