Talk:Socialist Party of Azania

NPOV

This article seems biased and only reflective of a certian point of view, illustrated in the sentence that reads "The party was created to the response of the South African government which continues to dominate culturally, socially, and economically in favor of the white South Africans. This state is perpetuated by blacks in position of power who are not attentive to the needs of the fellow blacks in the country, thus calling on party leadership which stands in solidarity with the black population of the country."

This article needs work. Please refer to Wikipedia: Neutral point of view for assistance. Please do not remove the NPOV tag before the situation is resolved.

I've had a bash at NPOVing this article. Could folk take a look and see if it's now OK? JackyR 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've coninued the process of NPOVing it. The Socialist Party of Azania is an overtly racist organization, which was not reflected in the original article -- I've tried to correct this. JeffLB 04:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to "scientific socialism". Is there such a thing? Any objections to removing the word "scientific"? JeffLB 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientific socialism is a known term, although I'm not sure what is/was meant by it. So no, please don't remove it. JackyR | Talk 21:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, and your addition isn't great, either. Could you find a source for this, like a policy document or speech mentioned in a newspaper, stating these aims? Otherwise this could just be something said down the pub. I'm removing your statement until you can provide a source. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, JeffLB can't find sources to support his claims that SOPA is a racist organization, or that it advocates the removal of all whites from South Africa—because his allegations are untrue. This is clearly demonstable by reference to SOPA's basic documents, such as the election manifesto I've now included as an external link. SOPA is an anti-racist party. So I have cleaned up JeffLB's malicious and slanderous edits, and if he puts them back, I will nominate him for vandalism/tendentious editing. As for the term "scientific socialism", it is a term that distinguishes Marxism from the "utopian" socialism of earlier movements, and is used in the South African context to distinguish SOPA's socialism from the rhetorical "socialism" of the ANC and other parties that form the government. It is a term SOPA uses self-referentially. cargohook | Talk 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

SOPA IS an overtly racist organization though its manifesto may claim otherwise. "So I have cleaned up JeffLB's malicious and slanderous edits, and if he puts them back, I will nominate him for vandalism/tendentious editing." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!! JeffLB 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No matter how strenuously Cargohook tries to give claim otherwise, SOPA has a strongly antiWhite, racist agenda, even if not explicitly stated in their manifesto. For him to claim otherwise is pure baloney.JeffLB 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

JeffLB's edits are highly contentious and clearly politically motivated. This in itself is not the biggest problem with them. The most important problem, and the one which violates Wikipedia policy, is that they are unverifiable. SOPA, according to its 2004 Election Manifesto, "stands by the principle that all forms of racism ... are fundamentally inhumane and degrading and must be strongly opposed and eliminated. We dedicate ourselves to fighting such practices in both our lives and in our society." His argument about the slogan "One Settler, One Bullet" is mistaken as well: this was a slogan used unofficially by the armed wing of the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania, a party which is one of SOPA's political competitors. I have never seen or heard of this slogan being attributed to SOPA or even any SOPA member. If JeffLB has any evidence to the contrary, he should produce it and CITE HIS SOURCES, as outlined in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

By the way, while I try to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines on "assuming good faith", I must admit that I am running out of patience with this. I can't assume good faith any longer on the part of JeffLB. In fact, having just perused his contributions, I found that—by his own admission—he is a reader of the white supremacist website "Stormfront" and an apologist for American neo-Nazi organizer Don Black. So this is really a case of "the toilet calling the bathtub white"!!! —cargohook 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"In fact, having just perused his contributions, I found that—by his own admission—he is a reader of the white supremacist website "Stormfront" and an apologist for American neo-Nazi organizer Don Black." Dear friend Cargohook. This is a slanderous and untrue statement. I am not in any way a supporter or apologist of Nazism or Antisemitism. To the extent I've read the Stormfront website, it was to educate myself about the Anti-semitic and Nazi presence on the web, not as a supporter and am certainly not an apologist of them. None of the very few contributions that I made to the Don Black article can in anyway be considered supportive - they were made in the interest of accuracy. Your comment about the tub and toilet was just mudslinging. JeffLB 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You write an article that promotes a Trotskyist perspective and orientation and then accuse me of writing with a political motivation. If you are concerned who put the political bias in this article, just take a look in the mirror. JeffLB 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"His argument about the slogan "One Settler, One Bullet" is mistaken as well: this was a slogan used unofficially by the armed wing of the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania, a party which is one of SOPA's political competitors." I stand corrected. JeffLB 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind and I really doubt in yours either, Cargohook, that Black South African who promote the concept of Azania don't love Whites. At this point in time White South Africans, including all the liberals who voted for Black Majority rule, feel they are under seize with the present government what with the 2,000 White farmers who have been murdered, many of them tortured without any material motive, the extreme high levels of crime, the growing corruption, the feeling that this is subtly encouraged by the government to drive out Whites etc. It is disenguous to claim that the vocabulary and program of SOPA is not inherently racist, no matter what their so called manifesto says. What has this kind of Communist program ever done for Africa? The African leader who most closely espouses this kind of program today, Robert Mugabe, has brought Zimbabwe to its knees economically. However, I've got better things to do then get into a revert war with you over this Trotskyist article. JeffLB 08:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

JeffLB, my friend: For your information, I spent several months recently in South Africa working on a project with the SOPA comrades, so I think I can tell you something about SOPA's political program, as well as a thing or two about conditions of Blacks there. (By the way, I am an American citizen, and I'm considered "white" to most people by looks, though I am of mixed heritage.)

Your idea that SOPA says one thing on paper and another thing in private, or puts one thing in their manifestos and while they do another thing in practice, is hogwash.

SOPA really does aim to abolish racism, and the social and economic conditions that created it in the first place and sustain it today, in South Africa. They want equality—not just the rhetorical equality of the bourgeois-democratic, "constitutional" "political" variety, but real, tangible, material equality—between the Black majority and the white minority. They do not want to run whites out—at least, certainly not whites who wish to live alongside the Black majority as equals. But SOPA's position is that the material conditions for such equality do not exist.

To begin with, there is 50% unemployment nationally. But in the poor Black townships, the figure is more like 85%.

But more importantly, the natural resources of the country—including all the gold, diamonds and platinum—must be nationalized in order to create the material preconditions for proper housing, nutrition, healthcare, infrastructure and schooling for the Black population. South Africa's natural resources are so rich, that everyone in the country, Black or white, could have a decent home with a swimming pool (not to mention indoor hot and cold running water), health care, and good schools to send their kids to. The problem is that now, only the whites—and a tiny, corrupt "Black" governing elite beholden to multinational corporations that are allowed to continue to control and exploit these natural resources for private profit—have access to these prerequisites of a decent life.

SOPA does not wish to expel whites. But it does not think they should own all the wealth and land of the country, which their forefathers took by illegal and violent means in the first place. SOPA is not naïve or foolish enough to think that all whites fall into the "ruling class" category, either. But historically, the whites' leaders created an artificial system to benefit themselves, whereby white workers would be uplifted while Blacks would be ruthlessly exploited and repressed to pay for the luxuries accruing to whites of all classes. By this means, they bribed the white working class into acquiescing to the brutal exploitation of the Black working class. (No matter how stupid, ignorant or uneducated you were, if you were white you had the foreman job or the skilled position. No matter how smart or skilled you were, if you were black, you had to take orders from this inferior individual and you had the menial, low-paying job.)

But, back to SOPA's position on "whites": Any such person who genuinely breaks with this legacy of what it means to be a white South African and fights for a different system that would establish and ensure real social equality (socialism), in SOPA's view, ceases to be "white" and becomes "Black"! Because the meaning of "white" in the South African context is not just about skin color; it means you have a right or privilege to either exploit others directly, or to indirectly live off of or benefit from the exploitation of others. Under apartheid, this privilege was de jure while now it is only de facto—the ANC's "affirmative action" programs (which only benefit a few ANC cronies or their relatives anyway) notwithstanding. When "white", "coloured", "Asian" or "Black" become simply adjectives to describe incidental characteristics about an individual—like "tall", "right-handed", etc.—that's when there will be equality, and the material basis for racism will no longer exist. But the prerequisite for that is a decent standard of living for all.

That's the meaning of Black Consciousness. "Black" is not a matter of the pigmentation of the skin. It is about an identification with the needs, interests, aspirations, rights and dignity of all humanity; an identification with the struggle to achieve a better life, with the struggle against oppression.

Whites who genuinely want to assist in the building of real equality in a democratic system that puts the human needs of the vast majority of the population before the profits of a few foreign and domestic capitalists are more than welcome to join SOPA, and to one day reside in the Black Workers Republic, on the basis of complete equality, dignity and respect.

But what has happened is that the Kempton Park agreement changed the Constitution and the governing group, but left intact the economic arrangement that allows private corporations to extract enormous profits from the mineral wealth of the country. Consequently, it did not change the conditions of life for most Blacks.

Today, Blacks who are starving now have the right to publicly say—without getting hit in the head—that they don't really enjoy starving; but they are starving worse than before. SOPA points out that, under the ANC government, in fact things are actually worse for Blacks in South Africa in every way except in terms of formal democratic political rights. Public hospitals and schools that serve Black townships have been allowed to crumble under the ANC's privatization mania, while they were built and maintained in good order for decades under the old government. And the ANC's privatization policies (which are dictated by international institutions like the IMF and World Bank), along with its corrupt patronage system of distributing government contracts, have only exacerbated the inequality that fuels racism.

Under apartheid, the government built houses for all workers. True, the subdivisions for whites contained houses that were mansions next to the five-room houses in the Black townships. But guess what? The old public housing for Blacks in Soweto are mansions next to the two-room shacks the ANC government is building for Blacks in the new townships today. Ironically, the old racist government built better housing for Blacks. The ANC, a neo-liberal ruling party posing as a "Liberation Movement", builds substandard housing for Blacks.

And in these townships, all public services and infrastructure are being privatized. Johannesburg Water is now no longer a public municipal company, as it was under white rule; and access to water is no longer considered a right. Jo'burg Water is now owned by a French multinational called Suez, and it is now installing pre-paid water meters in the poverty-stricken Black townships. In the middle-class white suburbs, however, water provision is—for now—still a municipal service. The ANC government's police are enforcing this pay-for-water scheme on the poorest people, on behalf of these multinational corporations. But the corporations are not going to stop with the poor Black townships. They want to privatize water delivery in every municipality, white or black. The only color they care about, is gold. They are starting strategically, in the most vulnerable communities, where they calculate they can easily push this through. They don't start in communities where people can effectively oppose them. Once they have succeeded in the most vulnerable communities, then they will make the same moves in the white suburbs. But by then it will be too late for the whites to stop it. Why? Because they didn't stand in solidarity with the Black communities, because they are conditioned against doing so by the racist form of capitalism that historically developed in South Africa; and by not doing so, they isolated themselves. Now Suez will have pre-paid meters everywhere, and they will be able to charge everybody whatever they want for water, something which is a basic necessity of life. So white working-class racist conditioning acts against genuine white working-class interests, and allows corporations and the government to divide and rule, and continue to exploit both groups.

I could go on and on, but I think I've written enough for you to get the picture. I hope this helps. Please feel free to write more on this discussion page, or ask any questions, or whatever. I am very happy we are now having a discussion instead of an edit war.

Finally, JeffLB, I recommend that you do some reading on Steve Biko and the Black Consciousness Movement's philosophy. I think it will blow your mind, and then you will not be asserting these inaccuracies anymore. You will realize that the political situation in South Africa is multifaceted and complex, not simplistic and two-dimensional. cargohook 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My dear Cargohook: Somehow I missed your interesting response to my earlier posts, mostly because it took place during a difficult period in my life. I would be glad to continue this discussion, though since it is really outside the area of Wikipedia editing of SOPA article, it should not be on this page. If you would like to hear my response to your thoughtful reply, please leave a note on my Wikipedia discussion page. JeffLB (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe Cargohooks entries are accurate. I've verified his citations and they are all true. Also, read the external links which also give a focus on the SAPO program and how they respond to politics in S.A. The fact is, that none of the allegations by the JeffLB character can be verified, so they are totally irrelevant. DavidMIA 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA

My contentions with the article

I took the initiative of breaking the article into sections since it seemed more like a disorganized wall-o'-text. Furthermore, the ideology section, which is disproportionately large, seems like more of an ad for the party, particularly where it uses populistic talking points. I also side with the argument of the guy further up who criticized the article primarily because of how the party looks to be more of a racialist party (Blacks, blacks, blacks all over the ideology portion).

I don't vouch for the removal of much or anything from the ideology section, but it does need a "criticism/controversy" section near the bottom to give an appearance of balance to the article. Plus, the activities of the party apart from the ideology is not given enough coverage in the article; can it be linked to events in which members of the party participated since the party's founding?

Disclaimer: I'm African American (actually, I'm more of a "sooner"), libertarian, unconditionally anti-military/violence and fairly despising of authoritarianism. --Toussaint 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)