Monday, April 21, 2008

Another Example of a Victory for Socialism

The New York Times has a nice article [INTERESTINGLY, NO BYLINE OR AUTHORSHIP ATTRlBUTED] on the joys of a centrally-planned and government-run economy. Of course, being a good socialist country means that there is no need for privately owned firearms, as is noted by an observer named Washington, who also praises the efficacy of the United Nations:
One Zimbabwean named Washington, who goes back and forth across the border ferrying Super Sure cake flour and Blazing Beef potato snacks, said the government was now using food as a weapon and channeling much of the United Nations-donated grain to supporters of the ruling party.“As we speak,” he said, “people are starving.”

He seemed more defeated than anything else. “People hate the government,” he said. “But they are too scared to fight it.”

No need for guns, since the Heroes of the Liberation will defend the country from its foes:
It does not look as if Mr. Mugabe, an 84-year-old liberation hero who has ruled Zimbabwe for 28 years, will leave office without a fight. After early election results from the March 29 vote indicated he was losing to the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, the election commission put the brakes on announcing results. The presidential results still have not been released, and a recount begun Saturday in 23 Parliament races is now threatening to drag things out further — the opposition has deemed it “illegal.”

If there is a runoff between Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Tsvangirai, many fear it could get even bloodier. Human Rights Watch issued a report on Saturday saying members of Mr. Mugabe’s party were running “torture camps” where they took opposition supporters for nightly beatings.

On Sunday, the leading opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, said more than 400 supporters had been arrested, 500 attacked, 10 killed and 3,000 families displaced. The party released a detailed, day-by-day chronicle of violence that listed huts being burned, people getting cracked in the head with bottles and farms being invaded. The party blamed Mugabe supporters and sometimes government soldiers.

The government has denied any wrongdoing and accused opposition leaders of treason. Mr. Tsvangirai has said it is too dangerous for him to stay in Zimbabwe and has been spending time in South Africa.

However, this is the New York Times and therefore the historical context has to be set in a delusional nutjob inversion of what actually happened, as per the following paras:
in the 1980s, when South Africa and newly independent Zimbabwe were practically at war. Back then, many people were going the other way, fleeing South Africa’s repressive apartheid government to escape to Zimbabwe.

At the time, Zimbabwe was one of Africa’s stars. Mr. Mugabe had turned a relatively small, landlocked country into an economic powerhouse that produced beef, grain and tobacco.

“Bob Mugabe was my hero,” said a white Zimbabwean farmer who drove into Messina the other day for supplies. He did not want to give his name because he went on to criticize Mr. Mugabe’s more recent policies and said he was afraid he could be evicted from his farm for doing so. “I know it sounds funny, but it’s true. You have no idea how beautiful Zim was.” Zim is the affectionate nickname for Zimbabwe.

But in the late 1990s, Mr. Mugabe felt he needed to deliver on long-promised land reforms, and Britain, the former colonial ruler, was stalling on paying for them. Mr. Mugabe then encouraged blacks to seize white-owned farms. Whites fled, industrialized agriculture crashed, and today the inflation rate is more than 150,000 percent. Supermarkets often have no food, and 80 percent of the people have no jobs.

You see, it was the "repressive apartheid government of South Africa" and it was "Mr. Mugabe [who] had turned a small ....into an economic powerhouse." Oh yeah, Bob Mugabe was the dude who did all that, then "Mr. Mugabe encouraged blacks to seize white-owned farms. Whites fled, the ...crashed." Hmmm.... I wonder how the causality of this little drama worked, as socialism always is successful and---it must have been the evil colonialist British who didn't pay for the land-reforms, since a socialist like Mugabe couldn't have dropped the ball.

That's the ticket. It was the white farmers' fault! And the evil British who until Mugabe came along had kept the country in such an economically backward state. But suddenly, "Mr. Mugabe had turned a relatively small, landlocked country into an economic powerhouse that produced beef, grain and tobacco."

And then.... somehow it must be them evil outsiders....

I can see why the "journalist" who wrote this shameful shambles didn't want to put his name on the article.

And I'm sure the founding father George Washington, whom a fellow Los Angeles Times "journalist" Mary McNamara this weekend wrote was a one-term president, looks down from heaven on poor Washington in Zimbabwe trying to get through the razor wire.

No comments :