Would communist revolutions in Africa be a good thing?

[Rye]

I suppose this is a RAR! but whatever.

I was thinking about the major problems of third world nations and for the most part the media tells me it boils down to; obscene corruption, tribalism, poverty, religion, lack of industrialisation, lack of general amenities, and lack of education. So I started thinking of Lenin's revolution and wondered if it would apply to third world states now?

Would it potentially work out for the better if they overthrew the corrupt politicians, criminals and various priests/kings and massacred them all? Could China fund such revolutions?

[Eframepilot]

Why would there be any improvement? It would just replace one inefficient form of tyranny with another.

[Rye]

Why would there be any improvement? It would just replace one inefficient form of tyranny with another.

Didn't it force industrial development and social change in Russia that severely modernised them in comparison? While it obviously devolved into tyranny, it definitely laid the groundwork for modernity, rather than leaving tribal groups to eat each other and the aristocracy on the backs of the peasants.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Why would there be any improvement? It would just replace one inefficient form of tyranny with another.

Didn't it force industrial development and social change in Russia that severely modernised them in comparison? While it obviously devolved into tyranny, it definitely laid the groundwork for modernity, rather than leaving tribal groups to eat each other and the aristocracy on the backs of the peasants.

Frankly, almost any form of strong centralized, absolute control with the aim of modernizing or advancement (rather than lining the leaderships/juntas pockets) would improve.
Communism is just one of many, you might as well say "Would fascism work" or socialism or an empire/dictatorship.

[Siege]

I think the main issue would be getting everyone to accept each other as comrades - which is kind of hard to do considering the tribal mess that is most of Africa. Instead of Somalia, you'd have the Balkans. Might be an improvement over the original product, but the end result is still shit.

[K. A. Pital]

Frankly, almost any form of strong centralized, absolute control with the aim of modernizing or advancement (rather than lining the leaderships/juntas pockets) would improve.

Wrong. A dictatorial government without a goal of industrial modernization will wreck them. Isn't it actually what is now? They have dictators, but none of them seem to have any vision of industrialization?

Also, I must remind people who have grown too optimistic of dictatorial power, that even communism itself did not produce our discussed "desired" result everywhere.

"Communism" of Pol Pot for example was the idea that peasants must slaughter all urbanites. Why do you think that Pol Pot's savagery would not result, but some form of socialist industrialization like in USSR, Yugoslavia, etc. would happen? Africa is very backwards culturally, and very brutal as well.

I don't know if a communist government like the USSR one would even work there at all.

[Big Orange]

How about the Domination of the Drakia takes over?

On a more serious note wasn't starving, downtrodden Ethiopia under the control of a Marxist junta in the 1980s and they perpetrated a huge faming for many while buying Soviet toys for themselves? That decrepit whack job, Mugabe, is/was a Marxist of sorts. Like in Iraq, petty and biased tribalism is a significant roadblock to any half-decent government and industrial infrastructure.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, most governments in Africa, communist or not, are a huge failure anyway. Just giving the recent clan the "communist" word doesn't change the nature of African power.

However, if we could find someone really dedicated to industrialization the way Lenin and Co. were... perhaps it could work.

We need to understand what kind of "revolutions" and leaders were are talking about.

[Darth Hoth]

Didn't it force industrial development and social change in Russia that severely modernised them in comparison? While it obviously devolved into tyranny, it definitely laid the groundwork for modernity, rather than leaving tribal groups to eat each other and the aristocracy on the backs of the peasants.

So how about the often made claim that the economy was growing as fast under the Tsars? It was not all backwards and feudal; I doubt that a transition to full democracy could have worked, but otherwise the system was not completely irredeemable (in societal/economic terms). Also, Soviet Russia had inherited a base to build on from the old Russian Empire, and did not have the same kind of internal ethnic divisions and strife that most African states do.

[K. A. Pital]

So how about the often made claim that the economy was growing as fast under the Tsars?

Revisionist history. "Growing fast"? Do you realize that in 10 years, the country went from 80% peasant to 70% urbanized in the Soviet era? That's a rate of growth quite unlike any other.

The truth about Tsar's Russia was that cities were growing rapidly, while the rural lands were left in the backwards state they always were in.

Also, Soviet Russia had inherited a base to build on from the old Russian Empire

Hmm. That's most certainly untrue. The industrial base of old Russia was destroyed in WWI and Civil War. The Soviets had to start from scratch - almost. The reality is far more interesting...

The Soviet bosses ordered the most modern technology and industrial machines to be imported from the USA, and in every technological field they attempted to catch up and achieve the kind of scope USA industry had. The Magnitogorsk steel factory being an illustration - upon hearing that the USA made a steel plant capable of several million tons of steel output, the modest goals of Magnitka - less than 1 million tons - grew exponentially and became several times larger.

Would you bet to find a dictator who would order only the most modern industrial technology in his nation? Would you find someone like Lenin, who claimed that "Taylorism is the latest bourgeois invention in raising the productivity of labour... and yet we must use it" or something like that?

It's easy to find someone to dictate, but someone so set to build the most modern industry inside your nation?

...did not have the same kind of internal ethnic divisions and strife that most African states do.

That is correct mostly. Slavic nations are more friendly to each other in general than most African tribes - which are almost indistinguishable to us - are to each other. But remember that Soviet Russia also incorporated a lot of Central Asian and Caucasus nations, and not without ethnic strife and ethnic war.

[Coyote]

Rural-based Communist revolution, the Mao-type variety, might work but again, without a focus to unite people, it will go nowhere.

Maoist Communism worked in Asia because at the time there were large, unifying threats that required people to work together as "Comrades" (the Japanese Empire).

On the other hand, Maoist Communism without a legitimate external focus devolves into thuggery and crime, like Shining Path.

[RedImperator]

A large number of African states in the post-Colonial era did adopt socialist economic policies. I'll give you a dollar if you can tell, without looking at a history book, which ones did and which ones didn't.

The fundamental problem with Africa is that its nation-states were irrevocably buggered up by the European occupation and most of them shouldn't exist at all. Forty years after independence and most of them still have economies centered around resource extraction. A Leninist revolution would never work; Tsarist Russia, backwards at it was, at least made things.

[Adrian Laguna]

Revisionist history. "Growing fast"? Do you realize that in 10 years, the country went from 80% peasant to 70% urbanized in the Soviet era? That's a rate of growth quite unlike any other.

Russia's 1938 per capita level of industrialization was 90% what it was in 25 years earlier, but Japan's per capita level of industrialization had improved 255% over the same time period. I think Japan's feat was more impressive, especially given their lack of resources.

Tsarist Russia, backwards at it was, at least made things.

Russia accounted for 8.2% of the world's manufacturing output in 1913, which in terms of raw output put it in fourth place world wide, ahead of France and Austria-Hungary. Its per capita level of industrialization was a bit over 1/6 Britain's, 1/3 France's, and the same as Japan's.

[CJvR]

Would it potentially work out for the better if they overthrew the corrupt politicians, criminals and various priests/kings and massacred them all? Could China fund such revolutions?

Depends on what flavor communism replaced it. Leninism might beat outright anarchy but little else. Still it would be nice for the rest of the world to have stability and not needing to care about Africa but for the average african things would probably get worse.

[Sarevok]

I believe the problem lies more with the citizens than the system. Democracy does not work when corrupt tyrants can just buy millions of dumb ghetto dwelling voters. Stupid illiterate people would lead to misgoverned countries whether it is capitalism or communism.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why can't the African people form coherent national identities? Did they never unite for a common cause, like rallying against their colonial usurpers back in the day? I mean, hell, even the Philippines and the South/Central American nations are more progressive than those guys.

[CJvR]

Why can't the African people form coherent national identities?

Oh I think they can, but the borders generally don't conform to the national identities.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Why can't the African people form coherent national identities?

Oh I think they can, but the borders generally don't conform to the national identities.

The trouble is that with the existing borders and the usual movement of people around, segregating all of them would be not only quite chaotic, but also, will likely lead to more antagonism between all the tribes. It will make the Pakistan/India separation look like a cake walk.

What Africa also seriously needs, is birth control. The resources cannot support the population level.

[Lusankya]

Why can't the African people form coherent national identities? Did they never unite for a common cause, like rallying against their colonial usurpers back in the day? I mean, hell, even the Philippines and the South/Central American nations are more progressive than those guys.

The problem is, Africa was divided arbitrarily, rather than along existing tribal boundaries. My understanding is that even the backwater places in Asia (and possibly South America, but I don't know much about that region) were divided more evenly along existing cultural/identity boundaries. Like, imagine there's some country in Europe where half the people speak one language and half the people speak another, and they all want to be a different country from the other group, except they're stuck being this one country and it all sucks. Except they don't have the advantage of having however many hundred years of shared national identiy which stops them from killing each other. Also, many of them are nomadic, so they're in different places each year and sometimes that doesn't match with national borders.

For another point, I believe that Asians, at least, were treated a lot better. Probably it was partly because they had a more familiar culture to the Europeans than the African people. When they went to Asia, the Europeans made a proper government and everything, with laws and bureaucracy, and so on. Then when they left, enough of the locals were capable of filling the vacant positions that it all managed to remain relatively intact.

The Africans, on the other hand, were just enslaved and oppressed. The European colonials viewed the colonies more as a source of diamonds and ivory and stuff than as a proper part of the Empires. So when the Europeans packed up, there wasn't really enough infrastructure or bureaucracy left to form a functional country.

[Shroom Man 777]

Damn. Here, we've got native Filipinos mixing with Spaniards, making the mestizo class. Lots of these folks got educated abroad, in Europe even. These educated guys were rather important in rallying folks to free themselves from the shackles of imperialism and other cool stuff.

These things didn't happen with Africans, did they?

[Lusankya]

Damn. Here, we've got native Filipinos mixing with Spaniards, making the mestizo class. Lots of these folks got educated abroad, in Europe even. These educated guys were rather important in rallying folks to free themselves from the shackles of imperialism and other cool stuff.

These things didn't happen with Africans, did they?

Not that I'm aware of. Just take a look at South Africa. You have the wealthy white people, but they hardly mix at all with the black population. At least, not on a social level. I don't think they ever bothered educating many of the Africans either.

Hell, even places like frickin' Pakistan are doing better for themselves than Africa. You know you're doing poorly when Pakistan looks like a relative haven of peace and stability.

[Lusankya]

Sorry for the double post.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Spanish and the Portugese were also better at integrating the local population than the British and the Dutch. I imagine that that would also be a point that favours of SE Asia and South America. Integration probably helped a lot with post-colonial stability. I forgot about that.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Sorry for the double post.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Spanish and the Portugese were also better at integrating the local population than the British and the Dutch. I imagine that that would also be a point that favours of SE Asia and South America. Integration probably helped a lot with post-colonial stability. I forgot about that.

Probably because the Portugese and Spanish altogether weren't against marrying the locals. A lot of Brazilians themselves have very European looks, for example. Then in Asia, there are the Eurasians who are a mix of Dutch/Portuguese and Indian or Malay blood. Perhaps part of the reason why they were better at integration was that the Spanish/Portuguese tended to send missionaries along their colonising expeditions. So in a way, they slowly blended the locals into the foreign culture.

On the other hand, the Brits were stuck ups who not only propagated segregation, but treated the conquered natives as second class citizens/slaves or whatever you could think of. Many in Asia gleefully "threw off their oppressors" in the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

[Shroom Man 777]

The British weren't so bad at it with India, were they?

But yeah, the heavy religiousity of the Spaniards and Portugese were rather helpful in assimilating the local populace. Instead of enslaving them, you could have them kneel to your god thanks to your corrupt friars and bishops. I guess that's why, despite being shitty post-colonial Third World cesspools, places like South America and the Philippines aren't quite as bad as Africa.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The British weren't so bad at it with India, were they?

Gandhi would beg to differ.

No, the Brits were quite bad. They brutally suppressed a number of kingdoms who refused to bow to the suzerainty of Great Britain. Indians were considered second class citizens and couldn't sit in 1st class cabins for example.