That author’s initial article was a relatively glowing account of neo-liberal capitalism, but in the letter Uugwanga sounds like a social-democrat, yet claims support for socialism. Uugwanga’s emphasis on the best features of both systems really translates into a social-democratic system.
The talk about the full integration of the Third World into the global economic system and one global currency are merely pie in the sky if social equality is our goal. However, the main point is that the logic of capitalism is irreconcilable with that of socialism. The two systems are mismatched. The social-democrats believe in parliamentarism and reformism, but for us socialism would only come about through a revolutionary process since the working class is dominated in every field.
As far as Uugwanga’s emphasis on practical tools and mechanisms are concerned, we can only ask him to google the award-winning essay ‘Socialism in the 21st century world’ by Salvador Aguilar which expounds the development of a socialist theory of democracy. In our view, this includes democratic mechanisms such as the independence of the mass organisations and the right to factions in political organisations. In the final analysis, socialism is about the highest level of democracy, i.e. the formation of a world federation of councils.
When it is argued that socialism is an ideal it is purportedly meant to be a criticism; that somehow socialism would never be realised and would remain some utopia. However, even if socialism was only an ideal, it would still be immensely worthwhile to struggle for that towering ideal of social equality.
I would rather fight for the social equality of humankind than to live in quiet collaboration with and subservience to the horrors of capitalism.
A politically-independent Namibia or a post-apartheid South Africa was only an ideal for decades. Any political struggle is first and foremost a struggle of ideas.
The ideal of a socialist Namibia will eventually become a reality. And then all the propaganda and lies about capitalism will look as preposterous as the ideas of colonialism and apartheid of yesteryear. Once again, Uugwanga raises the issue of human rights. That author argues that neo-liberalism led to democratic constitutions that promote human rights. Yes, on paper, we all live in paradise in a liberal democracy. The truth is that the private property clause in the liberal democratic constitution of Namibia negates any substantive democracy, unless what is meant is a minimalist democracy of lawyers which only the rich can afford.
In fact, this legalistic approach to human rights means nothing to the exploited who cannot afford the expensive services. After all, our people cannot eat human rights. The constitution of the property elite provides no consolation to the poor.