Misremembering Mwalimu Nyerere: Revisiting the Legacy of Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere

[Mchambuzi]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

8-9 August 2002

Peace, Unity and People – Centred Development

The Legacy of Mwalimu Julius K Nyerere

OFFICIAL CLOSING ADDRESS

By

Ambassador Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu

Tanzania High Commissioner to South Africa (1999 – 2008)
​

Chairperson, distinguished lecturers, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you very much for according me this honor to officiate the closing ceremony of this very important conference on Peace, Unity and the Development of man as expounded by Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere.

Allow me chairperson to begin by thanking the Vice-Chancellor and his dedicated lieutenants, for co-sponsoring this conference with The Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation and making excellent arrangements for the analysis and debate on the life and contribution of this African leader in matters of peace, unity and development that places man and woman at the centre of things.

Let me pay special tribute to the leadership of the University of Venda for choosing in this regard to start with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere. I say this because I have been made to understand that this conference marks only the beginning to a series of such symposiums dedicated towards the analysis and exposure of true sons and daughters of Africa that have made memorable and very visible valuable contributions to the development of the continent in matters or peace, unity and human progress.

I emphasize visibility because I have experienced frustrations in some avenues of this nature upon noticing the negligence of former statesman Kenneth Kaunda who worked hand in hand with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere in supporting the liberation of Southern Africa. All those whom he made valuable contributions should be recorded for the future knowledge of our future generations.

I should not forget to extend my inner most regard to the lecturers from the academic world, activists, civil societies, some whom found time to travel long distances within South Africa and without for the purpose of delivering well thought out and stimulating discourses on Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and his times.

Our academicians should continue with this crusade by carrying out more and more research and analysis of African leaders with a view to exposing the same and indicating their positive traits in the minds of our future generations who also ought to be potential leaders for our dear continent. Chairperson, much has been said and written about Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and Ujamaa. Ujamaa was the cornerstone of all his activities during his lifetime. I think it deserves a few comments.

In my view, most of the write-ups miss the real Mwalimu’s thoughts on Ujamaa in several ways:

They tend to analyze Mwalimu Nyerere through the spectacle of Marxist theory, whereas Mwalimu’s Ujamaa has nothing to do with Marxism. It is not a theory. He never claimed to be producing a theory. He never wanted to be known as a ‘Nyerereist’ or ‘Nyerererism’. Ujamaa is just a collection of statements of intent to do good to humanity both local and international. Analyzing Mwalimu Julius Nyerere through the tools of Marxist theory will definitely produce rogue leaders, as it is claimed by many that Mwalimu failed; but judging by what himself wrote that he wanted to do, he never failed.

He achieved 98%. Others were influenced by the Cold War, especially scholars from the west who have tried to write about Mwalimu and Ujamaa. These individuals get so scared whenever any good idea is labeled Ujamaa, because to them it means Marxism, Leninism, something that has to be fought with all force. Therefore, they used the intellectual power to fight Ujamaa thinking it was Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism which gave them a lot of problems at the time.

So my suggestion is that we should try as academicians to understand Ujamaa by analyzing the four major documents on Ujamaa against actions of Mwalimu on the role of various social, political and developmental issues during the time he was the president of the United Republic of Tanzania. These four documents which are mere statements of intents are:

1. Ujamaa’s best of African Socialism.
2. The Arusha Declaration.
3. Socialism and Rural Development and;
4. Education for Self Reliance.

Mere statements of intent of what were the guidelines of his policy actions in trying to serve humanity both in Tanzania and the world.

I am trying to pick a few such policies which Mwalimu upholds with the guidelines of Socialism.

The land issue

As far as land was concerned Mwalimu was opposed to Free Selling of Land. He prevented this the first day he became President of Tanzania. No Free Selling of land. And no Free Hold System of Land Tenure because he realized that if you allow these kinds of arrangements, you are going to turn your country into two groups of people – Land owners and the mass tenants- and by so doing you are just creating a time bomb of violence and bloodshed. So the first thing he did as part of Ujamaa was to make sure that the system of Land Tenure Rights, Land Management and Land Ownership do not operate on the principle of A Free Hold System.

People should not be allowed to sell land at will. And this helped us. We don’t have what is in Zimbabwe. How can you say Mwalimu failed? He did this in 1961 when he became the President of Tanzania. If Zimbabwe had this kind of arrangement they wouldn’t be having this problem that they are having today.

Housing

Another area is the matter of Housing. When Tanzania inherited the country from British Colonial masters our cities, Dar-es-salaam and the rest were built/settled on discriminatory arrangements. Prime land in the centre of the city was occupied by Asians. The others like Oysterbay were for the Europeans. All the cities of 20 regions were based on racial arrangements of settlement. This kind of arrangement could only persist with the existence of colonial administration which allowed this kind of thing. But with the absence of colonial administration you can never sustain that kind of arrangement.

It will be another time bomb. All those who were allocated very poor places would fight those occupying prime land especially when the owners don’t seem to be what we call ‘indigenous Tanzanians’. So what Mwalimu did, he nationalized all houses. People were asking questions - they are not even valuable houses, why does he nationalize them? He was achieving a purpose. Because once he nationalized them, those houses now belonged to everybody. Everybody can become a tenant.

So slowly those settlements have lost that discriminative arrangement of settlement. Because if somebody dies or moves away, somebody else is given that house as a tenant. But if this arrangement was not done tenants would only be of one race. Then people would just rise one day and cause a fracas in the city. This was prevented. It was part of Ujamaa.

Religion

Another aspect of Mwalimu’s life was his attitude towards religion. To Mwalimu religion was a private matter. It was not a matter for the government, not even a matter for the political party. It was a private affair and everybody can worship whatever he chooses; stones, trees. Absolute religious freedom. The only aspect of religious right which was not permitted was if one religious group interfered with the religion of another.

That one was a very serious criminal offence in Tanzania. If the Catholic Church goes to abuse Lutherans, it is regarded as a very high criminal offence. Religious crises should not be entertained. Religious crises are terribly dangerous. Those battles which are fought on religious grounds never end. So what Mwalimu did was to prevent those from occurring by putting in place very stiff laws for those who abuse other people’s religions.

Mwalimu himself was a staunch Catholic. He never missed Sunday service until he died. He died praying in his bed when he was sick. Every time he travelled anywhere, be it in South Africa or visiting the United States, every Sunday he went to church. But those people when they are appointed ministers, they are supposed to be sworn in by the means of a Bible or a Koran. But there were orthodox Marxists who got it from their studies overseas. They did not want to hold neither a bible nor a Koran.

And Mwalimu didn’t pay a damn to it, he still kept them in government because the question of religion was a private matter, it was not a state matter. But he wanted the church to concern itself with the life of a man when he is still alive. He was very serious about that. He said that all he has been advocating for: against oppressions, poverty, disrespect for human dignity, the church must also do it. Liberation of the oppressed, he said the church must support. This was his stance and for that matter he said even purchasing arms and leading a war against the oppressor is a religious matter.

At one stage when he visited the United States he was invited to the conference of the Mary Nora sisters. These were Catholics. They asked him to address them. He told them:

“You lose your credibility if you don’t involve yourselves in our struggles against oppression. Unless you participate in the rebellion against social structures and the economic organizations which condemn men to poverty, humiliation and condemnation and degradation, the church will become irrelevant to man and Christianity will degenerate into a set of superstitions which is accepted only by the faithful. Unless the church expresses God’s love for man, by getting involved in leadership, in constructive protests against present conditions of man, it will become identified with injustice and persecution and if this happens, it will die. And humanly speaking, it deserves to die because it serves no purpose comprehensible to man”.

These sisters had never heard such words and many of them wept, and Mwalimu joined them in weeping. When he was asked why he was weeping, he said “I am weeping in place of the oppressed because the sisters have understood my message. So I am crying with happiness”.

Liberation of Africa

Mwalimu spent a lot of his time, energy and resources in the liberation of Southern Africa. And in this he was guided by the principle “Help your neighbor when he or she is in trouble”. It is another best tenet of Mwalimu’s Ujamaa. He said, you don’t have to be rich in order to help someone. You have to be rich at the heart not in material wealth. As long as you have something, pass it to your neighbor who is in distress. Acting on this principle, he hosted the Liberation Committee in Dar-es-salaam and Mwalimu’s government spent part of the Tanzanian budget to purchase arms to give to the activists.

And part of the Tanzanian Defense force’s responsibilities was to fight these wars and they did. Several of them died and were buried in Mozambique fighting for liberation. So Tanzanian’s People’s Defense Force was an instrument not only for the defense of the soil of Tanzania but it was also an instrument for the liberation of Africa.

Our soldiers were offering professional fighting skills because not all the liberation fighters were professional fighters, so professional guidance was provided by the soldiers of Tanzania. About four of the high ranking officers died fighting and were buried in Mozambique. And this stance cost the country a lot and many criticized Mwalimu.

Mwalimu led a crusade at ADDIS ABABA when Ian Smith declared Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in Rhodesia. First he asked Harold Wilson (the then Prime Minister of Britain) to remove Smith from power since Rhodesia was a British Colony. Wilson said we have to negotiate – negotiate with what, this man has defied your authority, get him removed. Wilson refused, so Mwalimu and his colleagues passed a declaration to break diplomatic relations with Great Britain for failing in their duties in Rhodesia. When they came back from the meeting, five countries broke their diplomatic relations including Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia.

Within six months, all countries, except Tanzania and Zambia, had resumed diplomatic relations with Britain. As a result Great Britain withdrew all assistance which was in the pipeline to Tanzania and Zambia. The other countries like Germany followed suit. They said we can’t give you financial and technical assistance when you are diverting this into military use.

But the country survived because you don’t have to be rich in order to extend a hand, a helping hand to a neighbor. You only have to cut down your budget. But you can achieve a major goal of liberating the oppressed. As long as this was achieved Mwalimu was satisfied because he dedicated all his life fighting oppression, slavery, poverty, human degradation and all those bad things affecting man.

Therefore, I now call upon all our academicians to continue analyzing Mwalimu Nyerere and his times on the basis of demonstrated actions. With these remarks chairperson, I once again thank you very much for making all of us meet here and discuss important issues of leadership, so crucial in the survival of our dear continent and the removal of this continent from marginalization in the global world which has been the order of the day.

And I also thank you very much especially the Vice-Chancellor for the visionary leadership that he is providing at the University of Venda in the form of developing progressive programs of this kind. And after this, chairperson I now with great honor declare this International Conference on Peace, Unity and People-Centred Development - the Legacy of Mwalimu closed.

I thank you.

 

[Nguruvi3]

Mchambuzi

Mara nyingi hukereka sana ninaposikia kuna kumfananisha mwalimu na kiongozi mwingine
Ukisoma bandiko utaona Mwalimu alikuwa na agenda ya Taifa , kwamba kila kitu kililenga Taifa.

The Land issue:
Ninakubaliana na hatua alizochukua. Tunaweza kutofautiana kimawazo lakini mfano mzuri wa tatizo ni Kenya.

Nisichokubaliana na Mwalimu ilikuwa Azimio la Arusha na land ambapo wamiliki wa 'arable land' zilizokuwa developed kama mashamba ya mkonge zilichukuliwa na kugeuzwa mapori. Hakukuwa na sabbabu

Kama kulikuwa na sababu za kuchukua ardhi hiyo, basi ingegawanywa na kutumika kwa faida kuliko ilivyo sasa

Nina uhakika 'settlers' wangebadilishi kilimo hata baada ya zao la mkonge kupoteza soko.
Kwasasa mashamba yamekuwa mapori, swali, ni kwanini yalitaifishwa kama hakuna watumiaji?

Religion:
Kipindi cha Mwalimu ilikuwa ni nadra kumsikia akiongea siasa katika nyumba za ibada.
Hata alipoalikwa katika shughuli kama sherehe, Mwalimu alikuwa mwangalifu sana katika maongezi yake

Katika hili kuna mahali natofautiana naye pia. Kwamba alisema 'watu wasichanganye dini na siasa'' huku akiweka mpaka kwa watu wa dini lakini wanasiasa waliruhusiwa kuchanganya siasa na dini.

Jambo hili limetuachia makovu sana . Mwalimu alitarajia watakaoishi Ikulu ni watu watakaokuwa na mitazamo kama yake hasa kwa hatari inayoweza kutokea ikiwa tofauti.

Miaka michache tukampa Rais ambaye kila siku alikuwa Kanisani akitoa hotuba zinazohusu serikali.
Hili limewagawa Watanzania kama Mwl alivyo foresee. Kiongozi anayetumia dini ni hatari sana

Kwa kuchelea kiongozi huyo kutojali mipaka ya siasa na dini, wanasiasa uchwara wakaitumia nafasi hiyo kikamilifu.

Nyumba za ibada ''zikageuzwa maeneo ya kampeni '' viongozi wa dini wakiitamani asali inayopatikana mjengoni.

Ni kwamba, kuweka mpaka wa dini na siasa na kutokuwa na mpaka wa siasa na dini ni hatari hasa panapotokea watu wasiojali.

Kuhusu Housing: Hili alilifanya vema hata kama halikudumu kwani tumerudi kule kule . Kuna wa Masaki na Buguruni. Kilicho tofauti ni uhindini na uzunguni.

Liberation of Africa:
Ingawa Mwalimu alilifanya kwa nia ya undugu na tulilipa gharama bado lilitujengea heshima na influence.
Kama nchi, hatukuishi kama kisiwa wala kuonekana hayawani! tuliheshimiwa katika umasikini wetu

Tukiangalia mambo mengine, Mwalimu alituacha na ''state machinery'' zenye nguvu lakini hakuimarisha ''civic and civil societies'' imara. Mwalimu aliamini kuwa baada ya chaguzi za Marais 2 alioshuhudia hali itakuwa hivyo hivyo.

Kama alivyowahi kusema ' Ikulu ni mahali patakaifu'' basi aliamini kutapatikana watu waadilifu kama alivyodhani

Pengine Mwl hakufikiri ipo siku kwa kukusudia au kutokusudia kutakuwa na kiongozi tofauti na anayemfikiri

Mwl akatuacha bila civil societies lakini state machinery za nguvu. Nyerere akatuachia katiba inayoruhusu kutawala na si watu kujitawala. Pale ilipotokea haja ya civil societies kusimama na kutetea interest za wananchi, socities hazikuwepo. Wananchi hawakujua waanzie wapi wakabaki kuwa wahanga wa state machinery.

Athari za hali hiyo zimeigusa jamii kwa namna nyingi.
Misingi yetu ya umoja wa Kitaifa imetetereka.Udini na ukabila na ukanda vimejitokeza.

Hayo yametokea kwasababu Mwalimu waliofuata hawakutuachia civil societies imara na katiba ya wakati

 

[Mchambuzi]

Asante Nguruvi3 kwa mchango wako mzuri.

Mwandishi hapo juu kwenye Bandiko #1 anakiri kwamba: As an ideology, Ujamaa was not supported by any ‘Social Theory’. Lakini pia - he falls short kueleza kwamba: Ujamaa meant a search for an alternative path of development that was neither Capitalism nor Socialism/Communism.

The fact kwamba Ujamaa ulikuwa - a unique and indigenous model of development, donors wengi walimuunga Mwalimu Nyerere mkono katika Ujamaa, hasa wa kutoka kwenye ‘Socialist Democracies – kama vile Sweden nk. Lakini nje ya mataifa haya, pia Benki ya Dunia ilimuunga mkono Mwalimu Nyerere katika kipindi karibia chote cha Ujamaa, hasa kipindi kile Benki ya DUnia ilipokuwa inaongozwa na Robert McNamara kama Rais wake. McNamara pia alipata kuwa Waziri wa Ulinzi wa Marekani.

Baada ya uhuru wa Tanganyika (1961), Mwalimu Nyerere pamoja na ‘nationalists’ wenzake walijikuta katika ‘economic quandary’ kutokana na uhalisi kwamba Taifa jipya na huru la Tanganyika lilikuwa linakabiliwa na mahitaji mengi na makubwa kutoka kwa wananchi wake - i.e. the social economic needs, kufuatia miaka mingi ya maisha magumu na ya mateso chini ya utawala wa Kikoloni. Hivyo Mwalimu Nyerere na wenzake walihitaji nothing short of a ‘revolution’ ili kuliinua Taifa lao la Tanganyika toka kwenye mkwamo mkubwa – kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii.

Katika kipindi kile, two models of economic development were available:

• Capitalism; na
• Socialism/Communism.

Kwa upande mmoja – Mwalimu Nyerere na wenzake walipo ‘explore’ Capitalism’ wakaona kwa uwazi kabisa kwamba kufuata mfumo huo ilikuwa ni sawa na kurudi kule kule, yani - kuirudisha Tanganyika mikononi mwa wakoloni (the Western block) chini ya Uingereza, Ufaransa, Ureno nk, hivyo kupoteza maana nzima ya juhudi za ‘Nationalist Movements’ na mafanikio ya ‘Political Independence.

Kwa upande mwingine, katika mazingira ya wakati ule ya ‘Cold War’ (mvutano wa kiitikadi baina ya mataifa makubwa ya Magharibi nay a Mashariki), Mwalimu Nyerere na wenzake waliona kwamba kufuata mfumo wa Socialism au Communism ingeleta tafsiri kwamba Tanganyika imeamua kuchagua upande - kujiunga na (the Eastern Block), iliyokuwa chini ya China na Urusi.

Katika moja ya kazi zake, Professor Issa Shvji anasema kwamba – ‘Socialism did not fail in Tanzania’, na kwamba badala yake, ‘it was Mwalimu Nyerere who didn’t understand the meaning of Socialism’. Binafsi sikubaliani na mtazamo huu wa Professor Shivji. Nitajaribu kufafanua...

Ukisoma maandiko mengi ya Mwalimu Nyerere kwa ukaribu unaona kwa uwazi kabisa kwamba Mwalimu was not ignorant of Marxist theory. Badala yake Mwalimu aliona haja ya kuja na Ujamaa wa Kiafrika based on unique circumstances of Tanganyika’s challenges za wakati ule. Mwalimu aliamini kwamba – while Marxism ilikuwa ni method muhimu, ilihitaji kufanyiwa marekebisho kama sio maboresho ili iendane na mazingira na mahitaji ya Tanganyika ile ambapo:

Hapakuwepo na ‘industrialization’; hapakuwepo na ‘urbanization’ kubwa; na muhimu zaidi – ‘class struggle’ haikuwa key driver of the history of Tanganyika (tofauti iliyotokea katika nchi za Magharibi), na pia dini (religion) ilikuwa ni very important aspect ya uhalisia wa maisha ya watu. Hivyo basi Ujamaa wa Kiafrika ikawa ni ‘method’ yenye ethic of egalitarianism ambayo ingekuwa grounded in African history and culture hence, neno ‘Ujamaa wa Kiafrika’.

Wanazuoni mbalimbali walifanya kazi nyingo to explore Ujamaa katika miaka ya 1960s na 1970s. Lakini ilipofika miaka ya 1980s, tafiti hizi zilipungua kasi na kuanza kupotea kabisa, sababu kubwa ikiwa ni uhalisia kwamba nchi zilizofuata model ya Ujamaa wa Kiafrika zilijikuta kwenye mgogoro mkubwa sana wa Kiuchumi. Ni katika kipindi hicho ndio yakazaliwa maneno ya ‘the lost decade’. Kufuatia hali hii, Mwalimu Nyerere akaamua kung’atuka mwaka 1985 ili kupisha wengine nao wajaribu. Miaka michache baadae nguzo kuu ya Socialim/Communism – Taifa la Soviet (USSR) likaporomoka na kutoa tafsiri moja kwamba: Capitalism imeshinda.

Leo Tanzania (na nchi nyingi barani Afrika) inakabiliwa na mkwamo mkubwa wa kiuchumi. Kwa maana nyingine, ‘Capitalism has failed in Tanzania (Africa)’. Based on this experience, wanazuoni kadhaa wamejaribu kurudi tena kuitazama upya dhana ya ‘Ujamaa wa Kiafrika’, hasa to revisit its vision and practice. Licha ya hayo juhudi hizi zinakabiliwa na changamoto mbili kubwa: Kwanza hizi studies zipo very random; Pili na muhimu zaidi ni kwamba tafiti hizi hazipati funding ya kutosha. Hali hii inachangiwa na ukweli kwamba pamoja na ‘failure of capitalism’ nchini Tanzania (Africa) kuwa wazi kabisa, bado watu wengi wanaamini (kama sio kuaminishwa) kwamba majibu ya matatizo yetu Kiuchumi hayawezi kupatikana nje ya Capitalism.

Jambo moja ambalo halina ubishi ni kwamba – economic development in Tanzania/Africa inaendelea kuwa very ‘elusive’ (deceptive). Changamoto nyingi za kiuchumi na kijamii ambazo ndio zilizo ‘inspire’ Ujamaa wa Kiafrika bado zinaendelea kuwepo leo hii. Hivyo basi ipo haja kama sio umuhimu kwa sisi watanzania wenyewe to ‘revist’ yale yote ambayo yalikuwa ‘envisioned’ katika Ujamaa wa Kiafrika. Kufanya hivyo haina maana kwamba nia yetu iwe ni kufufua Ujamaa wa Kiafrika as a ‘practice’ or an ‘economic model’; Nia yetu iwe ni – to re-engage our desire for a broad transformative change based on the transformative vision ya Mwalimu na wenzake akina Kwame Nkrumah ili kuhakikisha kwamba miaka 50 ijayo vizazi vyetu visiwe vinahangaika tena na masuala yale yale ya miaka 50 iliyopita. Naamini kwamba tukichukua hili kama ndio dhumuni la msingi la kutukutanisha kwenye mjadala huu, yapo mengi ambayo tutaweza kuyajenga.

 

[Red Giant]

Mkuu Mchambuzi naomba niulize kitu, haiwezekani kuwa Ubepari Tanzania(Africa) haujafeli bali sisi ndiyo hatujui jinia ya kuwa mabepari?

Mimi kwa mtazamo wangu ni kuwa, ujamaa ni mfumo uliojidhihirisha wazi kufeli, wengi kama siyo wote waliotumia umewafelisha. Lakini Ubepari kuna ushahidi wa wazi kwa watu uliowaletea maendeleo. Kwa hiyo badala ya kuuangalia ujamaa(uliofeli) kwanini tusiangalie tunapokosea kwenye kupractice mfumo uliofaulu(Ubepari)?

 

[a4afrika]

Mkuu Red Giant, ni wapi huko Ubepari umefaulu? Je, tunaweza kuona na kuhoji wazi the price they paid for their success? Au ndio ya mla kunde na mtupa majani?
Unaye mtupa majani wako? Yupi anayeweza kuwa zaidi ya kaka na dada zako?

 

[Mchambuzi]

Red Giant:

Suala hili tulijadili sehemu nyingine na naomba nianze kwa kurudia niliyoyasema huko kwingine:
-------

Integration of Africa into the global capitalist system, beginning with imperialism (ubeberu), slavery (utumwa) and colonialism (ukoloni) haikuwa na lengo la kufaidisha bara la afrika na watu wake. If anything, it was meant to impoverish, exploit and plunder her people and resources. Hali hii ndio iliyopelekea the rise of anti slavery and anti colonialism movements, mara nyingine zikihusisha umwagaji wa damu.

Juhudi za baadhi ya nchi za Afrika to embark on a socialist path baada ya uhuru (in the 1960s) zilisukumwa zaidi na 'bad experience of capitalism' in the continent. Lakini kama tulivyojadili kidogo kwenye "posts za awali", Afrika haikufanikiwa kuwa socialist, per Marxism. Badala yake, throughout independence, Africa remained as "an underdeveloped capitalist society". Ukweli huu upo hadi leo kwa ushahidi ulio wazi.

Kufuatia hali hii, hasa following the end of Cold War zimekuwepo juhudi nyingi kutoka ndani na nje ya Bara la Afrika kusaidia Capitalism iwe na faida, both to her people and resources. Hili limefanyika kwa kujaribu kuhakikisha 'Africa reforms', huku very little efforts zikielekezwa to reform 'capitalism itself'. Afrika inaendelea kaambiwa ifanye reforms huku mazingira yakiwa ni yale yale for decades, hali ya:

1. 'Uneven relationship' in Trade, Investment and Finance within the global capitalist system.

2. 'Limited policy space' for Africa to set/influence her own development agenda.

Haya yote yanaendelea while Capitalism faces only ONE Competitor: CAPITALISM itself, of which - slavery, imperialism and colonialism were all central to its foundation.

Mkuu Mchambuzi naomba niulize kitu, haiwezekani kuwa Ubepari Tanzania(Africa) haujafeli bali sisi ndiyo hatujui jinia ya kuwa mabepari?

Mimi kwa mtazamo wangu ni kuwa, ujamaa ni mfumo uliojidhihirisha wazi kufeli, wengi kama siyo wote waliotumia umewafelisha. Lakini Ubepari kuna ushahidi wa wazi kwa watu uliowaletea maendeleo. Kwa hiyo badala ya kuuangalia ujamaa(uliofeli) kwanini tusiangalie tunapokosea kwenye kupractice mfumo uliofaulu(Ubepari)?

 

[Red Giant]

Mkuu Red Giant, ni wapi huko Ubepari umefaulu? Je, tunaweza kuona na kuhoji wazi the price they paid for their success? Au ndio ya mla kunde na mtupa majani?
Unaye mtupa majani wako? Yupi anayeweza kuwa zaidi ya kaka na dada zako?

Mkuu. Ubepari umefanya mambo makubwa duniani hapa yawezekane na si lazima uzalishe scenario mbaya kama ya mla kunde na mtupa majani. Nitoe mfano wa nchi za scandinavia.

Hizi nchi ni za kibepari japo zinafuata ujamaa wa kidemokrasia(social democrats). Sehemu kubwa ya uchumi wa nchi hizo ni sekta binafsi, kitu ambacho ni sifa kuu ya ubepari. Maisha ya watu wa huko ni ya mafanikio sana, kuanzia Afya, elimu, makazi, lishe nk. Na kwa mfumo waliojiwekea(wellfare states) hakuna anayeachwa nyuma.
Ubepari kama mifumo mingine, una shida zake lakini umefaulu sana katika kutatua matatizo ya binadamu.

Pengine tulipokosea na ujamaa wetu ni kutaka kuanza kugawana kabla ya kuzalisha, wakati hizi nchi zinazalisha kwanza(kwa kutumia ubepari) ndiyo zinagawana.

 

[Red Giant]

Red Giant:

Suala hili tulijadili sehemu nyingine na naomba nianze kwa kurudia niliyoyasema huko kwingine:
-------

Integration of Africa into the global capitalist system, beginning with imperialism (ubeberu), slavery (utumwa) and colonialism (ukoloni) haikuwa na lengo la kufaidisha bara la afrika na watu wake. If anything, it was meant to impoverish, exploit and plunder her people and resources. Hali hii ndio iliyopelekea the rise of anti slavery and anti colonialism movements, mara nyingine zikihusisha umwagaji wa damu.

Juhudi za baadhi ya nchi za Afrika to embark on a socialist path baada ya uhuru (in the 1960s) zilisukumwa zaidi na 'bad experience of capitalism' in the continent. Lakini kama tulivyojadili kidogo kwenye "posts za awali", Afrika haikufanikiwa kuwa socialist, per Marxism. Badala yake, throughout independence, Africa remained as "an underdeveloped capitalist society". Ukweli huu upo hadi leo kwa ushahidi ulio wazi.

Kufuatia hali hii, hasa following the end of Cold War zimekuwepo juhudi nyingi kutoka ndani na nje ya Bara la Afrika kusaidia Capitalism iwe na faida, both to her people and resources. Hili limefanyika kwa kujaribu kuhakikisha 'Africa reforms', huku very little efforts zikielekezwa to reform 'capitalism itself'. Afrika inaendelea kaambiwa ifanye reforms huku mazingira yakiwa ni yale yale for decades, hali ya:

1. 'Uneven relationship' in Trade, Investment and Finance within the global capitalist system.

2. 'Limited policy space' for Africa to set/influence her own development agenda.

Haya yote yanaendelea while Capitalism faces only ONE Competitor: CAPITALISM itself, of which - slavery, imperialism and colonialism were all central to its foundation.

Mkuu labda sijakuelewa vizuri. Unataka kusema ujamaa ni kitu sahihi kwa waafrika hivyo tukiangalie(revisit) upya na kukimodfy kwa wakati wetu?

Au unasema ubepari umetufelisha kwa kuwa haujakaa kwa namna ya kumnufaisha muafrika, hivyo tuuangalie ujamaa kama walivyofanya wapigania uhuru?

Nimesoma hotuba pale juu ikionyesha matendo mazuri ya kijamaa ya Mwalimu. So nilifikiri mada nzima ni kuutetea.

 

[a4afrika]

Mkuu Red Giant , cha kuzingatia hapa ni hoja mbili hapo juu alizozisemea Mchambuzi.

Je, hao Scandinavian wanapokuja Afrika na Dunia ya 3 kupitia Multinationals zao je wanaenda kinyume na haya?

1. Uneven relationship' in Trade, Investment and Finance within the global capitalist system.
2. 'Limited policy space' for Africa to set/influence her own development agenda.

Siku ukiona wameacha hayo kwa Afrika ndio Utapata kujua sura halisi ya Ubepari.

Gharama za Ustawi wao ziko mabegani mwetu, na hayo ndio mafanikio yao.

Capitalism is Illusion.

 

[Mchambuzi]

Red Giant:

Hotuba husika (rejea bandiko #1) inajielekeza katika kuonyesha mafanikio yaliyopatikana chini ya Ujamaa wa Mwalimu. Mtoa hoja anatueleza kwamba njia pekee ya kuona au kuelewa mafanikio ya Mwalimu na Ujamaa Tanzania nitatu:

Kwanza anatuasa kuacha kuchambua Ujamaa wa Mwalimu kwa kutumia Marxist tools and methodologies;

Pili, anaweka bayana kwamba lengo la Mwalimu halikuwa kujenga ‘theory’ ya aina yoyote, kwa mfano ‘Nyererism’, badala yake lengo la Mwalimu ilikuwa ni kubakiliana na changamoto za taifa jipya na huru la Tanganyika kwa kuangalia ‘practicalities’ zilizokuwepo kipindi kile; na

Tatu anahimiza kwamba kusema kwamba Mwalimu Nyerere alikuwa ‘ignorant’ juu ya Marxism sio sahihi. Badala yake Mwalimu alifuata mfumo wa Ujamaa wa Kiafrika baada ya kuchambua kwa umakini mifumo mikubwa miwili ya kiuchumi wakati ule – Ubepari (Capitalism) na Ujamaa (Socialism), kisha kuchagua yale aliyoona yanafaa kutoka pande zote mbili.

Hata mimi nakubaliana na hilo, na ndio maana nikasema kwamba binafsi sikubaliana moja kwa moja na hoja ya Professir Issa Shivji kwamba – Socialism haikufeli Tanzania na kwamba kilichofeli ni Mwalimu kutoelewa maana ya Socialism. Lakini haina maana kwamba simuelewi Professor Shivji. Hoja yake ya msingi ni kwamba Ujamaa wa Mwalimu haukuwa based on any social theory, na ulikosa methodological tools za Marxism na ndio maana Ujamaa husika haukufanikiwa. Hili ninakubaliana nalo; nisichokubaliana nae ni kwamba Mwalimu alifanya hivyo kwa sababu hakuelewa maana ya Ujamaa. Alielewa vyema sio tu Ujamaa, bali pia Ubepari, na akaamua kusimama katikati.

Binafsi imani yangu ni kwamba pamoja na mapungufu yaliyojitokeza, Mwalimu Nyerere had a ‘sincere objective’ for his Nation of Tanganyika (ukipenda Tanzania). Kwangu mimi this is his ‘biggest legacy’ – a sincere objective for his country, na hilo halikujirudia tena katika awamu zilizofuatia. Lakini pamoja na the sincerity in his objectives, haina maana kwamba hakuna maeneo ambayo Mwalimu alifeli. Yapo where he failed miserably. Nguruvi3 amegusia maeneo kadhaa, na mimi nikipata nafasi nitajadili mengine mengi, lengo ikiwa ni kujenga, na sio kubomoa, hasa kwa kuzingatia kwamba again, ‘nyerere had sincere objectives for his Nation of Tanganyika.

Kama Mwalimu alivyowahi tamka miaka kadhaa baada ya kung’atuka Urais, yapo mazuri aliyoyafanya chini ya Ujamaa, lakini pia mabaya yalijitokeza. Na akatuhimiza kwamba yale mazuri bado yanaweza kuendelezwa kwa manufaa ya wananchi walio wengi, na taifa kwa ujumla; na kwamba yale ovyo yanaweza kuachwa. Binafsi nakubaliana na hili, na ndio maana hapo awali nikajadili kwamba:

As a nation, tunahitaji kurejea yale ambayo yalikuwa ‘envisioned’ chini ya Ujamaa wa Kiafrika, lakini nikasisitiza kwamba:

Haina maana kwamba lengo letu iwe ni kurudia Ujamaa wa Kiafrika as a ‘practice’ or ‘economic model’ kwa nchi yetu ya Tanzania; Badala yake lengo kuu iwe ni to re-engage our desires for a broad transformational change. Iwapo tunakubaliana kwamba mkwamo mkubwa wa taifa letu kiuchumi (lakini nchi nyingi za Afrika pia) hasa katika kipindi chote cha mageuzi ya kiuchumi yenye mwelekeo wa kibepari (hasa kuanzia miaka ya 1980s), kinachotuzuia kusogea mbele ni ukosefu wa - the necessary ‘transformation and structural change’. Mataifa tajiri yame undergo major transformational change katika kipindi chote cha ubepari. Hii ni kwa sababu wamekuwa wakitengeneza sera ambazp zinafanya ubepari kuwa ni mfumo rafiki kwa wananchi. Bila ya kufanya hivyo, nchi nyingi tajiri zingeondokana na Capitalism, na kugeuka kuwa Socialist. Lakini pamoja na Ubepari kuendelea kushamiri, kama tulivyogusia awali, kushamiri huku kwa Ubepari kumekuwa kunasindikizwa na effective ‘social policies’.

Kwa upande wetu nchi maskini kama Tanzania, katika kipindi chote cha mageuzi ya kiuchumi tumekuwa tukitekeleza sera za kiuchumi based on ‘neo-classical economics’. Tumekuwa tukihimizwa to ‘reform’ huku capitalism itself ikikataa to undergo reforms. Kwa mfano kuna tatizo gani kwa sisi kujaribu Ubepari wa Kiafrika? Kwa sababu hata mataifa yaliyopiga hatua kubwa kiuchumi nje ya Ulaya na marekani, hasa India na China, mafanikio yao hayajatokana na kufuata ‘neo classical economics’. Kwa maana nyingine, ubepari ulioleta mafanikio kwenye nchi za ulaya na marekani haufanani na ubepari unaoendelea kuleta mafanikio katika mataifa ya India, China nk.

Tatizo kubwa lililopo ni kwamba watu wengi – sio Tanzania tu bali duniani kote hawajapata au hawajapewa fursa ya kuelewa dhana ya ‘Marxism’. Lakini aidha kwa kujua au kutojua wanaendelea kupigania ‘social policies’ ili kulinda au kunyanyua hali za wananchi maskini. Tunaendelea kuona jinsi gani vyama vya siasa katika mataifa tajiri kuanzia Marekani hadi Ulaya vinavyoendelea kufanikiwa kisiasa kwa sababu ya kusimamia sera zinazoendana na Marxism kuliko Capitalism. Kwa maana nyingine, Ubepari unaotekelezwa katika mataifa yaliyovumbua ubepari (ulaya) unaendelea kufanyiwa ‘reforms’; Lakini ubepari unaoendelea kutekelezwa katika nchi maskini kama Tanzania, ubepari huo umekataa ‘kubadilika’.

Tuangazie Marxism kidogo.

Umuhimu wa Marxism upo katika maeneo mengi lakini moja ya maeneo makubwa ni pale anapotuonyesha - the five major means of production in human history namely:

• Hunting and gathering
• Slavery
• Feudalism
• Capitalism
• Socialism

Wachumi wote duniani wanakubaliana na hili. Lakini wanachopishana Marx ni kwamba – kwao, ubepari kupata mgogoro ni jambo ambalo hawakulitarajia. Walishikwa na mshangao mkubwa kuona jinsi gani Ubepari ulipelekea vita vya kwanza vya dunia, na baadae the economic depression/great depression. Tofauti na wachumi hawa, Karl Marxism yeye aliona mbali. He was a visionary. Na sehemu kubwa ya kazi yake ililenga kuonyesha - the inherent problems facing Capitalism na kuchambua the world beyond Capitalism, yani – Socialism.

Kama tulivyogusia awali, Ubepari wa leo unajaribu sana to accommodate masuala mengi aliyoona Karl Marx. Msingi wa mafanikio ya Ubepari upo katika nguzo kuu mbili:

• Profitability of firms; na,
• Economic growth ambayo inateremka kwa wananchi;

Ndio maana kila wakati inapotokea kwamba makampuni ya kibepari (see stock markets movements) yanapata msukosuko in terms of ‘profits’, au mataifa makubwa yanapo experience slowing or declining ‘economic growth’ na kuathiri fursa za ajira na vipato vya wananchi, ubepari katika mataifa haya unaingia katika wakati mgumu sana. Lakini huwa unajinasua kwa kuahidi kwamba yajayo yanafuraisha: more profits, more economic growth, hence welfare (ustawi) kwa wananchi walio wengi. Lakini tutazame upande mwingine wa shilingi – mataifa maskini kama Tanzania. tujiulize:

• Je – Faida za Makampuni ya Kibepari (Profitability of firms) na Economic Growth (kasi kubwa ya kukua kwa uchumi) – haya huwa yanaleta faida gani kwa waafrika au watanzania walio wengi?
• If nothing, je ni kwa sabbau gani?
• Na mabadiliko gani yanahitajika kutatua tatizo hili?

Uelewa wa wengi Tanzania kwa mfano ni kwamba – tatizo lipo kwenye siasa peke yake, hivyo basi mabadiliko yanayohitajika ni yale ya kukiondoa Chama Tawala Ikulu. Kiondoke, na ikiwezekana, kitokomezwe kabisa baharini. Hakuna ubishi kwamba tangia kuondoka kwa Mwalimu Madarakani (1985), hapajakuwepo na any sincere objective on part of his successors. Kwahiyo Chama tawala kinapaswa beba lawama kwa kiasi Fulani. Lakini ukweli unapatikana zaidi kwa kuangalia changamoto husika in a holistic way. Nayo ni kwamba tunahitaji uongozi wa nchi utaoangalia haya:

• Neo-classical economics (ubepari ulileta maendeleo Magharibi) unahitaji tazamwa upya katika muktadha wa Afrika/Tanzania. Let’s explore of the possibilities ya kuja ya ‘Ubepari wa Kiafrika’. Pengine itatusaidia kupambana na changamoto za kasi kubwa ya umaskini, rapid population growth, absence of an independent and indigenous middle class nk.
• Tunahitaji kurejea yale ambayo yalikuwa envisioned chini ya Ujamaa wa Kiafrika, lakini isiwe necessarily kurudia Ujamaa wa Kiafrika as a ‘practice’ or ‘economic model’ kwa nchi yetu, bali to re-engage our desires for a broad transformational change.

Ni muhimu tukumbushane kwamba hata Ulaya (Western Europe) ambapo ndio inasemekana Ubepari ulizaliwa, ubepari ule uliendeshwa na serikali ie. State-led capitalism. Haukuwa ubepari unaojiendesha wenyewe kiholela holela. Hata leo, ubepari wa mataifa tajiri haujiendeshi kiholela, badala yake upo very regulated.

Hata wakati wa Ubeberu (imperialism), kabla ya ujio wa ukoloni, ubeberu husika ulikuwa state – sponsored. Kwa nchi kama Uingereza na nyinginezo, Benki Kuu zilipewa majukumu ya kusaidia maendeleo ya uchumi na wananchi (finance development) moja kwa moja. Cha ajabu ni kwamba katika kifurishi cha mageuzi yaliyoletwa katika nchi zetu na Washington Consensus, Benki kuu zimepewa jukumu moja tu, nalo ni ‘economic stabilization’ (fiscal stringency & sound monetary policy) ambazo sio tu tunaendelea kuona hazisaidii stability yoyote, bali pia hazina uhusiano wowote na maisha ya walio wengi (micro economy).

Na hata baada ya imperialism kushika kasi na kuingia katika hatua iliyofuatia - ya kuyakamata makoloni – kwa mfano Tanganyika chini ya Ujerumani na baadae Muingereza), the ‘colonial state was essentially a developmental state; na ilikuwa na lengo moja tu: Kuendeleza mataifa/uchumi mama (Uingereza), kwa kuhakikisha kwamba colonial subjects and resources kwenye makoloni zinakuwa exploited to the maximum.

Hoja nayojaribu iweka sawa hapa ni kwamba ili nchi ifanikiwa kiuchumi, the ‘state’ has an important role to play in development. The state needs to assume a central role. Ndio maana chini ya Ujamaa wa Mwalimu, we had a ‘Developmental State’ na mengi yalifanikiwa. Changamoto ikawa on sustainability, suala ambalo tukipata muda tutalijadili kwa undani. Ukiangalia Asian Tigers kwa mfano South Korea, Malaysia nk, miaka ya 1950s nchi hizi zilikuwa maskini kama Tanzania. Mafanikio yao kiuchumi yalitokana na mkono mkubwa wa serikali katika uchumi i.e ‘Developmental state’. Na hii ndio sababu kwanini kumekuwepo mijadala mingi nchi maskini kujaribu kuangalia yale mazuri ambayo yanaweza kuazimwa kutoka mataifa haya i.e. the - ‘Asian Tigers Economic Model’.

Leo imefikia mahali ambapo hata wachumi mashuhuri waliopo magharibu (eg Joseph Stiglitz na wengine wengi) wanajadili kwamba – what’s clear is that there is a disappointment in the policies that have been pushed in the past 40 years. Sera hizi ni zile juu ya:

• Liberalization
• Privatization
• Marketization
• Stabilization

Sera hizi kwa pamoja zinajulikana kama – “Washington Consensus”.

Tanzania kwa mfano imekuwa ikitekeleza sera hizi kwa miaka 35 (kuanzia 1986 hadi sasa). Ikumbukwe kwamba kipindi hiki ni kirefu zaidi, karibia mara mbili ya kile cha Tanzania ya Ujamaa (1967-1985). Matokeo ya utekelezaji wa Washington Consensus yanaendelea kuwa:

• More poverty
• More income inequality
• More unemployment
• Mbaya zaidi – environmental damage ambayo inatishia hata mfumo wenyewe wa kibepari kwa maana ya effects on profitability and economic growth.

Hivyo basi upo uhusiano wa moja kwa moja (direct link) baina ya ‘these failures’ na utekelezaji wa sera za Washington Consensus, zinazoendelea kusukumizwa kwa nchi maskini. Ipo mifano mingi lakini tutaangalia michache:

Liberalization

Utekelezaji wa ‘Liberalization’ katika nchi maskini (Tanzania ikiwa ni miongoni mwao) umeendelea kutawaliwa na ‘double standards’. Kwa upande mmoja, nchi maskini kama Taanzania zinaendelea kushinikizwa ziondoe vikwazo vya kibiashara (Trade Barriers) kwa bidhaa zinazozalishwa na mataifa tajiri ya kibepari. Kwa upande mwingine, nchi tajiri za kibepari zimeendelea kusimamia sera zao za kuhakikisha zinakuwepo ‘trade barriers’ ili kulinda sekta zao za uchumi, mfano Kilimo, chuma (steel) nk. Ikumbukwa kwamba chini ya Ujamaa, Tanzania iliweka trade barriers katika baadhi ya bidhaa kama njia ya kukuza viwanda vya nyumbani dhidi ya ushindani wa nje. Njia hii pia ilitumika na kuleta mafanikio sio katika nchi tajiri za ulaya, lakini pia nchi zilizofanikiwa kuendelea miaka ya baadae kwa mfano Malaysia, South Korea nk.

Safety Nets

Mataifa tajiri na ya Kibepari yanaendelea kushamiri na kuwa katika amani na utulivu kwa sababu ya uwepo wa ‘safety nets’ katika mifumo ya uchumi yenye lengo la kulinda wananchi maskini ndani ya mataifa yao pale misukosuko ya kiuchumi inapojitokeza. Lakini pamoja na kutambua umuhimu huo kwa mustakabali wa taifa kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii, mataifa haya tajiri yameendelea kulazimisha nchi maskini kuondoa ‘safety nets’ kulinda maisha ya wananchi mwaskini kwa hoja za ‘austerity measures’ pamoja na ukweli kwamba katika kipindi chote cha mageuzi ya kiuchumi katika nchi maskini (rejea sera za Washington Consensus) nchi nyingi maskini zimeendelea kuwa kwenye ‘economic crises’, hasa kutokana na suala la wananchi walio wengi kuendelea kukosa ajira na vipato vya maana.

Lakini kwa upande wa nchi Tajiri tunaendelea kuona sio tu ‘double standards’ ndani ya mfumo wa ubepari, bali pia ‘hypocrisy’. Kwa mfano ni majuzi tu tumeona jinsi gani nchi marekani wanasiasa wa vyama vyote vikuu nchini humo – Democrats & Republicans wakikubaliana juu ya haja ‘stimulus packages’ zenye lengo la kulinda wananchi wanaoathirika na ukosefu wa jira kutokana na misuko suko ya uchumi. Mambo ya aina hii kwa nchi matajiri RUKSA – ni muhimu kwa uchumi; lakini kwa nchi Maskini MARUFUKU – inaharibu uchumi.

Privatization

Wachumi wengi duniani hata wale wanaotoka nchi za Magharibi kulipozaliwa ubepari wanakubaliana kwamba hakuna ‘right formula to privatization’ ya mashirika ya umma. Ndio maana pamoja nan chi zao kutekeleza sera za ‘privatization’ kuanzia miaka ya mwisho wa 1970s - kwa mfano Marekani chini ya Rais Reagan, na Uingereza chini ya Waziri Mkuu Margareth Thatcher, mataifa hayo yameendelea kukumbwa na changamoto kubwa. Kwa mfano Privatization ikifanyika vibaya matokeo yake ni – ongezeko la bei za huduma/bidhaa kwa wananchi wasio na uwezo, kama sio kwa wananchi husika kukosa kabisa huduma. Mifano ipo mingi ikiwa ni pamoja na experience ya Uingereza na Railways & Electricity; lakini pia Marekani na suala la electricity; Yote haya ni ushahidi kwamba bila serikali kuingilia uchumi kulinda maslahi ya walio wengi, inaweza toa mwanya kwa massive manipulation by private firms na kupelekea distortion kiuchumi. Hali hii inalazimisha nyingi nyingi kuendelea sio tu explore haja ya kuongeza regulations, lakini pia re-nationalization of the former State Owned Enterprises.

Tusemezane.

 

[Red Giant]

Red Giant:

Hotuba husika (rejea bandiko #1) inajielekeza katika kuonyesha mafanikio yaliyopatikana chini ya Ujamaa wa Mwalimu. Mtoa hoja anatueleza kwamba njia pekee ya kuona au kuelewa mafanikio ya Mwalimu na Ujamaa Tanzania nitatu:

Kwanza anatuasa kuacha kuchambua Ujamaa wa Mwalimu kwa kutumia Marxist tools and methodologies;

Pili, anaweka bayana kwamba lengo la Mwalimu halikuwa kujenga ‘theory’ ya aina yoyote, kwa mfano ‘Nyererism’, badala yake lengo la Mwalimu ilikuwa ni kubakiliana na changamoto za taifa jipya na huru la Tanganyika kwa kuangalia ‘practicalities’ zilizokuwepo kipindi kile; na

Tatu anahimiza kwamba kusema kwamba Mwalimu Nyerere alikuwa ‘ignorant’ juu ya Marxism sio sahihi. Badala yake Mwalimu alifuata mfumo wa Ujamaa wa Kiafrika baada ya kuchambua kwa umakini mifumo mikubwa miwili ya kiuchumi wakati ule – Ubepari (Capitalism) na Ujamaa (Socialism), kisha kuchagua yale aliyoona yanafaa kutoka pande zote mbili.

Hata mimi nakubaliana na hilo, na ndio maana nikasema kwamba binafsi sikubaliana moja kwa moja na hoja ya Professir Issa Shivji kwamba – Socialism haikufeli Tanzania na kwamba kilichofeli ni Mwalimu kutoelewa maana ya Socialism. Lakini haina maana kwamba simuelewi Professor Shivji. Hoja yake ya msingi ni kwamba Ujamaa wa Mwalimu haukuwa based on any social theory, na ulikosa methodological tools za Marxism na ndio maana Ujamaa husika haukufanikiwa. Hili ninakubaliana nalo; nisichokubaliana nae ni kwamba Mwalimu alifanya hivyo kwa sababu hakuelewa maana ya Ujamaa. Alielewa vyema sio tu Ujamaa, bali pia Ubepari, na akaamua kusimama katikati.

Binafsi imani yangu ni kwamba pamoja na mapungufu yaliyojitokeza, Mwalimu Nyerere had a ‘sincere objective’ for his Nation of Tanganyika (ukipenda Tanzania). Kwangu mimi this is his ‘biggest legacy’ – a sincere objective for his country, na hilo halikujirudia tena katika awamu zilizofuatia. Lakini pamoja na the sincerity in his objectives, haina maana kwamba hakuna maeneo ambayo Mwalimu alifeli. Yapo where he failed miserably. Nguruvi3 amegusia maeneo kadhaa, na mimi nikipata nafasi nitajadili mengine mengi, lengo ikiwa ni kujenga, na sio kubomoa, hasa kwa kuzingatia kwamba again, ‘nyerere had sincere objectives for his Nation of Tanganyika.

Kama Mwalimu alivyowahi tamka miaka kadhaa baada ya kung’atuka Urais, yapo mazuri aliyoyafanya chini ya Ujamaa, lakini pia mabaya yalijitokeza. Na akatuhimiza kwamba yale mazuri bado yanaweza kuendelezwa kwa manufaa ya wananchi walio wengi, na taifa kwa ujumla; na kwamba yale ovyo yanaweza kuachwa. Binafsi nakubaliana na hili, na ndio maana hapo awali nikajadili kwamba:

As a nation, tunahitaji kurejea yale ambayo yalikuwa ‘envisioned’ chini ya Ujamaa wa Kiafrika, lakini nikasisitiza kwamba:

Haina maana kwamba lengo letu iwe ni kurudia Ujamaa wa Kiafrika as a ‘practice’ or ‘economic model’ kwa nchi yetu ya Tanzania; Badala yake lengo kuu iwe ni to re-engage our desires for a broad transformational change. Iwapo tunakubaliana kwamba mkwamo mkubwa wa taifa letu kiuchumi (lakini nchi nyingi za Afrika pia) hasa katika kipindi chote cha mageuzi ya kiuchumi yenye mwelekeo wa kibepari (hasa kuanzia miaka ya 1980s), kinachotuzuia kusogea mbele ni ukosefu wa - the necessary ‘transformation and structural change’. Mataifa tajiri yame undergo major transformational change katika kipindi chote cha ubepari. Hii ni kwa sababu wamekuwa wakitengeneza sera ambazp zinafanya ubepari kuwa ni mfumo rafiki kwa wananchi. Bila ya kufanya hivyo, nchi nyingi tajiri zingeondokana na Capitalism, na kugeuka kuwa Socialist. Lakini pamoja na Ubepari kuendelea kushamiri, kama tulivyogusia awali, kushamiri huku kwa Ubepari kumekuwa kunasindikizwa na effective ‘social policies’.

Kwa upande wetu nchi maskini kama Tanzania, katika kipindi chote cha mageuzi ya kiuchumi tumekuwa tukitekeleza sera za kiuchumi based on ‘neo-classical economics’. Tumekuwa tukihimizwa to ‘reform’ huku capitalism itself ikikataa to undergo reforms. Kwa mfano kuna tatizo gani kwa sisi kujaribu Ubepari wa Kiafrika? Kwa sababu hata mataifa yaliyopiga hatua kubwa kiuchumi nje ya Ulaya na marekani, hasa India na China, mafanikio yao hayajatokana na kufuata ‘neo classical economics’. Kwa maana nyingine, ubepari ulioleta mafanikio kwenye nchi za ulaya na marekani haufanani na ubepari unaoendelea kuleta mafanikio katika mataifa ya India, China nk.

Tatizo kubwa lililopo ni kwamba watu wengi – sio Tanzania tu bali duniani kote hawajapata au hawajapewa fursa ya kuelewa dhana ya ‘Marxism’. Lakini aidha kwa kujua au kutojua wanaendelea kupigania ‘social policies’ ili kulinda au kunyanyua hali za wananchi maskini. Tunaendelea kuona jinsi gani vyama vya siasa katika mataifa tajiri kuanzia Marekani hadi Ulaya vinavyoendelea kufanikiwa kisiasa kwa sababu ya kusimamia sera zinazoendana na Marxism kuliko Capitalism. Kwa maana nyingine, Ubepari unaotekelezwa katika mataifa yaliyovumbua ubepari (ulaya) unaendelea kufanyiwa ‘reforms’; Lakini ubepari unaoendelea kutekelezwa katika nchi maskini kama Tanzania, ubepari huo umekataa ‘kubadilika’.

Tuangazie Marxism kidogo.

Umuhimu wa Marxism upo katika maeneo mengi lakini moja ya maeneo makubwa ni pale anapotuonyesha - the five major means of production in human history namely:

• Hunting and gathering
• Slavery
• Feudalism
• Capitalism
• Socialism

Wachumi wote duniani wanakubaliana na hili. Lakini wanachopishana Marx ni kwamba – kwao, ubepari kupata mgogoro ni jambo ambalo hawakulitarajia. Walishikwa na mshangao mkubwa kuona jinsi gani Ubepari ulipelekea vita vya kwanza vya dunia, na baadae the economic depression/great depression. Tofauti na wachumi hawa, Karl Marxism yeye aliona mbali. He was a visionary. Na sehemu kubwa ya kazi yake ililenga kuonyesha - the inherent problems facing Capitalism na kuchambua the world beyond Capitalism, yani – Socialism.

Kama tulivyogusia awali, Ubepari wa leo unajaribu sana to accommodate masuala mengi aliyoona Karl Marx. Msingi wa mafanikio ya Ubepari upo katika nguzo kuu mbili:

• Profitability of firms; na,
• Economic growth ambayo inateremka kwa wananchi;

Ndio maana kila wakati inapotokea kwamba makampuni ya kibepari (see stock markets movements) yanapata msukosuko in terms of ‘profits’, au mataifa makubwa yanapo experience slowing or declining ‘economic growth’ na kuathiri fursa za ajira na vipato vya wananchi, ubepari katika mataifa haya unaingia katika wakati mgumu sana. Lakini huwa unajinasua kwa kuahidi kwamba yajayo yanafuraisha: more profits, more economic growth, hence welfare (ustawi) kwa wananchi walio wengi. Lakini tutazame upande mwingine wa shilingi – mataifa maskini kama Tanzania. tujiulize:

• Je – Faida za Makampuni ya Kibepari (Profitability of firms) na Economic Growth (kasi kubwa ya kukua kwa uchumi) – haya huwa yanaleta faida gani kwa waafrika au watanzania walio wengi?
• If nothing, je ni kwa sabbau gani?
• Na mabadiliko gani yanahitajika kutatua tatizo hili?

Uelewa wa wengi Tanzania kwa mfano ni kwamba – tatizo lipo kwenye siasa peke yake, hivyo basi mabadiliko yanayohitajika ni yale ya kukiondoa Chama Tawala Ikulu. Kiondoke, na ikiwezekana, kitokomezwe kabisa baharini. Hakuna ubishi kwamba tangia kuondoka kwa Mwalimu Madarakani (1985), hapajakuwepo na any sincere objective on part of his successors. Kwahiyo Chama tawala kinapaswa beba lawama kwa kiasi Fulani. Lakini ukweli unapatikana zaidi kwa kuangalia changamoto husika in a holistic way. Nayo ni kwamba tunahitaji uongozi wa nchi utaoangalia haya:

• Neo-classical economics (ubepari ulileta maendeleo Magharibi) unahitaji tazamwa upya katika muktadha wa Afrika/Tanzania. Let’s explore of the possibilities ya kuja ya ‘Ubepari wa Kiafrika’. Pengine itatusaidia kupambana na changamoto za kasi kubwa ya umaskini, rapid population growth, absence of an independent and indigenous middle class nk.
• Tunahitaji kurejea yale ambayo yalikuwa envisioned chini ya Ujamaa wa Kiafrika, lakini isiwe necessarily kurudia Ujamaa wa Kiafrika as a ‘practice’ or ‘economic model’ kwa nchi yetu, bali to re-engage our desires for a broad transformational change.

Ni muhimu tukumbushane kwamba hata Ulaya (Western Europe) ambapo ndio inasemekana Ubepari ulizaliwa, ubepari ule uliendeshwa na serikali ie. State-led capitalism. Haukuwa ubepari unaojiendesha wenyewe kiholela holela. Hata leo, ubepari wa mataifa tajiri haujiendeshi kiholela, badala yake upo very regulated.

Hata wakati wa Ubeberu (imperialism), kabla ya ujio wa ukoloni, ubeberu husika ulikuwa state – sponsored. Kwa nchi kama Uingereza na nyinginezo, Benki Kuu zilipewa majukumu ya kusaidia maendeleo ya uchumi na wananchi (finance development) moja kwa moja. Cha ajabu ni kwamba katika kifurishi cha mageuzi yaliyoletwa katika nchi zetu na Washington Consensus, Benki kuu zimepewa jukumu moja tu, nalo ni ‘economic stabilization’ (fiscal stringency & sound monetary policy) ambazo sio tu tunaendelea kuona hazisaidii stability yoyote, bali pia hazina uhusiano wowote na maisha ya walio wengi (micro economy).

Na hata baada ya imperialism kushika kasi na kuingia katika hatua iliyofuatia - ya kuyakamata makoloni – kwa mfano Tanganyika chini ya Ujerumani na baadae Muingereza), the ‘colonial state was essentially a developmental state; na ilikuwa na lengo moja tu: Kuendeleza mataifa/uchumi mama (Uingereza), kwa kuhakikisha kwamba colonial subjects and resources kwenye makoloni zinakuwa exploited to the maximum.

Hoja nayojaribu iweka sawa hapa ni kwamba ili nchi ifanikiwa kiuchumi, the ‘state’ has an important role to play in development. The state needs to assume a central role. Ndio maana chini ya Ujamaa wa Mwalimu, we had a ‘Developmental State’ na mengi yalifanikiwa. Changamoto ikawa on sustainability, suala ambalo tukipata muda tutalijadili kwa undani. Ukiangalia Asian Tigers kwa mfano South Korea, Malaysia nk, miaka ya 1950s nchi hizi zilikuwa maskini kama Tanzania. Mafanikio yao kiuchumi yalitokana na mkono mkubwa wa serikali katika uchumi i.e ‘Developmental state’. Na hii ndio sababu kwanini kumekuwepo mijadala mingi nchi maskini kujaribu kuangalia yale mazuri ambayo yanaweza kuazimwa kutoka mataifa haya i.e. the - ‘Asian Tigers Economic Model’.

Leo imefikia mahali ambapo hata wachumi mashuhuri waliopo magharibu (eg Joseph Stiglitz na wengine wengi) wanajadili kwamba – what’s clear is that there is a disappointment in the policies that have been pushed in the past 40 years. Sera hizi ni zile juu ya:

• Liberalization
• Privatization
• Marketization
• Stabilization

Sera hizi kwa pamoja zinajulikana kama – “Washington Consensus”.

Tanzania kwa mfano imekuwa ikitekeleza sera hizi kwa miaka 35 (kuanzia 1986 hadi sasa). Ikumbukwe kwamba kipindi hiki ni kirefu zaidi, karibia mara mbili ya kile cha Tanzania ya Ujamaa (1967-1985). Matokeo ya utekelezaji wa Washington Consensus yanaendelea kuwa:

• More poverty
• More income inequality
• More unemployment
• Mbaya zaidi – environmental damage ambayo inatishia hata mfumo wenyewe wa kibepari kwa maana ya effects on profitability and economic growth.

Hivyo basi upo uhusiano wa moja kwa moja (direct link) baina ya ‘these failures’ na utekelezaji wa sera za Washington Consensus, zinazoendelea kusukumizwa kwa nchi maskini. Ipo mifano mingi lakini tutaangalia michache:

Liberalization

Utekelezaji wa ‘Liberalization’ katika nchi maskini (Tanzania ikiwa ni miongoni mwao) umeendelea kutawaliwa na ‘double standards’. Kwa upande mmoja, nchi maskini kama Taanzania zinaendelea kushinikizwa ziondoe vikwazo vya kibiashara (Trade Barriers) kwa bidhaa zinazozalishwa na mataifa tajiri ya kibepari. Kwa upande mwingine, nchi tajiri za kibepari zimeendelea kusimamia sera zao za kuhakikisha zinakuwepo ‘trade barriers’ ili kulinda sekta zao za uchumi, mfano Kilimo, chuma (steel) nk. Ikumbukwa kwamba chini ya Ujamaa, Tanzania iliweka trade barriers katika baadhi ya bidhaa kama njia ya kukuza viwanda vya nyumbani dhidi ya ushindani wa nje. Njia hii pia ilitumika na kuleta mafanikio sio katika nchi tajiri za ulaya, lakini pia nchi zilizofanikiwa kuendelea miaka ya baadae kwa mfano Malaysia, South Korea nk.

Safety Nets

Mataifa tajiri na ya Kibepari yanaendelea kushamiri na kuwa katika amani na utulivu kwa sababu ya uwepo wa ‘safety nets’ katika mifumo ya uchumi yenye lengo la kulinda wananchi maskini ndani ya mataifa yao pale misukosuko ya kiuchumi inapojitokeza. Lakini pamoja na kutambua umuhimu huo kwa mustakabali wa taifa kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii, mataifa haya tajiri yameendelea kulazimisha nchi maskini kuondoa ‘safety nets’ kulinda maisha ya wananchi mwaskini kwa hoja za ‘austerity measures’ pamoja na ukweli kwamba katika kipindi chote cha mageuzi ya kiuchumi katika nchi maskini (rejea sera za Washington Consensus) nchi nyingi maskini zimeendelea kuwa kwenye ‘economic crises’, hasa kutokana na suala la wananchi walio wengi kuendelea kukosa ajira na vipato vya maana.

Lakini kwa upande wa nchi Tajiri tunaendelea kuona sio tu ‘double standards’ ndani ya mfumo wa ubepari, bali pia ‘hypocrisy’. Kwa mfano ni majuzi tu tumeona jinsi gani nchi marekani wanasiasa wa vyama vyote vikuu nchini humo – Democrats & Republicans wakikubaliana juu ya haja ‘stimulus packages’ zenye lengo la kulinda wananchi wanaoathirika na ukosefu wa jira kutokana na misuko suko ya uchumi. Mambo ya aina hii kwa nchi matajiri RUKSA – ni muhimu kwa uchumi; lakini kwa nchi Maskini MARUFUKU – inaharibu uchumi.

Privatization

Wachumi wengi duniani hata wale wanaotoka nchi za Magharibi kulipozaliwa ubepari wanakubaliana kwamba hakuna ‘right formula to privatization’ ya mashirika ya umma. Ndio maana pamoja nan chi zao kutekeleza sera za ‘privatization’ kuanzia miaka ya mwisho wa 1970s - kwa mfano Marekani chini ya Rais Reagan, na Uingereza chini ya Waziri Mkuu Margareth Thatcher, mataifa hayo yameendelea kukumbwa na changamoto kubwa. Kwa mfano Privatization ikifanyika vibaya matokeo yake ni – ongezeko la bei za huduma/bidhaa kwa wananchi wasio na uwezo, kama sio kwa wananchi husika kukosa kabisa huduma. Mifano ipo mingi ikiwa ni pamoja na experience ya Uingereza na Railways & Electricity; lakini pia Marekani na suala la electricity; Yote haya ni ushahidi kwamba bila serikali kuingilia uchumi kulinda maslahi ya walio wengi, inaweza toa mwanya kwa massive manipulation by private firms na kupelekea distortion kiuchumi. Hali hii inalazimisha nyingi nyingi kuendelea sio tu explore haja ya kuongeza regulations, lakini pia re-nationalization of the former State Owned Enterprises.

Tusemezane.

Kwanza niseme nakubaliana na wewe kwa mambo mengi kwenye hoja yako.

1. Nakubali kuwa, hata kwenye ubepari serikali zinatakiwa kusimamia na kusaidia shughuli za kiuchumi. South Korea ilisaidia makampuni binafsi makubwa(Chaebols) hadi leo ni ya kinataifa. Nyerere amewahi bishana na rais wa Marekani akimwambia, mbona wao wanawapa wakulima wao ruzuku halafu wanatukataza sisi kufanya hivyo?

2. Nakubali kuwa, ubepari tunaofanya bado haujatukomboa. Tunahitaji kuuchunguza na kufanya kama wale uliowaendeleza, au kwa njia nzuri zaidi.

3. Nakubali kuwa sera tunazoletewa na vyombo kama WB hazijafanikiwa kututoa kwenye umaskini. Na pengine tunahitaji kuunda sera zetu.
4. Nakubali kuwa, kupitia mfumo wa welfare serikali nyingi duniani zinaelekea kwenye sera za ujamaa lakini haimaanishi zinakuwa za kijamaa.


Ninapokataa mimi ni kuwa, kwenye hiyo hotuba hapo juu, yaliyoonyeshwa ni matendo mazuri ya kijamaa yaliyofanywa na Nyerere na si kuwa inaonyesha mafanikio ya ujamaa. Matendo ya kijamaa hata ukiwa bepari unaweza kufanya. Hata Matendo ya kijamaa huwa ni mazuri na ya kufurahisha lakini ni ngumu ujamaa kuleta mafanikio(maendeleo).

Bahati nzuri nimepitiapitia maandiko ya Marx japo siwezi kuwa nina uelewa kama wa Shivji, lakini nasema kuwa Nyerere alielewa mafundisho ya Marx na aliyatenda(ujamaa wa kiafrika ni zao la Marx). Kwanini haukufanikiwa, ni kwasababu ujamaa wote unatatizo, ni mfumo usioweza kumletea binadamu maendeleo ya kiuchumi.

Mfano hapa hata Nyerere aliona wenye mitaji ni wanyonyaji na miungu



Labda ambacho hakufuata Nyerere ni kuona ubaya wa dini na Mungu.

 

[Mchambuzi]

Kwanza niseme nakubaliana na wewe kwa mambo mengi kwenye hoja yako.

1. Nakubali kuwa, hata kwenye ubepari serikali zinatakiwa kusimamia na kusaidia shughuli za kiuchumi. South Korea ilisaidia makampuni binafsi makubwa(Chaebols) hadi leo ni ya kinataifa. Nyerere amewahi bishana na rais wa Marekani akimwambia, mbona wao wanawapa wakulima wao ruzuku halafu wanatukataza sisi kufanya hivyo?

2. Nakubali kuwa, ubepari tunaofanya bado haujatukomboa. Tunahitaji kuuchunguza na kufanya kama wale uliowaendeleza, au kwa njia nzuri zaidi.

3. Nakubali kuwa sera tunazoletewa na vyombo kama WB hazijafanikiwa kututoa kwenye umaskini. Na pengine tunahitaji kuunda sera zetu.
4. Nakubali kuwa, kupitia mfumo wa welfare serikali nyingi duniani zinaelekea kwenye sera za ujamaa lakini haimaanishi zinakuwa za kijamaa.


Ninapokataa mimi ni kuwa, kwenye hiyo hotuba hapo juu, yaliyoonyeshwa ni matendo mazuri ya kijamaa yaliyofanywa na Nyerere na si kuwa inaonyesha mafanikio ya ujamaa. Matendo ya kijamaa hata ukiwa bepari unaweza kufanya. Hata Matendo ya kijamaa huwa ni mazuri na ya kufurahisha lakini ni ngumu ujamaa kuleta mafanikio(maendeleo).

Bahati nzuri nimepitiapitia maandiko ya Marx japo siwezi kuwa nina uelewa kama wa Shivji, lakini nasema kuwa Nyerere alielewa mafundisho ya Marx na aliyatenda(ujamaa wa kiafrika ni zao la Marx). Kwanini haukufanikiwa, ni kwasababu ujamaa wote unatatizo, ni mfumo usioweza kumletea binadamu maendeleo ya kiuchumi.

Mfano hapa hata Nyerere aliona wenye mitaji ni wanyonyaji na miungu

View attachment 1764817

Labda ambacho hakufuata Nyerere ni kuona ubaya wa dini na Mungu.View attachment 1764821View attachment 1764823

Nashindwa kumuelewa Profesa Issa Shivji anaposema - tatizo sio kwamba Socialism failed in Tanzania but that – Mwalimu failed to understand the meaning of Socialism. Binafsi naendelea kuamini kwamba Mwalimu alielewa vyema Marxism-Leninism kabla ya utekelezaji wake wa Ujamaa wa Kiafrika. Kwa mfano, Mwalimu anasema maneno yafuatayo – Freedom and Socialism (1968), p. 15:

“We can learn from their methods of analysis, and from their ideas. But the same is true of many other thinkers of the past. It is no part of the job of a socialist in 1968 to worry about whether or not his actions or proposals are in accordance with what Marx or Lenin wrote. Marx did contribute a great deal to socialist thought. But socialism did not begin with him, nor can it end in constant reinterpretation of his writings”.

Nadhani uzoefu wetu wa miaka 18 ya Ujamaa (mwaka 1967 – 1985) na uzoefu wa mageuzi ya Uchumi wa Kiliberali kwa miaka 36 (mwaka 1986 – hadi sasa) unatuweka mahala pazuri zaidi kuchambua na kupata mwanga zaidi juu ya - ni aina gani ya Ubepari au Ujamaa una majibu kwa matatizo yetu tangia uhuru.

 

[Mzuvendi]

Nashindwa kumuelewa Profesa Issa Shivji anaposema - tatizo sio kwamba Socialism failed in Tanzania but that – Mwalimu failed to understand the meaning of Socialism. Binafsi naendelea kuamini kwamba Mwalimu alielewa vyema Marxism-Leninism kabla ya utekelezaji wake wa Ujamaa wa Kiafrika. Kwa mfano, Mwalimu anasema maneno yafuatayo – Freedom and Socialism (1968), p. 15:

“We can learn from their methods of analysis, and from their ideas. But the same is true of many other thinkers of the past. It is no part of the job of a socialist in 1968 to worry about whether or not his actions or proposals are in accordance with what Marx or Lenin wrote. Marx did contribute a great deal to socialist thought. But socialism did not begin with him, nor can it end in constant reinterpretation of his writings”.

Nadhani uzoefu wetu wa miaka 18 ya Ujamaa (mwaka 1967 – 1985) na uzoefu wa mageuzi ya Uchumi wa Kiliberali kwa miaka 36 (mwaka 1986 – hadi sasa) unatuweka mahala pazuri zaidi kuchambua na kupata mwanga zaidi juu ya - ni aina gani ya Ubepari au Ujamaa una majibu kwa matatizo yetu tangia uhuru.

Professor got it right. Nyerere didn’t understand Socialism. And if you think he did, the option he came up with was seriously flawed. Here are the reasons why I think so.

First, his backgrounds betray him. For, he spent his formative years in schools as a student of various disciplines and didn’t have any practical or research experience which could have helped him to come up with a new groundbreaking strain of political or social philosophy. I am not a fan of Karl Marx, but when I try to read his work, I find years of dedication in researches, collaborations, and observations. You can’t beat that. You can’t find that in any Nyerere’s intellectual work. To me, Nyerere pulled everything from a thin air.

Second, you can’t be a philosopher and emperor at the same time. For, one work will override the other. I have heard that Nyerere was brilliant student, and I think if he had stayed in academia, probably he would have been a fabulous philosopher. However, once he decided to venture into politics and become a ruler, his philosophical bent went down the drain. For, as a ruler, he was surrounded by sycophants who were more likely to say yes than no. And on top of that, he wasn’t fond of criticism. Therefore, he couldn’t detect his blind spots.

Third, African cultures or ways of life aren’t monolithic. Even in Tanzania, life isn’t experienced in the same way across the entire nation. On top of that, Africans or for that matter Tanzanians don’t live in isolation. They copy and progress like any other people on this planet. Therefore, there was no basis for African socialism. If there were any sort of African socialism, show me the place and era it was practiced.

To me I think we give Nyerere credits for at least three reasons. First, he was one of our own. Second, he talked the talk and walked the walk. He preached Ujamaa and he tried to be one. Third, he cared about his people.

 

[Mzuvendi]

Kwanza niseme nakubaliana na wewe kwa mambo mengi kwenye hoja yako.

1. Nakubali kuwa, hata kwenye ubepari serikali zinatakiwa kusimamia na kusaidia shughuli za kiuchumi. South Korea ilisaidia makampuni binafsi makubwa(Chaebols) hadi leo ni ya kinataifa. Nyerere amewahi bishana na rais wa Marekani akimwambia, mbona wao wanawapa wakulima wao ruzuku halafu wanatukataza sisi kufanya hivyo?

2. Nakubali kuwa, ubepari tunaofanya bado haujatukomboa. Tunahitaji kuuchunguza na kufanya kama wale uliowaendeleza, au kwa njia nzuri zaidi.

3. Nakubali kuwa sera tunazoletewa na vyombo kama WB hazijafanikiwa kututoa kwenye umaskini. Na pengine tunahitaji kuunda sera zetu.
4. Nakubali kuwa, kupitia mfumo wa welfare serikali nyingi duniani zinaelekea kwenye sera za ujamaa lakini haimaanishi zinakuwa za kijamaa.


Ninapokataa mimi ni kuwa, kwenye hiyo hotuba hapo juu, yaliyoonyeshwa ni matendo mazuri ya kijamaa yaliyofanywa na Nyerere na si kuwa inaonyesha mafanikio ya ujamaa. Matendo ya kijamaa hata ukiwa bepari unaweza kufanya. Hata Matendo ya kijamaa huwa ni mazuri na ya kufurahisha lakini ni ngumu ujamaa kuleta mafanikio(maendeleo).

Bahati nzuri nimepitiapitia maandiko ya Marx japo siwezi kuwa nina uelewa kama wa Shivji, lakini nasema kuwa Nyerere alielewa mafundisho ya Marx na aliyatenda(ujamaa wa kiafrika ni zao la Marx). Kwanini haukufanikiwa, ni kwasababu ujamaa wote unatatizo, ni mfumo usioweza kumletea binadamu maendeleo ya kiuchumi.

Mfano hapa hata Nyerere aliona wenye mitaji ni wanyonyaji na miungu

View attachment 1764817

Labda ambacho hakufuata Nyerere ni kuona ubaya wa dini na Mungu.View attachment 1764821View attachment 1764823

Here's the thing. Capitalism has evolved. If capitalism had continued on the same path as it was in 1844, revolutions would have happened frequently. Therefore, when we look at Karl's work, we have to take into consideration the time and efforts that have been taken to reforms Western countries. Take for example, the introduction of pension for retired civil servants. It wasn't the concept of socialist countries. Take another example. The United States was one of the first countries to introduce free education up to high school level in order to address the quality of labor after her industrial revolution.

The point is people who have lived in well developed capitalist countries have always experience better quality of life than those in socialist countries. US, Canada, UK, German, Australia etc ect have always been ahead of other countries and the opportunities which have been available in these countries have lessen the need for structural change in the distribution of wealth.

Now when it comes to Ujamaa, the entire concept is flawed in the sense that it curtails the participation private entities in commerce and trade for fear of exploitations. The worse thing is it does so when the the means of productions are at very primitive stages.

 

[Pascal Mayalla]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

8-9 August 2002

Peace, Unity and People – Centred Development

The Legacy of Mwalimu Julius K Nyerere

OFFICIAL CLOSING ADDRESS

By

Ambassador Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu

Tanzania High Commissioner to South Africa (1999 – 2008)​

Mkuu Mchambuzi, kumbe upo!.
nimefarijika sana!.
P

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

Here's the thing. Capitalism has evolved. If capitalism had continued on the same path as it was in 1844, revolutions would have happened frequently. Therefore, when we look at Karl's work, we have to take into consideration the time and efforts that have been taken to reforms Western countries. Take for example, the introduction of pension for retired civil servants. It wasn't the concept of socialist countries. Take another example. The United States was one of the first countries to introduce free education up to high school level in order to address the quality of labor after her industrial revolution.

The point is people who have lived in well developed capitalist countries have always experience better quality of life than those in socialist countries. US, Canada, UK, German, Australia etc ect have always been ahead of other countries and the opportunities which have been available in these countries have lessen the need for structural change in the distribution of wealth.

Now when it comes to Ujamaa, the entire concept is flawed in the sense that it curtails the participation private entities in commerce and trade for fear of exploitations. The worse thing is it does so when the the means of productions are at very primitive stages.

Important facts most people fail to appreciate:

• Not every form of socialism is Marxism.

• Marxism is a social critique, nothing else. And just like Critical Legal Studies today, It was better off to have been left dead in books.

• Capitalism has not evolved. From the dawn of Mercantilism to Globalization it has always been about maximization of profit, exploitation of labour and the export of capital. The introduction of socialist elements like the welfare state, and social security mitigates the theatrical baboonery of capitalism we witnessed during phases of mercantilism and imperialism.

 

[Pascal Mayalla]

Mkuu Mchambuzi, kumbe upo!.
nimefarijika sana!.
P

Mkuu Mchambuzi , wewe na Mkuu Nguruvi3 nawatafuta

Katika suala la thread ingawaje sikuona tatizo kubwa na iliyopo,kwa kuheshimu mitazamo yenu napendekeza tuwe na thread itakayozungumzia mambo neutral kwa uhalisia wake. Tuiite 'Duru za siasa'.

ahsanteni

Mkuu Nguruvi3, where is "Duru za Siasa"?. Nimekamisha mchakato wa kuanzisha kipindi kipya cha TV cha political discussion kiitwacho " Kwa Maslahi ya Taifa", demo za kipindi hicho zitaanza kuruka TV mbalimbali this week, mfano leo Saa 3:00 usiku on TBC, kesho Saa 3:00 usiku on ITV, Jumapili Saa 3:30 usiku on Channel Ten.

I would like to look for you in one of these programs ili tuyatumie madini yako kulisaidia taifa, na ikitokea ukakubali, kule kwenye TV program, sitakutaja kuwa wewe ni fulani kule JF.

Pia I know kuna watu wanapenda kulisaidia taifa under animosity bila kujulikana kama Bhakhresa anavyosaidia watu, hutakaa usikie, hivyo ukiamua kuendelea kusaidia taifa kupitia jf only, pia nitauheshimu msimamo wako.

Thanks in advance
Paskali