Article: EFF's parliament arrival

Lightscribe said:
Tell us how they will be "very different to each other."

The EFF at the same time is not a socialist party, it’s platform is still based on the Freedom Charter.

...

The discussion document identified the Freedom Charter as the ANC’s ‘lodestar’, and said the major current task of the NDR was to ‘build a national democratic society’ which would address the historical injustice via the redistribution of land and other resources, affirmative action, and ‘the eradication of apartheid production relations’.
Click to expand...
Not will be but are

The Blade-SACP view of the 2nd NDR is orientated towards centralizing political, "intellectual" and economic decision making into the central control
The SACP would therefore advocate state ownership of everything.

The EFF want to redistribute land on a "nationalist" discourse - which in reality is overlaid with racialist undertones - and to state-corporatize (on fascist models) the mines, banks etc ... Whereas the Blade-SACP just want to expropriate to the glory of the State.

The biggest difference actually is that the EFF NDR approach is orientated at redistributing forms of power and realigning society on ideological grounds - you know like all fascists before them. The Blade-SACP approach is aimed at removing the resources altogether. In reality pursuing either will lead to the same hell but they are different roads, and they aren't paved with good intentions.
 
The EFF at the same time is not a socialist party, it’s platform is still based on the Freedom Charter.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Juju has even read the Freedom Charter.

The preaching and practice of national, race or colour discrimination and contempt shall be a punishable crime;
Click to expand...

No more BEE, AA etc

All laws which discriminate on grounds of race, colour or belief shall be repealed.
Click to expand...

No more BEE, AA etc
 
daveza said:
I wonder if Juju has even read the Freedom Charter.



No more BEE, AA etc



No more BEE, AA etc
Click to expand...

Samora Machél also preached non-racialism, while at the same time chasing whites out of the country.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Not will be but are

The Blade-SACP view of the 2nd NDR is orientated towards centralizing political, "intellectual" and economic decision making into the central control
The SACP would therefore advocate state ownership of everything.

The EFF want to redistribute land on a "nationalist" discourse - which in reality is overlaid with racialist undertones - and to state-corporatize (on fascist models) the mines, banks etc ... Whereas the Blade-SACP just want to expropriate to the glory of the State.

The biggest difference actually is that the EFF NDR approach is orientated at redistributing forms of power and realigning society on ideological grounds - you know like all fascists before them. The Blade-SACP approach is aimed at removing the resources altogether. In reality pursuing either will lead to the same hell but they are different roads, and they aren't paved with good intentions.
Click to expand...

Nice summary.
 
Seriously said:
EFF is more than one person. Malema is just the brainless leader or maybe ANC "appointed" puppet?
Click to expand...

So much fail. :erm:

I know it's confusing for people who want to hate both the Anc and the Eff (because they're after all.."Bleks") and therefore refuse to acknowledge than one far lesser of a two "evils". To acknowledge that the Anc has staunchly avoided mass nationalisation and any policies that are fervently anti capitalist in nature, is not to elevate the Anc into a position of glory. It's just to acknowledge the truth.

Of course there are aspects within the Anc that have tried to push the discourse towards the communistic ideals, but it has thus far, with very little ambiguity, shown it does not want to walk this path. The fact that if anything South Africa has very capitalist policies or neo socialist at best is testament to this.

The Eff exists because there was no appetite for ill thought out and drastic, economy harming, massive wealth distribution by the Anc. That's the simpler version of the events of the day.

Those that can't accept that the Anc are making sensible, responsible economic policies are doing so because it does not meet what in their minds describes the agenda of the Anc. They are being deliberately ignorant of the facts.

That is why they must start to find conspiracies involving the Eff being a sidekick to the Anc's agenda. They have a prejudice in their minds (a pre judgment) of what the Anc goals are. And that pre judgment seems to involve the Anc being anti white and dead set on destroying the future of white South Africans. The reality of course is the Anc have stood firm on not allowing this to happen (the destruction of white's people's rights to own land and the means of production). There's been some token AA and BEE and land distribution. The criticism the Anc faces from the poor is that they are not aggressive enough is wrestling the wealth from the white minority.

And what thanks does the Anc get for doing what everyone except these few conspiracy theorists thinks they are doing ? Which I again suggest is not seeking to destroy the aspirations of the white populace based on the premise of shared constitutional rights ? They get criticised by the non whites for being too soft. And criticised by certain whites for being "rabid communists in bed with Malema."

Unenviable position to be in.
 
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
So much fail. :erm:

I know it's confusing for people who want to hate both the Anc and the Eff (because they're after all.."Bleks") ...snip....
Click to expand...

Your nic say it all! How many did you have today?

There are "bleks" in the DA and I respect them. So your argument is just stupid.
 
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
So much fail. :erm:

I know it's confusing for people who want to hate both the Anc and the Eff (because they're after all.."Bleks") and therefore refuse to acknowledge than one far lesser of a two "evils". To acknowledge that the Anc has staunchly avoided mass nationalisation and any policies that are fervently anti capitalist in nature, is not to elevate the Anc into a position of glory. It's just to acknowledge the truth.

Of course there are aspects within the Anc that have tried to push the discourse towards the communistic ideals, but it has thus far, with very little ambiguity, shown it does not want to walk this path. The fact that if anything South Africa has very capitalist policies or neo socialist at best is testament to this.

The Eff exists because there was no appetite for ill thought out and drastic, economy harming, massive wealth distribution by the Anc. That's the simpler version of the events of the day.

Those that can't accept that the Anc are making sensible, responsible economic policies are doing so because it does not meet what in their minds describes the agenda of the Anc. They are being deliberately ignorant of the facts.

That is why they must start to find conspiracies involving the Eff being a sidekick to the Anc's agenda. They have a prejudice in their minds (a pre judgment) of what the Anc goals are. And that pre judgment seems to involve the Anc being anti white and dead set on destroying the future of white South Africans. The reality of course is the Anc have stood firm on not allowing this to happen (the destruction of white's people's rights to own land and the means of production). There's been some token AA and BEE and land distribution. The criticism the Anc faces from the poor is that they are not aggressive enough is wrestling the wealth from the white minority.

And what thanks does the Anc get for doing what everyone except these few conspiracy theorists thinks they are doing ? Which I again suggest is not seeking to destroy the aspirations of the white populace based on the premise of shared constitutional rights ? They get criticised by the non whites for being too soft. And criticised by certain whites for being "rabid communists in bed with Malema."

Unenviable position to be in.
Click to expand...

I have provided the evidence that malema's freedom charter and the anc's freedom charter are the same goals for both. No conspiracy.

Paul has summarized the "blade" sacp and eff differences.

Read the whole article below. You remind me of the "frog in a pot" story. Perhaps you are the chef?


Far from extending land ownership to many more black South Africans, the 2010 bill and the green paper will bring about incremental land nationalisation. There will be no big-bang approach, but the Government will gradually assume ownership of ever more land while more and more South Africans find themselves without individual ownership and dependent on the State’s permission for their occupation of the land on which they live or work.

Important countervailing factors

From within the ANC:
First, the ANC recognises that the ‘balance of forces’ must be correct before progress can be made with the NDR. As with other revolutionary movements, it accepts that it may be necessary to take one step back – though its ultimate aim is then to take two steps forward.
 
I know it's confusing for people who want to hate both the Anc and the Eff (because they're after all.."Bleks")
Click to expand...

We hate them not because they are blek, we hate them because they are by and large incompetent, corrupt thieves.
 
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
Wow from all of that, you honed in on that throw away line ? Did I touch a nerve ?
Click to expand...

That nerve between your legs? I do not know, you tell us!

Nah, I just feel pissed about the current situation. I do not need more foes! So excuse my mannerism.

Daveza gave the correct answer!
 
Lightscribe said:
I have provided the evidence that malema's freedom charter and the anc's freedom charter are the same goals for both. No conspiracy.

Paul has summarized the "blade" sacp and eff differences.

Read the whole article below. You remind me of the "frog in a pot" story. Perhaps you are the chef?


Far from extending land ownership to many more black South Africans, the 2010 bill and the green paper will bring about incremental land nationalisation. There will be no big-bang approach, but the Government will gradually assume ownership of ever more land while more and more South Africans find themselves without individual ownership and dependent on the State’s permission for their occupation of the land on which they live or work.

Important countervailing factors

From within the ANC:
First, the ANC recognises that the ‘balance of forces’ must be correct before progress can be made with the NDR. As with other revolutionary movements, it accepts that it may be necessary to take one step back – though its ultimate aim is then to take two steps forward.
Click to expand...

Its no secret the Anc wants to speed up Nationalism. In fact the Da also has that on the agenda. Does that make the Da to be in bed with Malema ?
 
Seriously said:
That nerve between your legs? I do not know, you tell us!

Nah, I just feel pissed about the current situation. I do not need more foes! So excuse my mannerism.

Daveza gave the correct answer!
Click to expand...

Your anger (the extent of it) isn't aligned with reality though. The anc was elected on a manifesto to go full communist on our asses. They haven't done this. Also the country has (albeit it slowly) progressed in almost all aspects. To be disappointed that things aren't improving faster than they are is perfectly natural. But to make out that the Anc are the absolute worst thing to ever happen to humanity and that it belies all evil in the world ? That's irrational and far too emotive to make this all just about the Anc and it's governing style.

Corruption should make you furious for sure. But that's neither here nor there in explaining why you would think there's some neutral agenda between the Anc and the Eff.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
What?
Click to expand...

Oh sorry. Let me state that more clearly in a way where it's perfectly obvious as to what I'm saying. Here goes :

Its no secret the Anc wants to speed up Nationalism. In fact the Da also has that on the agenda. Does that mean the Da is also in bed with Malema ?
 
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
Its no secret the Anc wants to speed up Nationalism. In fact the Da also has that on the agenda. Does that make the Da to be in bed with Malema ?
Click to expand...

The DA has no plan to speed up what I assume you meant to be "nationalization".

The DA and its supporters think differently. The party grows in every election because our positions resonate with the values of voters who are committed to freedom, equality and opportunities for all South Africans. We are bound by the Constitution which states that South Africa "belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity." We are hopeful about South Africa's future and about the impact that could be made by a new majority which is based on shared convictions and agreement on the best way to take the country forward.

The difference in the approaches of the DA and FF+ is also highlighted in the way in which they handle the legislative processes in parliament. The FF+ makes a big ruckus within their limited sphere of influence, they point out obvious problems and offer scant contributions on how these problems can be solved. In turn, the DA considers legislation with due consideration for the Constitution, party policy and the potential impact of a bill on the country's development goals - particularly as it pertains to growth, job creation and poverty alleviation.

The DA's policies on land and agriculture highlights every single one of the "negative consequences" of poorly managed land restitution which Bosman mentions in his opinion piece. One has to wonder whether he in fact consulted the DA's policy documents as a source for his writing... We talk to the negative impact of continued uncertainty within the agriculture sector. We emphasize the fact that land reform policy must give due consideration to food security.

We ask that better, more focussed support be given to the ever diminishing pool of commercial farmers. We point out that uncertainty regarding land rights discourages investment in agriculture businesses. We show that 90% of land reform projects fail. And we argue that the Department of Land Reform's poor management practices have led to the current situation where large portions of the budget reserved for land reform has to be spent on the recapitalisation of failed projects.

But the right to restitution is a constitutional right, and this is where the FF+'s argument falls flat. They make no recommendations as to how this right will be realised, and they make no suggestions on how the process can be better managed to negate or limit the negative effects of the first problematic restitution process.

In contrast to this, the DA fought for better legislation. The DA supports an orderly land reform programme that compensates people for verified past dispossession. We therefore supported the re-opening of restitution claims in principle because we recognise that people who were deprived of the right to lodge a verifiable land claim before the 1998 deadline should not be penalised because of the State's poor management of this first process. This support has, however, never been unconditional. We said from the outset that claims cannot be reopened if the state did not have the necessary capacity and financial resources to conclude the processing of claims quickly and efficiently.

Indeed, up until the very last parliamentary debate on the Restitution Bill, we continued to make recommendations to ensure that a new restitution process does not ruin the agricultural sector. We asked that the window period for the submission of claims must be dramatically shortened; that any claimant who did not meet the first deadline must provide a valid reason for why a claim was not previously submitted; that claims must not reopened before the necessary funds were available; that the disruption of agricultural production should be avoided by using state land to settle claims wherever possible; that claimants and affected landowners must get state-funded legal representation; that the verification of claims must be handled by an independent body; and that all claims must be settled by a predetermined deadline in order to limit continued uncertainty in the agriculture sector.

These proposals were rejected by the ANC. The DA consequently, and without reservation, voted against the legislation. That the reopening process was merely an ANC election stunt, is evident from the 2014 national budget, in which the funding for restitution was actually decreased.

Midnight_choir_drunk said:
Oh sorry. Let me state that more clearly in a way where it's perfectly obvious as to what I'm saying. Here goes :

Its no secret the Anc wants to speed up Nationalism. In fact the Da also has that on the agenda. Does that mean the Da is also in bed with Malema ?
Click to expand...

Yawn...
 
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
Oh sorry. Let me state that more clearly in a way where it's perfectly obvious as to what I'm saying. Here goes :

Its no secret the Anc wants to speed up Nationalism. In fact the Da also has that on the agenda. Does that mean the Da is also in bed with Malema ?
Click to expand...

Nationalism? Wtf are you talking about? How is 'speeding up nationalism' on the DA's agenda?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X