About Marxism

[Falconius]

i should probably go to the trouble to make a carefull study of marxism, seeing as i'm living in a marxist country.

Altough this country is called a democracy it is very much a one party state.

The governing party is the ANC (african national congress).

The heart of the ANC is the SACP (South African communist party).

The heart of the SACP is marxism.

The only "real" opposition comes from a party called The Democratic Alliance.

The most prominent members and the founding members are also members of the SACP.

You'll be surprised how many people think the DA is a real opposition to the ANC.

From the physical evidence that i witness every day it seems that Marxism is a flawed philosophy.

i've heard it said that the problems we have this side is just because of bad implementation.

The government seems to be trying to achieve the following goals:

-redistribution of wealth (corruption, theft, robbery, hi-jacking, land claims, arson of forrests and farms)

-re-writing history  (outright lies, charachter assasination, international propaganda, the renaming of towns and cities)

-destruction of identity (simply switch on the tv and see how this is done, rainbow nation?)

-strengthening the hands of worker-unions to the point where they can bring the country to a standstill

(we've just gone through some of the heaviest strikes ever, earlier this month there was such a shortage

  of fuel that most fuelling station was completely empty for 2 days throughout the ENTIRE country)

-facilitating an extremely bloody revolution

(this phase is still in its infancy, a mere average of 50 people are currently brutally murdered every day)

So this seems to be the face of marxism: lie, steal, murder, lie, steal, murder..

As for democracy, the ANC has a long standing history of intimidation.

Ever heard of necklace murders? Let me describe it for you:

The tyre of a car is placed around the tied-up victim's neck,

a very small amount of petrol is splashed on the tyre,

it is set alight..

This is pure mercy compared to some of their other intimidation techniques.

Sitting back in you cosy chairs, in your comfortable utopian first-world countries, these things must be hard to believe.

Personally, i'm starting to think.. Australia..

[Tatar Khan]

I originate from the Soviet Block. I was born in German Democratic Republic and for 11 years lived in Soviet Union and what latter became Russian Federation. And I can tell you that what you are witnessing is not the fault of marxism or communism or socialism. It is how it is exercised by people.

Communism is a Utopian ideal society that no country on earth ever approached to. I would love to

live in true communist world.

No money, you work where you want and how much you like (but being non-selfish person that would be as much as you believe is needed from you for the benefit of society) and you get everything you need (being non-selfish your demands are not unrealistic). Communism basis itself on human being that are unselfish. There are few places around the world where small communities are set up on this ideal and approach it.

i should probably go to the trouble to make a carefull study of marxism, seeing as i'm living in a marxist country.

Altough this country is called a democracy it is very much a one party state.

The governing party is the ANC (african national congress).

The heart of the ANC is the SACP (South African communist party).

The heart of the SACP is marxism.

The only "real" opposition comes from a party called The Democratic Alliance.

The most prominent members and the founding members are also members of the SACP.

You'll be surprised how many people think the DA is a real opposition to the ANC.

Having one party state is not that bad when it works properly. Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan all began and to certain extent continue one party state system. The problem with many parties is that they tend to disagree on too many things, so the final result is that things never get moving or move very slowly. Sometimes countries especially during development need straight line guidance for long term development rather than with every new leader reversal of direction.

-redistribution of wealth (corruption, theft, robbery, hi-jacking, land claims, arson of forests and farms)

-facilitating an extremely bloody revolution

(this phase is still in its infancy, a mere average of 50 people are currently brutally murdered every day)

Corruption, theft, robbery, hi-jacking, etc are there in any other non-first-world country. So this is not a mark of marxism/communism/socialism. This things start to go away when country becomes more prosperous. High death rates and murders and etc are all usually correlated with the fact that country is not first world country with balanced government.

Redistribution of wealth sometimes is needed, it was performed in many countries to move the land from rich landowners who often were unable to utilize it completely to people who can. Soviet Union did that by force but number of nations combined force with monetary compensation and overall it did work.

-re-writing history  (outright lies, charachter assasination, international propaganda, the renaming of towns and cities)

Well actually all countries use their national history and alter it or tweak it to promote patriotism in people.

USA promotes itself by calling its rebels during war for Independence patriots.

Soviet Union made the last tsar's reign too evil and tried to remove mongol identity from the people who descended from them.

Number of Eastern European nations paint almost Nazi like picture of Soviet Union/Russia and try to cover up their own participation in persecutions that did happen. Some Baltic states even honour former SS members and Ukraine paints its ULA(Ukrainian Liberation Army) too goody and omits that they killed Poles and Russians (everyone including women and children) just because they were Poles and Russians.

-strengthening the hands of worker-unions to the point where they can bring the country to a standstill

(we've just gone through some of the heaviest strikes ever, earlier this month there was such a shortage

  of fuel that most fuelling station was completely empty for 2 days throughout the ENTIRE country)

Well that means you not in complete socialist system because usually workers union are centrally managed by the governments in socialist countries.

And you were complaining for lack of proper opposition, well there you go. Canada's NDP (New Democratic Party) was partially formed out of union leaders.

As for torture that is also a mark of non-first world nations although some countries in first world resort to it especially when it is not their citizens that they are torturing.

[Edric O]

i should probably go to the trouble to make a carefull study of marxism, seeing as i'm living in a marxist country.

I'm afraid that is not true, for several reasons.

First of all, there is a significant and very important difference between a country and a political party that may happen to rule that country at a given point in time. The United Kingdom is currently ruled by the Labour Party, but that does not make it a "Labour country". Mexico spent decades with a political system much like the one in South Africa - they had democratic elections in theory, but in practice the Institutional Revolutionary Party always won - yet Mexico could never be called an "Institutional Revolutionary country" (whatever that means).

Second of all, politicians often lie. This shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. Sometimes, they may say one thing and do the complete opposite. In some countries, the ruling party claims to uphold one ideology but its actions are in direct contradiction to that ideology. Some examples:

- The Labour Party in the United Kingdom claims to be a "democratic socialist party," but it supports privatizations and neoliberal capitalism.

- Turkmenistan is a one-party state ruled by the "Democratic Party of Turkmenistan." The party claims to be democratic but does not allow democratic elections.

- Best example of all, China today is ruled by a party that calls itself communist and claims to follow Marxism, but it is one of the most capitalist and anti-Marxist countries in the world; it is a paradise for corporations like Wal-Mart, and workers' unions are not even allowed to exist.

Third, there can be no such things as Marxist countries, any more than there can be Marxist apples. Marxism is a political ideology - a collection of ideas about politics - not a system of government or an economic system. A country cannot be ruled by Marxism any more than it can be ruled by the Theory of Relativity.

At most, the people who rule a country may have Marxist ideas. But the country itself cannot be Marxist.

Countries don't have ideas. Countries have:

A. Economic systems (examples: feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism)

B. Systems of government (examples: autocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, various forms of dictatorship, and democracy)

If indeed the people who rule a country have Marxist ideas, and if they are serious about their Marxism, then they will attempt to move their country towards a socialist economic system and a democratic form of government. A socialist economic system requires - among other things - a planned economy in which all enterprises are owned and operated by the state.

Is that the case in South Africa? Not at all. The economy is very much in the hands of private individuals and corporations. In fact, according to the CIA world factbook, South Africa has a stock exchange that ranks among the 10 largest in the world and the ANC government follows a fiscally conservative economic policy and seeks to liberalize trade. Clearly South Africa is a capitalist country, not a socialist one; therefore those so-called Marxists at the core of the ANC are either lying about their beliefs, or they are stupid.

A good rule of thumb is as follows: No country with a stock exchange is ruled by Marxists.

[Egeides]

Countries don't have ideas. Countries have:

A. Economic systems (examples: feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism)

B. Systems of government (examples: autocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, various forms of dictatorship, and democracy)

How are Marxists to discriminate to not get what Falconius is bringing up as their version of Marxism? If strictly by dialectic, would they not justify themselves strictly on the fact that what they bring is there?

A good rule of thumb is as follows: No country with a stock exchange is ruled by Marxists.

I'm not so sure that you could discriminate "fake Marxists" in this way. I don't see a clear line (maybe because reality doesn't show such clear lines), and a hard line seems unfunctional:

Within any Marxists-ruled country, how do you see any individual buy/sell on non-local level? Without a market... they aren't to pass through a massive structure built for massive exchanges. From there, it'd be a market so how do you draw the line with the scale of a "stock" exchange?

And in this situation, how do you have even small busineses to do transactions without what the stock exchange is: loads of information? They're a bit too many to go without strong info base, no? And let's say you would make them pass through a system for them, wouldn't it be a de facto stock exchange?

[Tatar Khan]

Ok Socialist countries have no stock exchange. That is absolutely true. Egeides what Edric O means by Stock exchange is the securities exchange like Chicago Board of Trade, New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX), Euronext.

These stock exchanges trade shares (equities for the ownership of the company) and in socialist country where all firms (ALL FIRMS NO MATTER THE SIZE) are owned by the state it is not needed. Bond  exchanges where debt contracts are traded are also not needed b/c the government 'lends' to the firms in socialist countries. Future exchange and forwards exchanges are not needed because they are used to set contracts and guarantee the profits on them. This is also done by default by the government because it guarantees the price and buys the produce and distributes it. Also now than options and future options are not needed because they are tied in to stocks and future contracts.

China is still very socialistic. It might have free trade areas in some places but all of its heavy industries are controlled by the state. They also have a labour union but it is one for all and is runned by the government. They are not allowed to set up independent labour unions that is true. Last time i checked their idea was to acquire expertise and knowledge from the developed countries and to develop themselves through trade because they got really laid back during their Cultural Evolution era. I also see no reason why a socialist country should not have open trade policy.

[Egeides]

These stock exchanges trade shares (equities for the ownership of the company) and in socialist country where all firms (ALL FIRMS NO MATTER THE SIZE) are owned by the state it is not needed.

I didn't say that for a matter of shares. Shares are pieces of papers. I don't bother who owns them on the paper, I care about the operations they're doing from the individual having to deal with it. Whatever what you call the multitude of those entitities within your state-owned place, they will be just as small and just as numerous and they'll need to exchange. Which type of "system" you claim to be into - Soviet, Hippie commune, capitalist - it is irrelevant here.

[Tatar Khan]

I didn't say that for a matter of shares. Shares are pieces of papers. I don't bother who owns them on the paper, I care about the operations they're doing from the individual having to deal with it. Whatever what you call the multitude of those entitities within your state-owned place, they will be just as small and just as numerous and they'll need to exchange. Which type of "system" you claim to be into - Soviet, Hippie commune, capitalist - it is irrelevant here.

You underestimate the importance of the trading in shares of the company and other equity and security shares on our economy.

Ok I think you are asking about how those firms would set the price and buy goods that they need to sell. Here is how it was done in Soviet Union.

All stores act like Walmart style of stores. They have a manager who makes a report of the inventory and financial transactions at the store for a month and for a year. All this is sent to higher person who is head of provincial (sometimes first to regional and than to provincial) department of this type of store. They send their reports to Ministry in charge of planning. Ministry of planning collects this reports and processes them, making needed requests of inventory from the factories to be delivered to the stores in needed number. Usually delivery would be made to national warehouse from where it is distributed as seen needed to provincial ones, regional and local levels. The industry produces goods with the estimate provided by ministry of central planning for next year.  So that is how the shelves are filled.

The price the things are sold at is determined by the cost to produce, so labour, technology, transportation and etc. all factored in by ministry of central planning and its provincial and regional departments. That is the price.

[Falconius]

It is true that we still have a stock exchange.

This is where things get complicated.

Let me give you the broad view of what happened here.

Way back in the 60's we had a good president that was a true nationalist.

After carefull study of Africa in general, he concluded that African tribes do not mix very well. They needed their own space (homelands). His premise was correct: inter-tribal voilence is an everyday fact in Africa.

He set about to de-centrelize the economy and establish industry on the doorstep of the homelands.

Unfortunately for both him and the country in general, South Africa is a very rich country. The country is cursed with vast deposits of gold, diamonds, chrome and platinum, to name a few.

Inevitably, this president was assasinated, because he had this country's independence and freedom at heart. He was replaced by a creature who served a different agenda. Since then American and British firms have owned the mineral riches of SA.

The people who sold out this country, first to the old empire, and now to those who served soviet interests, are still there. They are known as the "super Afrikaners". What they basically did in 1994 was to simply hand national administration to the ANC while taking a firm hold of the economy. Due to their considerable wealth, they have many agents inside the ANC. Also, our current president is very aware of how easily these people can have someone assasinated.

They recently sold one of their major assets (a bank) for R30 billion.

The ANC, on the other hand, is steadily using its law creating powers to transform the country. They are very clumsy in many of their dealings though.

Take for example the chief of police for this country's biggest city: Robert McBride. He caught the spotlight the other day by causing a road accident while driving completely drunk. All eye-witnesses was immediately rounded-up by the police for some intimidation to ensure that the story doesn't reach the press. The last time this guy made headlines was while he was caught smuggling AK47's over the border. This was odd at the time, given the fact that the ANC was already in power.. maybe he wanted to impress them.

[nemafakei]

Falconius, sounds like the problem is simply that SA is run by a clique. The ideology the clique claims as its own is largely irrelevant: all oligarchies behave in largely the same way, consolidating their own power. In truth, there's virtually no country that isn't in practice ruled by an oligarchy: this is the nature of liberal democracy.

I am stumped by your reference to an assassinated President. Did you mean H.F. Verwoerd,, the Prime Minister who was assassinated in 1966? If so, I'm won't argue with the epithet "true nationalist". I don't know what the ANC's intimidation is like, but banning political parties, enforcing a strict Apartheid and incidents such as the Sharpeville massacre don't bode well for *his* record.

[Tatar Khan]

Overall the situation is not any different than any other developing countries. The ideology doesn't matter, when the government can see that they can get away with anything they do it. Bribes are taken because they can do it. in western world it occurs rarely because they can't get away with it and when it happens the government and the party at the head ends up paying for all the illegalities it did.

I can tell you about all the dirty things that went on in Russia during Yeltsin years, and which still to extent continues right now, because I seen it too. And this is the country that started out building capitalism according to advice of American "friends".

I don't know who the western corporations bought the resources from in your countries (government or local companies) but they don't need to resort to murder to get their way. Murder doesn't sit well with shareholders. Those companies could fund the ruling party and when things don't go their way they can just threaten to withdraw the funding and that usually will straighten the government out.

[Falconius]

The ideology the clique claims as its own is largely irrelevant

You might well whistle a different tune if you come home one day and find your family slaughtered, with a couple of racist messages written on the wall with their blood.

The current government relies heavily on racial conflict to achieve many of their goals.

I know that all countries have their problems, but this one has too many deadly ones.

H.F. Verwoerd was indeed the president i was referring to. He wasn't bought and paid for like those that followed.

It is true that his radical solution to some unique African issues did open up a path of attack for many organizations, who knew that the world at large would not understand if they are only shown the offending law, but not the problem it was meant to solve.

They could thus enlist many foreign countries in their efforts to gain control.

His basic premise was correct (even if his methods are questionable):

If you mix the races and tribes of SA you tend to get 2 things

-conflict (of this we have more than enough now)

-and destruction of culture

My father works in the education department. He tells me that the black learners parents insist that they be taught in either English or Afrikaans. Not their home language. Language is an important part of culture.

As an aside: it is a well established and irrefutable fact that our current education isn't remotely as good as the Bantu Education that Verwoerd established. He insisted that they be taught in their own language, that they be able to read, write and do maths.

There are 2 sides to the story. You have only heard one.

[nemafakei]

"You might well whistle a different tune if you come home one day and find your family slaughtered, with a couple of racist messages written on the wall with their blood."

Perhaps I would, but a political analysis born of anger or grief may not be the most precise - or the most conducive to peaceful cohabitation.

"The current government relies heavily on racial conflict to achieve many of their goals."

Whatever Verwoerd's intentions or your ideals, Apartheid relied on and fuelled racial conflict. The ANC may do the same. (Note, though, that if so, they well and truly diverge from Marxism, socialism, and communism).

"He tells me that the black learners parents insist that they be taught in either English or Afrikaans"

This is a sad reflection of the fact that English and Afrikaans remain the most prestigious language and that those who do not speak at least one are politically, economically, and socially disadvantaged. If you want culture, create the conditions where it can thrive, and above all, have a system in which individuals are free to define, build on, and promote their own culture. Having culture imposed from elites in some parliament not only skews the culture towards the views of those who are likely to be elected, it makes it alien - if people play no part in a culture, why should they follow it?

I do not disagree that there is presently too much conflict in SA. But why assume 'racial mixture' is to blame? Some countries manage a damn sight better with far more integration. And was SA a haven of tranquility during Apartheid? There other answers. You could just as easily argue that SA's troubles derive from the continuing racial divisions and prejudices, and that completing the integration process would solve it. Or how about the conflict between the haves and the have-nots, which takes place all over the world in many forms? Or how about the prevalence of guns and drugs in cities?

[Falconius]

Perhaps I would, but a political analysis born of anger or grief may not be the most precise - or the most conducive to peaceful cohabitation.

Typical European outlook. When faced with the choice of survival vs "peaceful cohabitation" you'll choose the latter, right?

And was SA a haven of tranquility during Apartheid?

The average murders in SA from 1950 to 1994 was about 20 per day.

There are currently 89 murders committed on average every day in South Africa.

The vast majority of murder victims have always been black South Africans.

At present one in four police officers in the greater Johannesburg are under criminal investigation.

This is one of the funniest surveys i've ever read.

Take note how the guy doing the survey struggles to reconcile the ANC propaganda that he has been brainwashed with to the results of his survey.

This is a sad reflection of the fact that English and Afrikaans remain the most prestigious language..

You are joking.. you must be joking..

I do not disagree that there is presently too much conflict in SA. But why assume 'racial mixture' is to blame?

Once again, typical European who doesn't have the slightest understanding of African issues.

Xhosas and Zulus hate each other. This is not an isolated situation confined to these 2 tribes exclusively.

So you want to force them to integrate?

Why not fly over and gather them all around you and tell them to do a group hug?

Over here division runs on the lines of religion, culture, race and tribe.

Read this sentence about 4 times, because i see you latch onto the term "race" while all too eagerly ignoring everything else.

In your ignorance you are likely to think religion should not be on the list.

During apartheid a white guy didn't get very far if you were in the wrong church.

Me and my girlfriend were from different churches -> big problem with the family.

I'm curious to hear about the divisions in your country.

[Egeides]

I think that stabilizing things around some hard lines (like racial) would tend to give the upper-hand to the harsher ones, and that may be the kind of people who would worsten the situation. I don't know the whole thing, but some imperial powers went for this kind of peace successfully (pax romana and others), only to see things turn worst over time (slow death, more and more protective of officialdom?).

What do you think of some kind of "federations" between different groups? But to not weaken Africa in front of potential destabilizing exterior powers (whichever: corporations, countries...), it could require agreed cohesion as "better than them". It might end up being harsh as well, especially and hopefully against crime, but that would look like tribal/group conflicts on another level. Gradually countering corruption to develop would seem to slowly heal and give a common "African Dream".

[nemafakei]

"I'm curious to hear about the divisions in your country."

Sure. The rich and powerful exploit the poor and weak and get them to blame and distrust each other. Half the time they don't know they're doing it.

It works.

Is SA so different?

[Tatar Khan]

Here is why separating people doesn't work. Separated groups start to reinforce prejudices about each other because they lack knowledge and understanding about other groups. It turns to things such as misunderstanding of other groups customs and actions that reinforce the prejudices.

Yes the colonial powers divided Africa into unnatural countries where the tribes got their land mixed and split between different nations. However separating them is not going to make them like each other, and separating them by force to such extent as inability to go into same sections of the town, same stores and same restaurants breed they think they are better than us attitude.

I live in Canada here we have the Native Americans who also always campaign for their land rights and other things along those lines, however we do not force them to settle in some certain "special territories" (we tried and we had native rebellions) they are free to go anywhere, they are exempt from some taxation because they are Native Americans and have number of other privileges. (the reason is because we are the ones that invaded them).

Here we have a large cultural mix from all over the place, and they are getting along just fine. Why? because they after meeting one another start to understand each other better and prejudices start to fall away.

How to achieve such understanding between cultures, well what you do is find out why they hate each other and strike at those prejudices through education when the kids are young.

As for crime, crime is common among poor people, so it doesn't matter what ethnic group they are there will be more crime committed by the group if it is mostly poor.

[Egeides]

It works.

Would you have anything different to propose?

[Falconius]

How to achieve such understanding between cultures, well what you do is find out why they hate each other and strike at those prejudices through education when the kids are young.

The word "prejudice" is a political weapon employed with much success by those who wish to unite the world. Apart from the way this word seems to say that people are too stupid to form reasonable oppinions of others, it also would have you believe that it is a sin to not like another culture.

Take the example of a Zulu father verbally passing on the tribal history to his son, as dictated by their tradition. This is how evil "prejudice" is formed. Thus, as a loyal servant of the New World Order Empire, you would insist that the Zulu boy be separated from his parents as early as possible in order to progam his mind to make him a good slave of the NWO. For the NWO to be able to raise their flag on all continents, and in all countries, it is imperative that all divisions be destroyed: Cultural, Ethnic, Religious, National and Economical. And the source of many of these divisions is of course the family. Unfortunately for the NWO there are a good number of people who are born with a need for freedom in their blood.

They will be dedicated to their families, not allowing the media and the governments education program to destroy their family, their identity.

When these flags go up there will be many of you who will gladly condemn people to death for sins like "prejudice".

As for crime, crime is common among poor people, so it doesn't matter what ethnic group they are there will be more crime committed by the group if it is mostly poor.

I live in the country with the highest voilent crime rate in the world. a While back I saw on the front page of a newspaper the following heading:"White-collar theft, public enemy no.1".

How decidedly odd. Wouldn't you also rather expect "Murder and voilence, public enemy no.1"???

Clearly crime is not always a function of wealth.

[Dante]

The idea is not to wipe out differences between people, but to ensure that those differences are accepted and celebrated rather than condemned. If a family wishes to teach a child in its own way then that's just fine. If that way involves teaching the child to firebomb the neighbours then we may have a problem.

Also in this sense the word isn't 'economical,' it's 'economic.'

[Tatar Khan]

The word "prejudice" is a political weapon employed with much success by those who wish to unite the world. Apart from the way this word seems to say that people are too stupid to form reasonable oppinions of others, it also would have you believe that it is a sin to not like another culture.

Take the example of a Zulu father verbally passing on the tribal history to his son, as dictated by their tradition. This is how evil "prejudice" is formed.

Prejudice means that people form their opinion on other groups from the actions of the few people in that group. You don't need to like everything about the other cultures however you should not look at them as something that is below you or your culture. I am Mongolic descendant (Tatar) back in Russia there were people who looked at us as stupid people. My ethnic group was subject of jokes often. Why because large number of our ethnic group lives in rural areas than urban. And rural areas usually had less  people who finished university or colleges. Their Russian is not that great because they speak Tatar most of the time (the language lacks distinction in plural and singular and feminine and masculine) so they make mistakes speaking Russian. Some Russians called them stupid because of it, and than started to say that Tatars are stupid. This is a prejudice.

Oral history is oral history so what it has nothing bad about as long as it doesn't teach the kid to start hating other cultures.

Thus, as a loyal servant of the New World Order Empire, you would insist that the Zulu boy be separated from his parents as early as possible in order to progam his mind to make him a good slave of the NWO. For the NWO to be able to raise their flag on all continents, and in all countries, it is imperative that all divisions be destroyed: Cultural, Ethnic, Religious, National and Economical. And the source of many of these divisions is of course the family. Unfortunately for the NWO there are a good number of people who are born with a need for freedom in their blood.

They will be dedicated to their families, not allowing the media and the governments education program to destroy their family, their identity.

Sorry I am not into conspiracy theories so you lost me there. You need to really explain that new world order empire thingy before referring to it.

I live in the country with the highest voilent crime rate in the world. a While back I saw on the front page of a newspaper the following heading:"White-collar theft, public enemy no.1".

How decidedly odd. Wouldn't you also rather expect "Murder and voilence, public enemy no.1"???

Clearly crime is not always a function of wealth.

Well media likes sensations, so the title could hardly be justified. plus a white-collar worker could be not necessarily be rich. Wealth provides the security against poverty and need, so people who have them risk losing their position that they attained by committing crimes. People who do not have wealth do not risk losing it due to criminal activity. When in my town shootings occur they do occur in the areas of the city where poor people live not in rich areas. Crime is more common in areas where poor people live rather than areas where the rich people live. When you have nothing to lose it much easier to take the risk of getting caught and landing in jail than if you do have something to lose.

[Sneakgab]

Well, I haven't read most of this post, so perhaps my current reply is unjustified (I might read the post and make a serious reply later). But frankly, most of the problems in SA (the country in which I live, btw, (before I'm told I'm a European who barely knows anything about SA)) are due to to stupidity andor ignorance,inefficiency,corruption and the like. Our media likes to make a bid deal about racial issues and the like but other than the qouta laws (these are considered blatantly racist by most reasonable people, but they're another can of worms) and the like I haven't really had much experience of it... suppose I don't live in a township where I can commonly observe zulu-xhosa (for example) ternsions though.

But here is the main reason seperation doesn't work (here atleast); it's just not practical, we have 9 or so african tribal division (eg: Zulu,xhoza,tsendi,suthu,e.t.c). To create decent areas for all of them would be difficult, considering that an economy needs a  degree of co-operation and centralization (an extremely ambigous word I admit, considering all the different meanings people seem to attatch to it).

I suppose it's possible, or maybe even easy to create a working economy with such divisions, but why would you want to create such divisions, it simply doesn't seem worth it. If you impose pyhsical seperating barriers then people will eventually just break them down to get at each others throats (if they really hate each other that much). Thusly, arrangements are then reached whereas two peoples live with one another, even if one lives as slave to the other.

Although, it seems to that the tribal divisions aren't that really serious, the Zulu-Xhosa tensions are probably the peak.

Anyway, SA has far worse problems that are far more noteworthy than the ethnictribal whatever you want to call it divisions anyway, such as the fact that we have one of the highest tax rates in the world and yet the police are close to non-existents and the teachers and public healthcare workers strike every five minutes due to the goverment paying them diddly squat despite the fore-mentioned tax rate.

Though if such tensions do exist, they do have significance in the way that they distract people (mostly fools) from real issues such as the above mentioned via their petty fighting.