HomeOld_PostsAbout security sector reforms

About security sector reforms

Published on

What prevailed in the Americas at the time of colonisation, prevailed in Africa, therefore in Zimbabwe, too, after all in Zimbabwe we already had rich and poor families, and we already had monarchs and chiefs who were also military commanders, writes Cain Mathema in his book, Why the West and its MDC stooges want Zimbabwe’s Defence and Security Forces reformed that The Patriot is serialising.

ENGELS says that the other way the rule of the class that possesses its position in society is through convincing the ‘propertyless’ class or classes that there is no better system than the one they live in, the system of the class of wealth – until the propertyless class believes in emancipating itself this class will, through universal adult suffrage, vote for the representatives of the class of property to be members of parliament and government.
In other words, the class of property and its state will do everything possible, even force or violence, to make the poor believe that their being poor is natural, and there is nothing to be done about it.
The development of society from the gens, to the gentes, to the phratry to the tribes and into class divisions and the birth of the state in ancient Rome followed same route as that in Athens.
While socio-economic economic developments in both ancient Athens and ancient Rome from the gens, the gentes, the phratry and the tribe eventually gave birth to classes and the state, these developments had not reached class divisions among the American Indians at the time they were colonised by Europe.
But clearly, had colonisation not interfered, so to say, the natural birth of classes and the state in the Americas would not have been avoided.
What prevailed in the Americas at the time of colonisation, prevailed in Africa, therefore in Zimbabwe, too, after all in Zimbabwe we already had rich and poor families, and we already had monarchs and chiefs who were also military commanders.
We saw earlier on Engels saying that all revolutions are essentially about one property replacing another property, that is, they are essentially about one social ownership of the means of subsistence and production replacing another.
In other words, the new political system after the success of the revolution has to remove the political rights of the defeated class or classes, and this is done by the revolution creating a state or political system that suppresses the defeated class; as Marx, Engels and Lenin said, the proletariat cannot simply take hold of the ready-made state (that is, the bourgeois state) and wield it for its own purposes, that it must smash it, it must break it up.
Let us look at two examples on this subject, one the US revolution of 1776, and the other, the Russian October Socialist Revolution of 1917.
The US revolution took place in 1776 when 13 British colonies between Canada and Mexico declared themselves independent of Britain rule.
The colonists (at least the majority of them led by the rich ones, including slave owners like George Washington the leader of that revolution) felt exploited and used by British-based companies and the British government which forced them to pay all sorts of taxes and duties that were meant to protect and promote British business interests in the colonies and were also to create revenue for the British government, that is, the government of the very British companies that were benefitting from the taxes and duties imposed from London.
What made the colonists even unhappier was that they were not represented in the British parliament.
Taxes and duty on imported British products in what later became the United States of America meant that businesses owned by the rich colonists (who were a minority anyway) had their profits reduced.
That was the essence of the so-called American Revolution – replacing British-owned property by US owned property.
But at the time of the revolution, the state (the army, police, courts, jails, the church, etc) was that of the British ruling class in Britain, it was a colonial state.
The colonists, or each of the 13 colonies that became the United States of America on July 4 1776, did not have a state of their own, they were colonials (here I am using the same definition of ‘colonial’ as given by the Macmillan English Dictionary For Advanced Learning, Second Edition, 2007; and the definition is: “someone who lives in a country that is controlled or ruled by their own country”.
In other words, those who led the revolution in what became the United States of America were not colonial slaves, but were instead the foot soldiers of British colonialists and white racists, or were like the British convicts who were deported to Australia in order for Britain to use them as white racist settlers in the colonisation of the land of the first Australians, the Aboriginal peoples of that country.
The colonial slaves in what became the United States of America were the American-Indians and black-Americans who were ‘discovered’ by the European colonisers, including George Washington himself, or his grandparents or his parents.
Washington himself was a slave owner after all, his slaves being American Indians, or people of American Indian descent, or were blacks most of whose roots were those of blacks captured in Africa to be slaves in the Americas; though some authorities say blacks from Africa were in the Americas long before the Europeans colonised the Americas, yet of course the white racist colonialists want us to believe that blacks were a primitive lot that could not have sailed across the Atlantic Ocean long before whites ever did as sailing across the Atlantic Ocean and back could only be done by people who had deep knowledge of navigation and building of boats or ships good enough to sail across the Atlantic and back home in Africa).
For instance, when the war of independence began in 1775, Wikipedia informs us:
“The 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy.
“Each colony sponsored local militia.
“Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms.
“Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to travel far from home and thus were unavailable for extended operations, and lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience.
“If properly used, however, their numbers could help the Continental armies overwhelm smaller British forces, as at the battles of Concord, Beumington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.
“Both sides used partisan warfare, but the Americans effectively suppressed Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.
“Seeking to coordinate military efforts, the Continental Congress established (on paper) a regular on June 14 1775, and appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief on June 15.
“The development of the Continental Army was always a work in progress, and Washington used both his regulars and state militia throughout the war.
“At the beginning of 1776, Washington’s army had 20 000 men, with two-thirds enlisted in the Continental Army and the other third in the various state militias.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest articles

Kariba Municipality commits to President’s service delivery blueprint

By Kundai Marunya IT is rare to find opposition-controlled urban councils throwing their weight on...

The resurgence of Theileriosis in 2024 

THE issues of global changes, climate change and tick-borne diseases cannot be ignored, given...

Britain haunted by its hostile policy on Zimbabwe

TWO critical lessons drawn from the recent debate on Zimbabwe in the British House...

The contentious issue of race

 By Nthungo YaAfrika AS much as Africans would want to have closure to many of...

More like this

Kariba Municipality commits to President’s service delivery blueprint

By Kundai Marunya IT is rare to find opposition-controlled urban councils throwing their weight on...

The resurgence of Theileriosis in 2024 

THE issues of global changes, climate change and tick-borne diseases cannot be ignored, given...

Britain haunted by its hostile policy on Zimbabwe

TWO critical lessons drawn from the recent debate on Zimbabwe in the British House...

Discover more from Celebrating Being Zimbabwean

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading