RSS 2.0 FeedAtlas Shrugs In Zimbabwe
by Doug MataconisIt seems that Robert Mugabe’s latest experiments in socialism are having the expected results:
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, July 28 — Robert G. Mugabe has ruled over this battered nation, his every wish endorsed by Parliament and enforced by the police and soldiers, for more than 27 years. It appears, however, that not even an unchallenged autocrat can repeal the laws of supply and demand.
One month after Mr. Mugabe decreed just that, commanding merchants nationwide to counter 10,000-percent-a-year hyperinflation by slashing prices in half and more, Zimbabwe’s economy is at a halt.
Bread, sugar and cornmeal, staples of every Zimbabwean’s diet, have vanished, seized by mobs who denuded stores like locusts in wheat fields. Meat is virtually nonexistent, even for members of the middle class who have money to buy it on the black market. Gasoline is nearly unobtainable. Hospital patients are dying for lack of basic medical supplies. Power blackouts and water cutoffs are endemic.
Manufacturing has slowed to a crawl because few businesses can produce goods for less than their government-imposed sale prices. Raw materials are drying up because suppliers are being forced to sell to factories at a loss. Businesses are laying off workers or reducing their hours.
The government’s response to this ? More socialism:
The chaos, however, seems to have done little to undermine Mr. Mugabe’s authority. To the contrary, the government is moving steadily toward a takeover of major sectors of the economy that have not already been nationalized.
“We are at war,” one of Mr. Mugabe’s vice presidents, Joseph Msika, said in a speech on July 18. “We will not allow shelves to be empty.”
And, yet, that’s exactly what is happening:
At various locations of TM, a major supermarket chain, aisles of meat coolers were empty save a few plastic bags of scrap meat for dogs. Flour, sugar, cooking oil, cornmeal and other basics were not to be found. A long line hugged the rear of one store, waiting for a delivery of the few loaves of bread that a baker provided to stay in compliance with the price directive.
The government’s takeover of slaughterhouses seems ineffectual: this week, butchers killed and dressed 32 cows for the entire city. Farmers are unwilling to sell their cows at a loss.
The empty grocery shelves may be the starkest sign of penury, but there are others equally worrisome. Doctors say that at most, there is a six-week supply of insulin and blood-pressure medications. Less vital drugs like aspirin are rarities.
“You can boil willow bark, just as Galen did,” one physician quipped.
At this rate, one wonders how much longer the country actually has
Ahh, the beauty of socialism at work. While it sucks for the people of that country, at least this is a great example of pure socialism at its best. Now my question is, will academics see it that way and if not, should they even be labeled academics? Then again, supposedly smart people, the very meaning behind academic in the first place, haven’t been able to understand failures in socialism in the past, and yet, nonetheless, they are still experts who demand respect from us minor peons that took only an introductory economics course.
I wonder how hard it would be to take academics at their word, take them “prisoner,” and send them to Zimbabwe to experience the wonders of socialism first hand for their own good. Technically it wouldn’t be against anyone’s liberty because the academics chosen believe you can force someone to do something as long as it is for their own good. My solution would be consistent with their worldview so they couldn’t complain right? (Please note the sarcasm of that last bit as consistency is the one thing missing from most policies of socialists and academics alike.)
Comment by trumpetbob15 — August 2, 2007 @ 8:17 amI like that idea a lot, actually…hoist them upon their own petard :)
Comment by UCrawford — August 2, 2007 @ 9:59 amZimbabwe is not an experiment in socialism. Mugabe’s government is not experiment of any kind, they have no idea at they are doing. They are following a madman’s path to keep himself in power. It is awful that one can only speak of Zimbabwe in these terms, when the people have been suffering for so long.
Comment by VRB — August 2, 2007 @ 11:39 amI guess it was Ok that he was a despot, before he started to fix prices and nationalize some industries. But acting as a socialist, that is worst than the devil incarnate.
Nah, the leftists will use the same excuse as always: socialism is a science and needs to be applied in the correct manner. That’s why there has never been a “true” socialist or communist country.
Comment by somebody — August 2, 2007 @ 11:48 amThe leftists also like to claim that socialism fails because the residents of socialist countries don’t elect the “right” kind of people to office (i.e. people who don’t act in their own self-interest).
If only socialist countries were able to find a political party comprised of extraterrestrials and robots that they could vote for…
Comment by UCrawford — August 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pmUCrawford,
Comment by VRB — August 2, 2007 @ 1:59 pmWho is talking about leftist?
“somebody”…the guy who posted just above me. I was just playing off of his comment.
Comment by UCrawford — August 2, 2007 @ 2:02 pmSocialism is the ownership of the means of production by those working it. Does that look like Zimbabwe?
Comment by Joshua Holmes — August 2, 2007 @ 3:40 pmThat’s pretty much what happened to the Zimbabwean agricultural sector back in 2000-2001. The white farmers were kicked off their land by Mugabe’s thugs and in return Mugabe gifted/redistributed the land to those thugs (who were often led by Mugabe’s political allies) and let them run it. That’s why Zimbabwe’s agricultural production pretty much went in the toilet…Mugabe’s thugs turned out to be really shit farmers. So yeah, Zimbabwe is a good example of socialism because they put the agricultural sector into the hands of the people who ran it into the ground.
Comment by UCrawford — August 2, 2007 @ 3:49 pmJosh,
A question like that will delve far deeper into political theory than I think anyone really wants to go.
But I’ll try to narrow it down. If that’s your definition, than socialism has never been tried, because all we’ve had so far is state socialism, which is not “true” socialism according to purists like Marx.
The problem is that state socialism, which Marx saw as a precursor to real socialism/communism, never actually makes the transition from state socialism to “real” socialism. This is due to the people in power getting to like their power, and never wanting to give it up.
Of course, “real” socialism, which is almost anarchistic, won’t ever work, and that’s because people aren’t really willing to give away their hard-earned work products unless they’ve got a government with big guns threatening them.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — August 2, 2007 @ 4:45 pmJoshua,
That’s not the definition of socialism at all.
If that was the definition, there have been agrarian societies that were socialist. There have been many free market societies have were socialist.
Socialism is the social distribution of the cost of many risks and investments. We can for example socialize health care, education, unemployment, etc. This often involves a great degree of central planning (instruments like price controls.)
Comment by TanGeng — August 2, 2007 @ 4:46 pmBrad,
Ahh yes, maybe if Joshua was talking about everybody owning a piece of every means of production. To implement that over an entire country would be a pipe dream wouldn’t it. I would think that anarchic socialism could work well if you implement it with around 200 people. Anymore and you will need to have government to confiscate property.
Comment by TanGeng — August 2, 2007 @ 4:53 pmMugabe was right to kick the white farmers off the land; it wasn’t their land in the first place. Whites stole the land from native blacks in Zimbabwe and morally wrong to condem Mugabe for taking the land back. Whites controlled the country for over 90 years, hearding “native blacks” into communal areas while keeping the most arable land for themselves. They also stole the natural resurces of the country.
Comment by toddkidd — August 3, 2007 @ 11:37 amPresident Mugabe has made mistakes but on the land reform program he is 100% right. Britain would never allow foreigners to own more than 75% of the country and constitute less than 1% of the population.
I don’t want to say “racist” but I believe you and the whites who respond to this post are not being fair. Zimbabwe is for Africans; it was a gift from God. The future of Zimbabwe belongs in black Zimbabweans hands not “a few whites” who want to continue to run things as usually. In additon, if whites in South Africa, Namibia, and Kenya do not learn to share the land that they’ve stolen from the natives than they’re setting themselves up for a very violent future. signed american man. The land reform program in Zimbabwe will work—–give it time, after all whites had 90 years to make mistakes in Zimbabwe. Also, Britain should stop inciting violence in the country to overthrow Mugabe. It want work because the people on the ground support him, especially the rural areas. What should Britain do in Zimbabwe? Leave the country alone or keep your promise according to Lancaster Agreement and pay the white British farmers to leave Zimbbawe.
Toddkid,
Let’s see, before land reform Zimbabwe was one of the bread baskets of Africa. After land reform it became a nation of mass starvation, worthless currency, rioting in the streets, and shortages of necessary supplies. So yes, obviously this program shows promise for the future…assuming that the goal for the future was to kill of the population through starvation and condemn the rest to poverty.
Mugabe didn’t give a shit about the poor, the country, or “blacks” when he stole the farms. He took those farms so he could give them to political allies to buy votes for his last election. Very few of those farms actually ended up in the hands of poor blacks…the only people who got them were those who promised to support Mugabe. The Zimbabwean Supreme Court recognized this, that’s why they ruled that his land grab was illegal…of course, he ignored them anyway because he was in control of the guns. And because his tactics (murder and extortion) basically drove off all the farming expertise (because his thugs attacked both white farm owners and their black workers) most of those farms are now non-productive, so there’s no food for anyone in Zimbabwe, African or otherwise. Starvation doesn’t help anyone and Mugabe’s illegal program caused the starvation…that’s why we’re being “unfair” to the man, not because of the color of his skin.
Also, here’s a hypothetical for you…if I was black would you still have a problem with me criticizing Mugabe’s actions? Or does the merit of any argument depend solely on the color of my skin? And if a black person came out with logical arguments why Robert Mugabe deserves to be removed from power would you actually listen to them? Or would you simply dismiss that person as a pawn of the “white thieves”?
Comment by UCrawford — August 3, 2007 @ 12:41 pmtoddkidd,
Comment by VRB — August 3, 2007 @ 6:48 pmRead some black Zimbabwe blogs.