Connect with us


Is capitalism the cause?



Foundations of capitalism and why it is corruption.


“In a nutshell capitalism is a legalized form of theft or corruption by the elite”.

It’s a privilege based system in which a few, select individuals get the license to own public resources: human labor, minerals, land, wildlife, livestock, harvests, radio frequencies, time, freedom, choice, thoughts, dreams, ideas, water, seeds, trees, human beings, birds, pathogens, food and any other public goods that can be harnessed at the expense of the majority for the profit of those few individuals.

Many writers have advanced the argument that economics practice by its very definition is a science concerned with the control and distribution of scarce resources, and it was this science that was the major instrument used to institute this system of inequality known as capitalism, in order to create conditions where the majority have no other means (resources/factors of production) to survive but to sell their labor to owners of capital and industry at the cheapest possible price.

Such a reality gives credence to the theory that a few people run the world and we are all but slaves to make them profit as their cheap labor and captive market for their goods.

In essence capitalism is the expressed manifestation of legalized oppression, exploitation and corruption.

Where Did Wealth Come From?

Unfortunately, what most economists fail to address in giving their definition of capitalism, is how the capital class acquired the initial capital to start their enterprise in a world where at some point, all men were equal freemen on land where no individuals had ownership or title to any resources.

Most economic theory mischievously skips this question to start its postulations on the premise that previously accumulated capital/wealth, accumulates more wealth by being invested into production, without outlining the origins of that original wealth that is now being employed.

But without a full understanding of the origins of capital, capitalism’s claim of being an axiomatic progression of the free market becomes questionable.

How Did Poor Men Accumulate Wealth or Capital?

The hesitation to clear the question of where those with capital got their wealth or capital is simply because historically capital was not accumulated by means of economic science but sheer brutality, theft or what is known as primitive accumulation by violence, war, policies and the same biased laws used by the corrupt elite today.

It‘s a process that was greatly influenced by economists or what they called political economists, to give their noble sponsors control over resources that belonged to the public, commons or communities, for their private use and their enrichment.

This period of violent expropriation was the window through which, the powerful accumulated control of public resources for free, thus depriving the masses of the ability to provide for themselves to force them to become cheap labor for those who had accumulated the factors of production or capital.

During this time, the economist ascended in status to the position of the elite, because they had successfully driven the development of a new social and economic order by transferring billions of pounds of wealth and economic power from self-sufficient farmers, artisans and hunters, into the hands of capitalists, thereby turning these self-sufficient peasants into cheap labor for the capitalist.

Economists Ascend In Occult Order.

In the forefront of this cult were political economists like Adam Smith, Beacon and Francis Hutcheson, who were used to push the creation of industry and to ensure that industry had a steady supply of cheap labor and captive customers with no competing products to substitute what industry was producing.

It therefore comes as common cause, that this industrial economy would never have been possible had the masses continued to cultivate their own crops, raise their own animals, fishing and hunting, while those with artisanal skills persisted with producing their own superior handcrafted tools, equipment and products for survival.

The Beginning Of Industrial Employment.

According to history, in seventeenth century European society, people didn’t go to work formally. Instead, they worked the fields of their landlords for a few hours a week, then worked their own patches for a few hours and harvested enough to spend the remainder drinking and living relatively comfortably.

Those who lived in the commons stayed home where they had lots of time on their hands to cultivate their patches, think, innovate, hunt, fish, drink and use some of their output from the fields or animals to produce clothes, shoes, wood work, tools and other valuables they could barter with others.

According to studies done by political economists of the time in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, anything over 1/17th of an acre of land, was adequate enough to give a peasant enough food to feed a family of six for more than a year.

All this was deemed inimical to the industrial and capitalist economy that was being birthed. So to ensure that labor was constantly available for industry; laws and political economic theories to deny people access to land, game and water rights were formulated by the leading intellectuals and implemented by lawmakers in short order.

End To Hunting And Artisanal Jobs.

The first move was to put a nail at the heart of self-sufficiency by the outlawing of hunting, fishing, gun ownership and access to commons (communal lands used by the commoner).

This was designed to push peasants into landlord owned properties in the city, while land owners were encouraged to fence off wild animals as private game and to raise rents to force peasants into cities where they would work in industry for long hours to earn enough for rent and food.

To enforce the system of employment for survival, taxes were levied on all people and those who couldn’t pay taxes, those without work and accommodation were summarily criminalized, rounded up and imprisoned.

With this, peasants could no longer survive by growing their own food, fishing or hunting. They now had to buy their food from farmers markets and stores.

Products like shoes, woodwork and other artisanal products, now had to be bought from the factories that were producing them as peasants no longer had time to produce them.

This was the end of self-sufficiency for the peasant, the destruction of many artisanal skills and the creation of dependency on industrial monopolies that survive off exploiting labor to extract excess value.

Fraud By Economic Theory.

To bring this system into effect, economists wrote rims of theories and philosophies on the virtues of a hard day’s work and dangers of idolness to influence policymakers and nobles. They even encouraged the employment of children as young as 4yrs of age and for people to work up to 12 hours a day in industry and landlord fields.

Once the normal work hours were done, peasants were to be given tasks to accomplish at home like knitting, weaving and tapestry to keep them occupied and productive to prevent indolence (laziness).

The truth of the matter is capital owners and the nobility wanted to stop peasants from thinking of creating their own products or fighting the political changes coming into effect in Europe, so the system kept them occupied.

The whole concept was designed to keep people occupied, socializing them to become accustomed to working for a living and producing output for industrialists instead of themselves. This system was then evolved into the education system that forces people into schools for over sixteen years to socialize them to be cheap labor for industry.

Africa In Capitalism.

By the time capitalism came to Africa in the form of slavery and colonialism, it had been sharpened and perfected in Europe for almost two centuries, to a point of ruthless efficiency.

European economists and politicians had turned primitive accumulation into an established science through policies, institutions and systems that expropriated generally abundant resources from the poor and put them into the control of elites who created scarcity and eliminated competition to generate higher returns.

It’s for this reason why there was no remorse in the way Africans were treated during the primitive accumulation of slavery and colonialism because as labor resources their efficient exploitation for profit, superseded their humanity.

Capital Over Innovation.

Over time, as industrialists got richer, capital became more important than skill, as capital, technology and economies of scale allowed cheaper products to be made quicker through industry.

This then became a barrier to entry for competition from artisans and hand craftsmen who made more expensive products, thus leaving only an opening for other capital owners with the industrial capacity to compete.

Yes, products became cheaper but the market lost variety, innovation, creativity and quality as a lot of really creative minds were put to work in rudimentary, monotonous production in the new factories that sprung up.

Another trend emerged in this period; Capital consolidated in banking and killed competition as capitalists linked by investments in banking, started colluding through cross shareholding, institutional investment, value chains, loans, cross directorships and industrial combines.

Very little has changed between 1600 and 2017. In fact the capitalist system is so well entrenched and capital has become the critical success factor that the masses have no chance to compete with the oligarchies and their monopolies unless they create combines (cooperatives) against industry.

In conclusion, the system of primitively accumulating resources above [otherwise known as capitalism] is precisely the definition of corruption, which is why Africans who advocate for the end of corruption while holding onto capitalism are unlikely to end corruption because capitalism is the bedrock of corruption.

The above story also goes a long way to illustrate that by the common Zimbabwean being given access to land and mineral resources to produce, the system of capitalism was in many ways reversed in Zimbabwe, hence such a model is seen as a threat to the architects of the capitalist system because it can only survive by exploiting African resources without African competition in the control of those same resources.

So, what every African needs to remember is: Capitalism dictates that the masses or resource rich peoples (Africans) must be deprived control of their wealth, land, minerals, harvests, time, ideas, labor and resources; so that they can be forced to be cheap labor for those who have capital (mainly westerners).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


When President Mnangagwa signed a document purporting to be his mate, see the reality?



Continue Reading


Hopewell Chin’ono’s Hypocrisy Exposed by Mr. Tinashe Mpasiri



On 24 November 2022, Mr. Hopewell Chin’ono shared this tweet on his wall: https://twitter.com/daddyhope/status/1595758807392534528?s=20&t=YflO7bnB-32EN89x_0fPfQ with the following message directed to nameless and faceless South Africans:

“What we ask from South African citizens is for your President to STOP sanitizing Corrupt Rule in Zimbabwe and to STOP lying that our economy was destroyed by sanctions Listen to our President speak about the LOOTING in 1996.

Why doesn’t your president speak about free elections?”

The above mentioned tweet led to a conversation between Mr. Mpasiri, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) and Mr. Chin’ono as set out on this link: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/d47b109920.html.

When asked why he had chosen to share a video of 1996 in support of his narrative that President Ramaphosa was guilty of sanitizing the corrupt practices by President Mnangagwa and his administration, Mr. Chin’ono responded as follows:

“ZPF leading Public officials operate with criminal business partners to loot public resources. For all intents and purposes sanctions are not the cause of Zim economic quagmire but ZPF looting public purse thru its puppet business partners from as far back as 1996?”

Advocate Matiza, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law made the following observations and also a participant in the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF) – Legal Literacy WhatsApp group, commended as follows: “It is clear from the above that by importing the video in which Mr. Mawere was featured with Minister Mnangagwa as he was known then, Mr. Chin’ono was openly alleging that Mr. Mawere was Mnangagwa’s then criminal business partner who was his accomplice in looting public resources of Zimbabwe.

However, when exposed by Mr. Mpasiri, a member of JUROL and BOAF, Mr. Chin’ono backtracked as set out below:

TM: Good morning Mr Chin’ono.
My name is Tinashe Mpasiri and I am a member of the Justice Under Rule Of Law (JUROL).
I am an avid follower of your posts and exposé and certainly wish that there were more
Zimbabweans like you, working towards a diverse, inclusive, progressive and prosperous future
for all.
I just wanted to greet you and share with you a post that was shared in a group I am a part of,
that you may be able to shed more light on it.
HC: Thank you. I did an interview last night on the issue. Feel free to share it in your group
Find it here;
TM: Thank you very much sir.
Just for your information, I belong to a group with officials from Wits University and questions
arose yesterday after your sharing of the video.
I have been asked to communicate with you so I get clarity, so we can share with a proper
Your narrative on the tweet is about president Ramaphosa’s failure to act on corruption in
Zimbabwe, but the content of the video, appears nothing to do with the corruption angle.
Kindly assist with the link between the two.
HC: Good morning. Thank you for the question and you can share this audio in your group, you have my permission.
President Ramophosa has been at the forefront of saying incorrectly that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe has been caused by sanctions, which is not true.
The video that you are referencing, is meant to show that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe
started way before sanctions were imposed by western countries.
The economic crisis was authored by looting of public funds by ZANU PF elites and their business surrogates and the plunder of the country’s natural resources.
That video shows president Mnangagwa when he was Finance Minister in 1996, speaking at an event in Washington explaining how public funds have been looted.
So my point is that the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa shouldn’t be going around
misleading unsuspecting audiences, by saying that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe is being
caused by sanctions.
So for instance, president Ramaphosa talks about the social services pressures that are exerted by Zimbabweans coming into South Africa to use things like public services like health care. And all hospitals in Zimbabwe, all central hospitals in Zimbabwe, five of them, they only require 50 million to run without any shortages and that will make sure that Zimbabweans don’t have to cross the border into South Africa to seek public services that are provided through hospitals but these hospitals in Zimbabwe don’t have paracetamol.
The biggest hospital in Zimbabwe, Sally Mugabe hospital does not even have paracetamol, it
doesn’t have basic things like bandages and 50 million is only, that’s all we need to run our
central hospitals, but it’s not being availed to these central hospitals.
Now, ZANU PF by its own admission, says that 150 million USD worth of gold is being smuggled by ZANU PF elites and their surrogates every month. Which means what they steal in one month can run our central hospitals for 3 years.
That is the point that I making that president Ramaphosa is misleading unsuspecting audiences by saying that the crisis in Zimbabwe which is over spilling into South Africa, is being caused by sanctions, it’s not true it’s caused by sanctions. It’s caused by mis-governance. Thank you.
TM: Thank you very much Mr. Chin’ono.
This is very helpful and I believe we can build a shared understanding of only when we engage.
I will share your insights in my circles and beyond.
A number of questions emerge from your audio. By surrogates and having had the benefit to watch the video, who would be the surrogates and especially having regard to the fact that Minister Mnangagwa (as he were then), was speaking to a different subject matter involving empowerment and the role of government in financing it.
I could be wrong, but it is self-evident that he was talking about government programs whose
execution resulted in financial support being diverted to personal use.
Your response to the above would greatly assist.
HC: Surrogates were people like Mutumwa Mawere who was his front until they fell out.
Today surrogates refers to people like Kuda Tagwirei who has been a front for State looting
using his myriad of companies.

Here Mr. Chin’ono identifies Mr. Mawere as Mnangagwa’s front until they allegedly fell out.

This narrative is similar to the one peddled by Chin’ono’s friend and President Mnangagwa’s confidante and lawyer, Mr. Edwin Manikai as follows:

The message above was authored by Mr. Manikai on 27 March 2021 and was addressed to Mr. Fred Mutanda. The version peddled by Mr. Chin’ono is the same as Manikai’s version.
Mr. Manikai in the middle with Mr. Hopewell Chin’ono
Mr. Manikai in the picture with the visiting American delegation of Senators to Zimbabwe and his wife and Hon. Mliswa, Manikai’s best friend.
The SMM heist gang who authored and executed the divestment and deprivation of the control of 26 companies employing 20,000 people in 2004 using public power described as the precursor to the coup of November 2017 that was orchestrated by the same gang against Mugabe after successfully prosecuting the coup against SMM and related entities.

TM: Thank you for the honest response and obviously when I watched the video, I could not make the link between Mutumwa Mawere and the looting.
Perhaps you can share evidence supporting the allegation of surrogacy and the corruption
therefore in, so that I can afford both president Mnangagwa and Mawere to give their own
account of the precise nature of the alleged link between public power and private benefit.
Unfortunately, the video’s content does not establish the causal link which is vital in determining any dispute in an Independent and impartial manner.
HC: I didn’t say Mutumwa was corrupt.
I said that there were public funds that were doled out which amounted to looting.
You are misinterpreting what I said.
The video has nothing to do with Mutumwa being corrupt, it was meant to illustrate how public funds were looted way before sanctions.

Hopewell denies what he said before and claims the video that he intentionally and constructively shared to demonstrate the origins of Mnangagwa’s corruption had nothing to with Mawere being party to the looting of public funds.

TM: Thank you for clarifying and I am intrigued by your response.
You have asserted as true and fact that Mawere was Mnangagwa front and this aspect is not
evident in the video, suggesting that evidence exists that the alleged fronting you are talking
about, is supported by concrete evidence which is required in any bona fide process, seeking to hold people accountable for their conduct or misconduct. I would be grateful if you can identify in precise terms what Mawere front for Mnangagwa.

Mr. Chin’ono on SABC repeating the narrative of corruption as the cause of the Zim crisis.

Advocate Jack Matiza who was incensed by Mr. Chin’ono’s utterances remarked asked: “How can he be held responsible and accountable for social media post that damage another person reputation? My take is Hopewell is also guilty of selective amnesia he is accusing Ramaphosa of when it comes to sanctions, by stating that Mutumwa Mawere was an front of ED without providing any proof to that. Our self acclaimed award winning journalist and human right defender…ought to know that he who alleges must prove, is he not using or abusing social media or public media platforms to make unfounded statements without allowing the accused an opportunity to air their side of the story is itself an abuse of that person’s basic human rights?
To which Mr. Mawere responded as follows: “What if there exists no shared understanding on what are the obligations and rights of citizenship? What Hopewell could be saying is that information that he may possess is true and fact unless proved otherwise because he holds a privileged position in society as a journalist. In this case, affinity politics would compel him to conclude that because I shared the same platform with the current President of Zimbabwe this reality confirms a generally corrupt relationship. You can imagine what the true import of state capture and the legal consequences arising for its existence.”
Advocate Matiza by stating as follows: “There is certainly need to actively contribute to development of such shared understanding and common standards.”
Mr. Mawere commended as follows: “If asked to explain why the conversation is intriguing, what would be your response?

Mr Chin’ono genuinely believes that CORRUPTION is the elephant in the room.

He hold the view that he occupies a special and exceptional position in relation to the affairs of Zimbabwe.

He has a view on the 1996 video.”

When asked by Mr. Mawere, what identified questions arise from the hypocrisy inherent in Mr. Chin’ono’s open attack against Mawere and when confronted by Mr. Manikai, he quickly denied what he had stated as true and fact, Advocate Matiza responded as follows:

1. Abuse of the profession of journalism by an acclaimed journalist who has no respect for the truth in his narratives.

2.How should one define a human rights defender especially having exposed Mr. Chin’ono’s embarrassing performance by first alleging that Mnangagwa was using Mawere as a front only to backtrack and deny his own bold assertions.

3.In the face of hypocrites masquerading as award-winning journalists, what should be the best response to deal with divisive characters who have captured the profession and are using it as a weapon to advance their ulterior motives?

4. Section 2 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe imposes a binding obligation on every person to ensure that the rule of law is promoted, protected and upheld and in this case, what should be done by ordinary citizens to ensure that people like Mr. Chin’ono are accountable for their conduct which is inimical to the rule of law?

5. Does a person like Mr. Chin’ono know that he is also subject to the constitution and possesses no title or authority to maliciously defame other people. How best can he be held accountable for his reckless and dangerous assertions he makes under the cover that he is a journalist par excellence?

6. Does his conduct based on Mpasiri’s excellent interrogation not fall within conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution of Zimbabwe?

Continue Reading


Please take notice of this announcement by ZIMRA



Continue Reading