Stewart A. Alexander
The corporate media asked the question, “Where is socialism working today?” Socialists are asking the question, “Where is capitalism working today?” Since the 2008 General Election, the corporate media is making the argument for socialists nationwide; Washington and capitalism is in shambles.

Since President Barack Obama took office in January, the U.S. economy has gone from bad to worst. Nationwide, home foreclosures continue to climb, consumer spending is down due to the credit crisis, more than 6 million Americans remain unemployed, and while paychecks are shrinking, inflation and gas prices are on the increase. The U.S. economy and capitalism is in a total mess.

In January of this year, President Obama received the balance of the $700 billion stimulus that Congress approved on the urgent request of the Bush administration; however, with the $350 billion balance of the $700 billion, and $787 billion added to the pot, President Obama is still asking Congress for more.

The president has introduced an oversized budget of $3.6 trillion that has baffled the economic experts; and the 2009 budget has ballooned to a whopping $1.8 trillion deficit. While the president is asking Congress to approve his 2010 budget, there is little evidence that any creation of jobs will keep pace with the escalating numbers in unemployment.

Already the 2010 budget will promise more red ink; beginning in October, the 2010 budget is projected to have a $1.3 trillion deficit. It is likely that the deficit will rise as the occupation expands in Afghanistan, and the cost for bank failures and unemployment benefits creates a demand for additional deficit spending.

With ballooning deficits and deficits spending, the nation’s health care crisis has already left nearly 50 million Americans without health care coverage, and as unemployment climbs to record levels, millions more will be without medical coverage. Also, as millions of baby boomers enter retirement, the nation’s health care crisis will worsen. It is already estimated that Medicare may be depleted by 2017.

The job market has also prevented the housing market from gaining any traction during this recession. As the unemployment numbers approach double digits, it is estimated that more than 2 million Americans will lose their homes to foreclosure in 2009. Banks and financial institutions have remained reluctant to loan money on homes and automobiles while the unemployment numbers remain high.

As of today, the only solutions that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are offering to get the nation back to work and to stimulate the economy is to spend more and more money. Unfortunately, the Obama administration and House Speaker Pelosi are relying on unrealistic assumptions that the red ink spending will payoff and the economy will rebound near the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010. The Obama administration is also making the assumption that with a growing economy, revenues will be up thereby reducing the huge deficits.

Socialists are dismissing all of this to wishful thinking. Socialists believe the economic model for the nation must change from capitalism to a democratic socialist economy; a change from a “free market” economy that is based on competition and profit, to a system that is based upon assuring that the basic human needs of all are met. Socialist Party USA, a nationwide socialist party, says “Socialism will establish a new social and economic order in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, their local government, and the production and distribution of all goods and services.”

The capitalists have nothing to say to their credit because capitalism in America and the world has suffered one setback after another since the Great Depression of 1929; and the recession of 2009 will likely rival or possibly over shadow the economic crisis of the 1930s and trivialize the gains of capitalism during the past 80 years.

For more information, search the Web for Stewart A. Alexander

•    U.S. Socialists: Obamanomics offers little hope for working people.

•    Socialists Confront the Economic Crisis

•    Capitalists Attempting to Redefine Socialism

•    http://StewartAlexanderCares.com

•    http://peaceandfreedom.org/home/

•    http://www.sp-usa.org/

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

In 1991, A prominent African leader stood up against injustice in a neighbouring land. “The cry for freedom, as well as the cry for justice, stops at no border,” he declared.

That leader was Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. He was speaking in Harare, opening the Commonwealth meeting that would decide to begin lifting the people-to-people sanctions that had been imposed against South Africa.

“As you stand on Zimbabwean soil,” President Mugabe said, “only a stone’s throw away from South Africa, the world expects us to spare no effort in helping to achieve an outcome there which will bring comfort to the oppressed people of South Africa.”

It is now well past time that South Africa returned the favour. Quiet diplomacy is dead. One of Africa’s brightest hopes has turned into the continent’s most dismal failures. In an era in which our continent is meant to be embarking on an African Renaissance, Zimbabwe is both an obstacle and an embarrassment.

President Thabo Mbeki’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” in Zimbabwe has finally been denounced as a disaster by world leaders. The criticism has extended beyond muted signs of displeasure to condemnation.

Senior ANC leaders have urged Mr Mbeki to alter his stance, while MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai has expressed a desire for South Africa to be replaced as mediator in the crisis.

It is worth examining what effects this policy, which has led Mr Mbeki to claim there is no electoral crisis in Zimbabwe, has had on the country.

Zimbabwe, once one of the healthiest economies in Africa, has been plunged into a crisis that worsens every day. Inflation stands at over 100,000 per cent, and is predicted to hit the 1.5 million per cent mark by the end of the year.

Its healthcare system has failed, with many children orphaned by an Aids crisis, which Mr Mbeki refuses to take seriously. Political violence, intimidation and corruption remain endemic. None of this has been ameliorated by South Africa’s diplomatic efforts.

This policy has resulted in strengthening Dr. Mugabe’s regime and other countries’ desire to effectively address the plight of the Zimbabwean people.

By indulging Mugabe’s insistence that the criticisms levelled against him are part of a neo-colonial plot, President Mbeki has granted the man a legitimacy that he would not otherwise have.

It is never quite clear to anyone precisely what quiet diplomacy is meant to accomplish. Is it supposed to bring about a fresh round of elections — free and fair this time round? Is it meant to bring about a transfer of power to the MDC or within a “reformed” Zanu-PF? Is it meant to bring about some kind of government of national unity?

South Africa’s treatment OF Zimbabwe’s opposition has been shameful. President Mbeki’s public embraces of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF cronies contrasts sharply with his studied avoidance of Mr Tsvangirai.

The ANC’s unswerving loyalty to its fellow liberation government has undermined any claim it might have wished to make as to the even-handedness of its approach. This, of course, reflects the ANC’s attitude towards political opposition more generally.

The tragedy has been that it is in the interest of all to stand firm in condemnation of the actions of the Zimbabwean government. It lacks the economic and military clout to seriously threaten its international critics.

There is everything to gain in pragmatic terms by supporting reform in a country that has demonstrated such economic potential, and a moral mandate to criticise Mugabe’s corrupt despotism.

A far better response would have been the more robust one. Standing up to the Zimbabwe government would have limited their ability to manoeuvre diplomatically and politically, making it harder for them to acquiesce in the current crisis.

Had South Africa been firmer from the outset in dealing with the regime and challenging its actions, it might have been able to limit the machinations of Zanu-PF and the generals now lining up to try and succeed Mugabe.

A tough stance that refused to indulge Mugabe’s delusions might not wake him up to reality, but his isolation would afford him less political protection than he currently has.

This is not to advocate a US-style hawkish diplomacy against Zimbabwe. That would be entirely inappropriate for the situation and the country, and would have a very dubious prospect of success.

Rather, to stand up to Zimbabwe would involve stronger words supported by resolute action, a refusal to indulge Mugabe’s fantasies, and joining the rest of the world in the sanctions they have placed on the regime.

The world currently awaits the results of this most contentious of Zimbabwean elections. A change of stance from President Mbeki might go miles in delivering a resolution. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

The South African government should tell Mugabe that the human rights abuses, police brutality, arbitrary arrests and beatings of opposition politicians have to stop. These actions should remind South Africans of the worst days of apartheid.

About The Author: Donald Mogeni —