Europe & West in general they demand a child before birth. To get investment Africa has to do which is the impossible thing in the whole of human history. That is 1st to be civilised with out no infrastructure and then the so called civilized world might consider investment. I HAVE NEVER EVER HEARD SUCH BLIND EXCUSE.

Europe was condemning China for investing in Africa. The lecturer was a former Hungarian communist and now the top of Hedge Fund boss. Imagine A hedge fund boss lecturing economics! This tell much about so called 7 wise men (I mean bank of England bosses) of Britain.

Can you imagine the corruption in hedge fund in USA and GB as well as GREECE has happened in Africa? Europe & America will tell the world that, what do you expect from Africa? How many take over in Africa is caused purely by African? More than 90% were /will be sponsored by European governments or direct involvement like the son of former British Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher, in West Africa. O’I remember his name was Mark Thatcher. The Sudan conflict was sponsored by a US citizen. During Toni Blair primer ship, he moved some where in Chelsea West London, and so on and on. The Rwanda conflict was directly encouraged and lead by France & Belgium to wipe out well educated but their crime was in English language. These are some the most recent events. Arab sponsored gorilla warfare has been going all over Ethiopia for the last ½ century. You laugh at Ethiopias poverty, the real casue is surrounding Barbaric Political oriented religion. Gabitto!

Do you give a toss to the rest of Africa beyond Zimbabwe and S Africa?

Lemma (Sorry, nglish is not even my 3rd language)

i have no problem with this in principle, but I have a major problem with the underhand way this is being done. Next to nobody in Ireland or Britain is being honest to the people about where we are heading and the creation of the European super state.

As a result of this dishonesty i believe major problems lie ahead. If the left believes in anything surely it is being open with the people and allowing them to have power over society.

Our journey began with the decision to reform rather than oppose capitalism. “Soviet” Communism was about worker ownership and participation – many social democrats supported those ideas even though our parties did not. It was Stalin who turned us firmly against the USSR.

Sadly, our project then took a nasty, nationalistic turn when we decided to support our respective governments during World War I. The Communists opposed the War.

Once we embarked on the Parliamentary road to “socialism” we began the process of joining the political and economic establishment and gradually moved away from large scale participatory democracy. The legacy we live with today is that we are no longer a mass movement. Most of our parties have few members and our organizations are highly centralized and corporate in nature. In many countries (such as here in Canada and in much of Latin America) we are slowly disappearing from the landscape.

We have little or no “ideology” left and have more-or-less folded into the global project of neo-liberal, Washington-based, military-humanism.

“Real democracy has to sweep through the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg” – Agreed (although it never will) But why stop there though, democracy starts at home. Let it sweep a bit further & have a UK referendum on “in or out”. We’ve been in since 1973 which seems like long enough.

“A society that is secure and maximises the freedom of its people cannot be achieved solely at the level of the nation” Really? Based on what? Care to provide any examples? How do I become more free by being tied up to a bunch of Belgians?

regards
geoff

Well at least the climate change part is dead now. So the list can be shortened to jobs, debt and public service cuts. That’s a blessing. Whew!

Thanks for your reply. I would agree with you in certain regards. Rather than seeing the current governing parties as the “simple” cause of the malaise, I perceive them as being both a “symptom” and a “cause”. The relationship between the political elites, wider popular culture and the overall post-1989 economic environment (which any government would have faced), is a complicated process of different interactions. If we have arrived at a point where the country is at an intractable mess, it will never just be because of one group of people. In this regard, I reject the right-wing, mainstream discourse, of blaming one party for all problems.

Your talk of the ills of the education and health system unfortunately reminds me of the Thatcher era in the UK, where nationalised industries were publicly denounced, in preparation for an eventual quick “sale” – or to bolster a privatisation and process of outsourcing. Which is not to say that these systems work perfectly – but they are functional, publicly provided services, officially free at the point of use. This are important principles, which for any leftist party would be suicidal to challenge.

Nonetheless, if we are talking of active politics, we must be aware that genuine leadership has a both a moral dimension, and that politics acts as amplification to character traits.

As the great Clement Attlee said :

“A good leader must understand human nature, and particularly the human nature of the particular group of men he has as his lieutenants… He must also have good tactical judgement… A leader must have guts. He must be ready to act swiftly however much he has sweated about what is the right thing to do. Grown men, who know the score, do not want their leader to be continually beating his breast, and advertising his agonies. They want decision and action.

There is one thing about politics that I think cannot be disputed: if a man stays in them long enough, they nearly always reveal him for what he is, and he tends to get not only what he deserves, but to find in his fate the reflection of his own strength and weakness.”

In a sense, we are reflecting on the general weaknesses of the Hungarian political class, the inability to provide genuine and consistent leadership and improve the state by consensus, and most importantly, the inability to construct a team of talented, trusted individuals to carry out the necessary social reforms in the interests of all members of society.

Why Hungary? Other countries in a similar situation have been more lucky with their leaders, and their problems are now somewhat less acute. We can surely understand, that people will apportion the blame to those who benefited from the transition period, and know “for whom the bell tolls.”

regards

Carl