Kantean Nightmare look the reality is that if you have knowledge of history, economics, finance, political economics and sociology, you are probably better equipped to understand the functions of a macro and micro economy. Would you say you know more than a neurosurgeon because you took one biology course?
@@nettasim19 the problem is that the socialists either have no understanding of economics and history or they completely distort it out of whack in order to focus on one small portion of it so that they can piss people off and mobilize them. Now, you've centralized everything into the hands of the people who "have knowledge of things" and now they've run your country into the ground. Now what? What do you do as a peasant? As an uneducated person? As a person with a highly specialized form of work? You are screwed at least in the short term, often times into the long term. No one said the people with knowledge shouldn't be teaching other people. It's that they shouldn't have ALL of the resources, ALL of the power etc in case they or their plans go wrong. This way, you don't tank an entire nation of otherwise productive people and ideas into the doldrums. This has happened in every communist-socialist country to date, with special regards to the African countries because the population was so sick of imperialism that they just gave their own black leaders carte blanche to rules over every aspect of their lives.
@@dtice69 This "centralize everything into the hands of a few" marxism is directly in relation to the material conditions of a country. Most of these countries in the global south adopt authoritarian measures to counter their imperialist oppressors. If you had read a single word of marx, you would understand that his initial understanding of socialist revolution included the DECENTRALIZATION of power into the hands of districted peoples, or communes. the entirety of marxism is a philosophy rooted in libertarianism. Countries like the USSR revised and distorted marxism to fit their own material conditions. I am no one to tell them they were wrong, but they were not practicing socialism in the way that leftist in the western world are trying to. Not even close. Western leftist are predominantly anarchists and syndicalists, who hate authority and adopt leftism as a way to decentralize power away from one source. Again, please read about marx before you assume you know it.
Blessing to the world 🌎 that is. The collectivist are everywhere and only truth and history will stop people from buying the lie. Great video and a brilliant man.
It's obvious he is describing capitalism by Africans, not socialism. Those who don't know the difference, will only be confused. When socialist leaders where overthrown or assassinated, these countries adopted capitalism, and committed to economic relationships with former colonial powers and implemented the IMF policies, none of the country's economies grew. The countries did not increase the GDP under capitalism. By the mid-80s, 20+ of these supposed socialist governments had been overthrown and were fully implementing IMF policies. If socialism failed in Africa, then capitalism is eating the survivors. George confuses individual economic initiative and trade with capitalism. It was capitalism imposed from Europe that prohibited individual African initiative and trade by imposing European ownership of African land, resources, imposing arbitrary borders, and restricting trade to the colonizing powers. What the chiefs did after colonization, was inherited from colonially imposed capitalism, not socialism. After colonialism, chiefs did not return to their previous roles as being appointed by the community. Colonialism used the chiefs to impose colonial rule, and after colonialism fell, these chiefs retained their relationships to the colonial powers, to the resources that their participation in colonialism allowed, and often undermined the socialist programs that were imposed. Socialism is the modern equivalent to communalism, in which the resources of the nation are owned in common and are used for the common welfare. Socialism does not prohibit individual initiative, but ensures that individual initiatives are in harmony with the needs of the nation! Africa did not remove colonialism with political independence. New colonial powers imposed new colonialism through foreign capital, that tied African countries to foreign interests. Aid to Africa was used to undermine local industry and established foreign sustained corrupt leadership that was unresponsive to local demands.
Tanzania was given more foreign aid that any other Third World nation. How much more did it need to "flourish"? How can you "shoot down" something by bankrolling it on a massive scale? The areas of economic progress in Africa are in precisely those areas that have significant degrees of the key elements of capitalism: enforced property rights/rule of law, openness to foreign trade and investment, and relatively few restrictions on businesses. That's what's driven the fall in African poverty.
@@xxPASTAxxSOURCExx The same programs that Nyerere all too happily accepted after his forced collective farming policies had his country starving as per usual with every other socialist/communist regime of the day?
Mr Ayittey, thank you so much for such a wonderful lecture. I’ve learned so much about Africa and the failures of Socialism. You’re an amazing speaker, sir.
GloriousRevolutionary when the french supported a coup to kill thomas sankara, when apartheid south africa and the us waged war against the mpla, or when apartheid south africa supported renamo, or how france went to war with algerian socialists, or how libya was bombed, and a bunch of other examples.
I grew up there...keep lying to yourself. In Africa, most property is still in the hands of government, by definition that is the aim of socialism. As George Ayittey said, this desire to evade their responsibility in African problems, is a vice of intellectuals, who believe their intellect > reality.
What would happen if the focus on results was shifted to an objective analysis of the process that led to the achievement of the results? Does one person corrupt themselves or there is an external agent of corruption? This obviously does not need Professors of Economics to answer. If we are all at point A and we agree to get to point B, whose method is correct, to get us to B between socialism and capitalism? Before the answer do we agree that we are all at point A? Do we all agree that we want to end up at point B? If we do not agree on point A or B then what are we discussing? What then is African Socialism? If we do not agree what it is, then how can we be so sure that it has failed? So Dr George Ayittey, where is humanity going and what system will get us there? Is the destination universally agreed?
It requires a sovereignty over all material resources subject to, and consequential for full industrial development. With that, planned development in all spheres with modern science and technological means applied for the speediest development. Production will be primarily for use to build infrastructure, lay a sound basis for primary industries large and small, including local economies with African finished products. The development of the available power sources to provide a broad economic base of capital accumulation. The people have direct access to the means of production through the state apparatus toward humanistic and egalitarian goals. Thus socialism is practiced by the general principles that govern it, which are universal and abiding. So, we aim for maximum development in all areas of society, properly prioritizing the primary and secondary sectors of the economy, and balancing agriculture diversification, it's modern means and production.
Very valid points. I think Ayittey has only contributed to the confusion over points A and B, or at best interjected his own interest that is in line with the sponsors. This is what has driven Africa's economic development since human trafficking started. Africa's economies have been warped towards supplying foreign needs over local needs ever since. The "post-colonial" leaders are not considered successful unless they succeed in earning foreign income, rather than if they succeed in reorganizing local economies to become self sufficient! Big development projects and budgets are not possible without borrowing, and borrowing foreign capital does not allow use of funds on such projects that do not provide the desired rate of profit. So in spite of Ayittey's rejection of socialism, he has not provided any guidance on what countries are to do that have been underdeveloped by colonialism and capitalism.
I generally support capitalism. But I recognized that you really need a mixed economy (and a supporting legal system) to have a developed country. You need both capitalism and socialism to varying degrees. Every developed country including the U.S has a mixed economy. It's a matter of different countries figuring out which type of mixed economy will be best for their situation or circumstances.
Capitalism doesn't exist without a system of property rights enforced by law and courts of law to arbitrate disputes--the legal system is not a separate feature of a capitalist system. The legal system is a pillar in a capitalist system. You speak of a "supporting legal system" as if it is separate from the capitalist system. This is a misunderstanding of property rights and capitalism
CrowdPleeza you can't have socialism and capitalism. Socialism is a system where the workers control the means of production while capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned and their is a market.
israel blasczak Aren't you describing more pure versions of socialism and capitalism? Capitalism and socialism are combined in many countries. The U.S has both public and private schools and the post office and UPS.
A Mixed Economy simply exists so Socialists can take credit for all the good in the economy and when things get bad they can blame it on capitalism's excesses. The fact is the Mixed Economy is and will always be a confession of intellectual bankruptcy: how can you logically say that an economy can be built on private property and government ownership of the economy. This is water and oil. Geez, at least the old school Socialists were intellectually honest about what was necessary (which is why reality was able to show they were wrong, whereas self-deceptive socialists today never see their wrongs or faults because they are in denial and they're dishonest).
What Africa MUST do to develop even faster than the west or China : - Very low personal income tax rate - Very low corporate tax rate - Very low capital gains tax rate - A law that requires that for every regulation that is passed, two or more regulations must be abolished. - Most if not all state-owned companies must be fully privatized. With these measures, some parts of Africa will even look like Dubai and poverty in Africa will be a distant memory.
Easier said than done. And there's a lot of other factors you're overlooking. Private enterprises are also susceptible to corrupt influences we've seen that in South Africa and many other places.
Idk what the ppl In these comments are talking about but he makes a claim at the end that instead of using the European model of socialism of Marx we should look at the indigenous socialism(like the free trade that he explained) that Africans engaged in before colonialism because it clearly worked well before that snow roaches came along
Interesting talk. I wished he would've given more concrete examples of social systems in African indigenous culture, would've substantiated that point a bit more.
There are several differences between socialism and social practices found in many African societies. In socialism, everyone is entitled to social support, in African societies, only family or really close friends of the family benefited. Even then, people were only given certain inputs(land or seeds or a few animals to start their own herd/flock) freely but they then had to put in their labour to get any outputs. So in a sense, people were given opportunities rather than aid This socialism of free shit (welfare, free school, free medical care) didn't exist (eg. people were not given free food) because it doesn't work. Any socialist economy eventually grinds to a halt as productive people have no incentive to work if their outputs are going to be given freely to the lazy and naturally, everyone starts trying to get free stuff without doing the work and production declines rapidly
Thanks for the clarification! Your observation is very similar to something Steven Crowder said about christianity and socialism - that the same kind of practices only work in instances where the people of communal groups bounded by shared interests were motivated to give something back in return.
Corruption isn’t a factor unique to socialism. George commented on how things like this and similar characteristics are the reason for the downfall - that isn’t a direct result of socialism. He also mentioned that regulation leads to corruption.. that’s such a naive understanding of how governments work and implies it’s an inevitability. So many of his posts and assumptions are severely lacking, it’s such a shame
How does such a lecture benefit the African, when it appears that you are only washing our dirty linen in public? Why not hold such symposia in the African countries where it is needed?
Unfortunately, the reality is that withdrawing support for evil regimes will lead to loss of the little stability that does exist, thus hurting any business that has managed to establish itself despite the difficult situation. Having one dictator toppled will more than likely lead to him being replaced by another, and with that undoing any progress/arrangements that have already been made with him by western nations. Classic example of "better the devil you know." Look at it from the perspective of western governments. These are the following choices: (1) Accept the regimes as unavoidable and focus on doing business with them as best you can. Free market democracies are ideal, but the reality is that the only way to advance your interests is to negotiate and cooperate with tyrants. This inevitably means helping them so they will help you. (2) Take a principled stand and refuse to cooperate with the regime. This will lead to either a regime change, or simply a change in relationship between your country and the regime. In this scenario you will essentially be giving up your own nation's business interests just so one tyrant can be replaced by another or the existing tyrant can make new friends instead who will overlook their abuses. It should be clear now why it makes sense for liberal, western democracies to support oppressive regimes in the middle east and Africa.
@@alexrothwell2053 Thomas Sankara was doing good for his people and the French supported a coup led by his friend to overturn his government. Explain that one.
This guy must be smoking some hard stuff. African leaders teaches us to love the colonialist or Europeans. We pray to a white God, we speak an European language, we have Eurocentric education and we do all this harmful things with pride. The founding fathers of most African countries are pan-African but they were soon removed by dictators who were pro-Europeans. Our economy is based on how much food and resources we can export to our colonial countries. First it was Human Resources (Slaves) then Cash Crop now it’s natural resources. Our schools are simply called grammar school that teaches us how to act European. I can go on and on but I believe u get the gist.
the republicans are also socialists. Shilling for state thugs, military. the democrats framed it as liberalism the republicans framed it as patriotism. both work to centralize more and more power
Even if you are not african.one could easily related to his speech specialy if you are living in a third world country.experience heavy handed bureaucracy.epidemic of corruption.government incompetency.excessive regulation..
A great presentation, thanks so much. There is more to geography of Africa than just raw materials and Western or Chinese exploitation. There is the problem of disease, of many warring tribal groups, of voodoo, of IQ. Academic elites are usually fixated on economics. They are unable to appreciate Human Resources and what makes for good people and productive citizens. They are unable to evaluate or cherish the spiritual resources that Christian Faith brings to Africa. They are unable to see how this faith brings an array of virtue into a culture to change it for the better.
Gavin Finley Historically Voodoo liberates African people and Christianity enslaved African people. Haven’t Christianity killed more Europeans than any religion.
You may call him names but he's spoken the bitter truth anyway. If most African Professors are this objective and bold enough to point out the dysfunctional leadership style in Africa, things would have been much better now. Stop typing with your illiterate fingers and Listen to the learned.
@@vocabularymillionaire "Illiterate fingers"? That's a stupid insult. I'm an expert at understanding socialist development. You appear to be an ignoramus who favors white indirect rule on African soil through the puppet-stooges, their governments in place today in Africa. His explanation remains incompetent, as your conversation is on this channel.
@@MrDanielfff777 My experience outweighs his points. I don't have anything to prove. 31 years as an organizer in a revolutionary organization. I've worked with people you'd never come within 10 feet of.
@@neilnelmar8007 wait don’t get it twisted they are still to blame ( don’t try and act like that’s not true like Africa wouldn’t be what it’s like today if it wasn’t for colonialism, genocide, slavery ect. ) but he gives an interesting perspective on how these leaders are not engaging in “true socialism”( if he even thinks that’s a thing) but one that has the same exploitative nature that capitalism does
This, you will never learn, in a western school, never.
Ignorance is bliss; not for the ignoramus, but for the devices of control and manipulation. Why ever will they relinquish their delight?
implied in socialist planning is that the planners are so much smarter than the individual. makes me sick, that kind of bigotry.
Kantean Nightmare that's why it's so alluring to arrogant youths.
Kantean Nightmare look the reality is that if you have knowledge of history, economics, finance, political economics and sociology, you are probably better equipped to understand the functions of a macro and micro economy. Would you say you know more than a neurosurgeon because you took one biology course?
@@nettasim19 hmm a smart person.
@@nettasim19 the problem is that the socialists either have no understanding of economics and history or they completely distort it out of whack in order to focus on one small portion of it so that they can piss people off and mobilize them. Now, you've centralized everything into the hands of the people who "have knowledge of things" and now they've run your country into the ground. Now what? What do you do as a peasant? As an uneducated person? As a person with a highly specialized form of work? You are screwed at least in the short term, often times into the long term.
No one said the people with knowledge shouldn't be teaching other people. It's that they shouldn't have ALL of the resources, ALL of the power etc in case they or their plans go wrong. This way, you don't tank an entire nation of otherwise productive people and ideas into the doldrums. This has happened in every communist-socialist country to date, with special regards to the African countries because the population was so sick of imperialism that they just gave their own black leaders carte blanche to rules over every aspect of their lives.
@@dtice69 This "centralize everything into the hands of a few" marxism is directly in relation to the material conditions of a country. Most of these countries in the global south adopt authoritarian measures to counter their imperialist oppressors. If you had read a single word of marx, you would understand that his initial understanding of socialist revolution included the DECENTRALIZATION of power into the hands of districted peoples, or communes. the entirety of marxism is a philosophy rooted in libertarianism. Countries like the USSR revised and distorted marxism to fit their own material conditions. I am no one to tell them they were wrong, but they were not practicing socialism in the way that leftist in the western world are trying to. Not even close. Western leftist are predominantly anarchists and syndicalists, who hate authority and adopt leftism as a way to decentralize power away from one source. Again, please read about marx before you assume you know it.
This man is a blessing to Africa
Blessing to the world 🌎 that is. The collectivist are everywhere and only truth and history will stop people from buying the lie. Great video and a brilliant man.
the problem wasn't the system of government rather it is the greediness of the people energiser by the west
@@benjaminowurani8617 his description of africa could easily applief to latin america or some thirf world countries.
@@benjaminowurani8617
Yes it was. And a lot of those pan-African socialist leaders didn't do themselves any favors with their own greed and ego.
"socialism means that what's mine is mine, and what's yours, we share" 😂😂
It actually means I don't have anything can we share
Actually that's what capitalism does. What is mine is mine, what is yours I steal it
very few will understand this one, very true
@@Alex-bp5df Unfortunate that you believe you know more than an African, a doctor in economy who actually lived in the continent.
@@silverstar8868 So do I have to blindly follow everything he has to say?
It's obvious he is describing capitalism by Africans, not socialism. Those who don't know the difference, will only be confused. When socialist leaders where overthrown or assassinated, these countries adopted capitalism, and committed to economic relationships with former colonial powers and implemented the IMF policies, none of the country's economies grew. The countries did not increase the GDP under capitalism. By the mid-80s, 20+ of these supposed socialist governments had been overthrown and were fully implementing IMF policies. If socialism failed in Africa, then capitalism is eating the survivors.
George confuses individual economic initiative and trade with capitalism. It was capitalism imposed from Europe that prohibited individual African initiative and trade by imposing European ownership of African land, resources, imposing arbitrary borders, and restricting trade to the colonizing powers. What the chiefs did after colonization, was inherited from colonially imposed capitalism, not socialism. After colonialism, chiefs did not return to their previous roles as being appointed by the community. Colonialism used the chiefs to impose colonial rule, and after colonialism fell, these chiefs retained their relationships to the colonial powers, to the resources that their participation in colonialism allowed, and often undermined the socialist programs that were imposed.
Socialism is the modern equivalent to communalism, in which the resources of the nation are owned in common and are used for the common welfare. Socialism does not prohibit individual initiative, but ensures that individual initiatives are in harmony with the needs of the nation!
Africa did not remove colonialism with political independence. New colonial powers imposed new colonialism through foreign capital, that tied African countries to foreign interests. Aid to Africa was used to undermine local industry and established foreign sustained corrupt leadership that was unresponsive to local demands.
you are right.
Batswana is a good example of economic freedom.
Rwanda and Mauritius are also good examples of economic freedom.
@@28kasterwolf And Ghana today
@@tompossessed1729 Even with Akufo-Addo having 123 ministers?
💯
Tanzania was given more foreign aid that any other Third World nation. How much more did it need to "flourish"? How can you "shoot down" something by bankrolling it on a massive scale?
The areas of economic progress in Africa are in precisely those areas that have significant degrees of the key elements of capitalism: enforced property rights/rule of law, openness to foreign trade and investment, and relatively few restrictions on businesses. That's what's driven the fall in African poverty.
Myndir please look up the effects of structural adjustment programmes on tanzania before you spout nonsense
@@xxPASTAxxSOURCExx
The same programs that Nyerere all too happily accepted after his forced collective farming policies had his country starving as per usual with every other socialist/communist regime of the day?
A well informed and intelligent economist!
He is not an informed person. He is very ignorant. Our people are miseducated.
Is a saboteur
@@garveyfahoh5771 Miseducated or propagandized?
he is hungry and wants food from the white. our Africa root set up is social setup.. childbirths, funeral, chieftancy, were all socialism
He is talking about the elephant in the room no one else dare to talk about. Bright and insightful man.
Mr Ayittey, thank you so much for such a wonderful lecture. I’ve learned so much about Africa and the failures of Socialism. You’re an amazing speaker, sir.
May I upload this video to my channel to spread the word against socialism?
like neo-liberialist economics is a success for Africa, Socialism in Africa was never allowed to flourish , shot down by European/American imperialism
When exactly?
GloriousRevolutionary when the french supported a coup to kill thomas sankara, when apartheid south africa and the us waged war against the mpla, or when apartheid south africa supported renamo, or how france went to war with algerian socialists, or how libya was bombed, and a bunch of other examples.
I grew up there...keep lying to yourself. In Africa, most property is still in the hands of government, by definition that is the aim of socialism.
As George Ayittey said, this desire to evade their responsibility in African problems, is a vice of intellectuals, who believe their intellect > reality.
It's da white mans fault mang we was kangz! Right?
TANDY6688 obviously it was never “true socialism”. Ya know, the real pure kind that exists only in university classrooms
From today,I declared myself a student of George Ayittey
What would happen if the focus on results was shifted to an objective analysis of the process that led to the achievement of the results? Does one person corrupt themselves or there is an external agent of corruption? This obviously does not need Professors of Economics to answer. If we are all at point A and we agree to get to point B, whose method is correct, to get us to B between socialism and capitalism? Before the answer do we agree that we are all at point A? Do we all agree that we want to end up at point B? If we do not agree on point A or B then what are we discussing? What then is African Socialism? If we do not agree what it is, then how can we be so sure that it has failed? So Dr George Ayittey, where is humanity going and what system will get us there? Is the destination universally agreed?
I think u are overly analysing this.
It requires a sovereignty over all material resources subject to, and consequential for full industrial development. With that, planned development in all spheres with modern science and technological means applied for the speediest development. Production will be primarily for use to build infrastructure, lay a sound basis for primary industries large and small, including local economies with African finished products. The development of the available power sources to provide a broad economic base of capital accumulation. The people have direct access to the means of production through the state apparatus toward humanistic and egalitarian goals. Thus socialism is practiced by the general principles that govern it, which are universal and abiding. So, we aim for maximum development in all areas of society, properly prioritizing the primary and secondary sectors of the economy, and balancing agriculture diversification, it's modern means and production.
Very valid points. I think Ayittey has only contributed to the confusion over points A and B, or at best interjected his own interest that is in line with the sponsors. This is what has driven Africa's economic development since human trafficking started. Africa's economies have been warped towards supplying foreign needs over local needs ever since. The "post-colonial" leaders are not considered successful unless they succeed in earning foreign income, rather than if they succeed in reorganizing local economies to become self sufficient!
Big development projects and budgets are not possible without borrowing, and borrowing foreign capital does not allow use of funds on such projects that do not provide the desired rate of profit. So in spite of Ayittey's rejection of socialism, he has not provided any guidance on what countries are to do that have been underdeveloped by colonialism and capitalism.
Great insights from a passionate and erudite man.
I generally support capitalism. But I recognized that you really need a mixed economy (and a supporting legal system) to have a developed country. You need both capitalism and socialism to varying degrees. Every developed country including the U.S has a mixed economy. It's a matter of different countries figuring out which type of mixed economy will be best for their situation or circumstances.
Capitalism doesn't exist without a system of property rights enforced by law and courts of law to arbitrate disputes--the legal system is not a separate feature of a capitalist system. The legal system is a pillar in a capitalist system.
You speak of a "supporting legal system" as if it is separate from the capitalist system. This is a misunderstanding of property rights and capitalism
You are confusing capitalism with Anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism thrives under limited government, not anarchy
CrowdPleeza you can't have socialism and capitalism. Socialism is a system where the workers control the means of production while capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned and their is a market.
israel blasczak
Aren't you describing more pure versions of socialism and capitalism? Capitalism and socialism are combined in many countries. The U.S has both public and private schools and the post office and UPS.
A Mixed Economy simply exists so Socialists can take credit for all the good in the economy and when things get bad they can blame it on capitalism's excesses. The fact is the Mixed Economy is and will always be a confession of intellectual bankruptcy: how can you logically say that an economy can be built on private property and government ownership of the economy. This is water and oil. Geez, at least the old school Socialists were intellectually honest about what was necessary (which is why reality was able to show they were wrong, whereas self-deceptive socialists today never see their wrongs or faults because they are in denial and they're dishonest).
What Africa MUST do to develop even faster than the west or China :
- Very low personal income tax rate
- Very low corporate tax rate
- Very low capital gains tax rate
- A law that requires that for every regulation that is passed, two or more regulations must be abolished.
- Most if not all state-owned companies must be fully privatized.
With these measures, some parts of Africa will even look like Dubai and poverty in Africa will be a distant memory.
Easier said than done. And there's a lot of other factors you're overlooking. Private enterprises are also susceptible to corrupt influences we've seen that in South Africa and many other places.
Brazil also experienced how private sector corruption can leak into state enterprises and ultimately bring it down.
You can't wish away taxes... focusing on management of taxes should be the key to prosperity in Africa
The Ashdey how ironic bcos Dubai to a large extent is a socialist state 😂😂
@@Titan_Alex_007 UAE is not a socialist state so stop talking rubbish
“This is a philosophical question and I am an economist” The world should support free market economy
8:10 Lenin turned us from socialism whilst Nyere turned from it
Idk what the ppl In these comments are talking about but he makes a claim at the end that instead of using the European model of socialism of Marx we should look at the indigenous socialism(like the free trade that he explained) that Africans engaged in before colonialism because it clearly worked well before that snow roaches came along
This 👏🏾
It didn't?
in socialism free trade doesnt exist
Interesting talk. I wished he would've given more concrete examples of social systems in African indigenous culture, would've substantiated that point a bit more.
There are several differences between socialism and social practices found in many African societies.
In socialism, everyone is entitled to social support, in African societies, only family or really close friends of the family benefited.
Even then, people were only given certain inputs(land or seeds or a few animals to start their own herd/flock) freely but they then had to put in their labour to get any outputs.
So in a sense, people were given opportunities rather than aid
This socialism of free shit (welfare, free school, free medical care) didn't exist (eg. people were not given free food) because it doesn't work.
Any socialist economy eventually grinds to a halt as productive people have no incentive to work if their outputs are going to be given freely to the lazy and naturally, everyone starts trying to get free stuff without doing the work and production declines rapidly
Thanks for the clarification! Your observation is very similar to something Steven Crowder said about christianity and socialism - that the same kind of practices only work in instances where the people of communal groups bounded by shared interests were motivated to give something back in return.
Corruption isn’t a factor unique to socialism. George commented on how things like this and similar characteristics are the reason for the downfall - that isn’t a direct result of socialism. He also mentioned that regulation leads to corruption.. that’s such a naive understanding of how governments work and implies it’s an inevitability. So many of his posts and assumptions are severely lacking, it’s such a shame
homegrown solutions.thanks
Wonder if any member of antifac and blm listening to his speech
@@richardque4952 18:00 there was free trade before whites
This should have a Billion views
7:10 whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine
I am sure this guy is f...gt... I am Tanzanian and proudly with the legacy of Nyerere 's Ujamaa ideology.
Takes one to know one.
yeah stupid socialist
How come it's Kenyan institutions that serve Tanzanians?
@@Ndondiafrika254
Which one
@@khadijaabdalla1011 JKIA, Nairobi Hospital. Nyerere was treated at Nairobi Hospital at one time in the 90s
How does such a lecture benefit the African, when it appears that you are only washing our dirty linen in public? Why not hold such symposia in the African countries where it is needed?
Because he’s not allowed to speak freely in Africa because of autocratic leaders.
🤦🏾♂️
Thank u for giving Maxwell a good and honest response about the reality of Africa. No freedom of expression. Period !
Thanks
Thank you for uploading this! I always wondered how exactly all these inefficient post-colonial economies came to be.
What a joke. He starts off saying he’ll talk about African socialism then gives. US imperialist puppet Mobutu Sese Seko as an example.
Care to set the record straight then?
@@stuzaza He clearly had nothing to back up his claim. 😂
Mobutu was us puppet,but did implement many socialist polivies that killed our economy,the famous one was zairianisation
Mobutu was a puppet but definitely not a capitalist.
Mobuto is zaire feudal lord.zaire was his personal serfdom
An amazing and insightful video, keep posting this stuff. So much is trapped in archives.
3:30 the factors were internal ?
He didnt peak to western support for repressive regimes
Unfortunately, the reality is that withdrawing support for evil regimes will lead to loss of the little stability that does exist, thus hurting any business that has managed to establish itself despite the difficult situation. Having one dictator toppled will more than likely lead to him being replaced by another, and with that undoing any progress/arrangements that have already been made with him by western nations. Classic example of "better the devil you know."
Look at it from the perspective of western governments. These are the following choices:
(1) Accept the regimes as unavoidable and focus on doing business with them as best you can. Free market democracies are ideal, but the reality is that the only way to advance your interests is to negotiate and cooperate with tyrants. This inevitably means helping them so they will help you.
(2) Take a principled stand and refuse to cooperate with the regime. This will lead to either a regime change, or simply a change in relationship between your country and the regime. In this scenario you will essentially be giving up your own nation's business interests just so one tyrant can be replaced by another or the existing tyrant can make new friends instead who will overlook their abuses.
It should be clear now why it makes sense for liberal, western democracies to support oppressive regimes in the middle east and Africa.
@@alexrothwell2053 Thomas Sankara was doing good for his people and the French supported a coup led by his friend to overturn his government. Explain that one.
This guy must be smoking some hard stuff. African leaders teaches us to love the colonialist or Europeans. We pray to a white God, we speak an European language, we have Eurocentric education and we do all this harmful things with pride. The founding fathers of most African countries are pan-African but they were soon removed by dictators who were pro-Europeans. Our economy is based on how much food and resources we can export to our colonial countries. First it was Human Resources (Slaves) then Cash Crop now it’s natural resources. Our schools are simply called grammar school that teaches us how to act European. I can go on and on but I believe u get the gist.
This should be a must listen to for all blacks trying to vote for socialist Democrats in America
the republicans are also socialists. Shilling for state thugs, military. the democrats framed it as liberalism the republicans framed it as patriotism. both work to centralize more and more power
@@laisphinto6372 fair enough
Even if you are not african.one could easily related to his speech specialy if you are living in a third world country.experience heavy handed bureaucracy.epidemic of corruption.government incompetency.excessive regulation..
May God bless this man
Good speach
Brilliant and honest mind.
Great video
Great lecture 👌
I'm not sure these are WHY as much as these are HOW socialism failed.
That 20% vote is what is much needed....still.
Socialiem in africa is the biggest man make disaster.
Ce type est un ignare qui n'est en aucun cas un économiste.
A great presentation, thanks so much.
There is more to geography of Africa than just raw materials and Western or Chinese exploitation.
There is the problem of disease, of many warring tribal groups, of voodoo, of IQ.
Academic elites are usually fixated on economics.
They are unable to appreciate Human Resources and what makes for good people and productive citizens.
They are unable to evaluate or cherish the spiritual resources that Christian Faith brings to Africa.
They are unable to see how this faith brings an array of virtue into a culture to change it for the better.
How about the lack of viable trade routes and the general lack of trade between African countries partly due to it?
Gavin Finley Historically Voodoo liberates African people and Christianity enslaved African people. Haven’t Christianity killed more Europeans than any religion.
ya'll wanted Independence... you asked for this.
Incompetent explanation.
You may call him names but he's spoken the bitter truth anyway. If most African Professors are this objective and bold enough to point out the dysfunctional leadership style in Africa, things would have been much better now. Stop typing with your illiterate fingers and Listen to the learned.
@@vocabularymillionaire "Illiterate fingers"? That's a stupid insult. I'm an expert at understanding socialist development. You appear to be an ignoramus who favors white indirect rule on African soil through the puppet-stooges, their governments in place today in Africa. His explanation remains incompetent, as your conversation is on this channel.
@@NkrumahTure Name calling is childish, why don't you debunk his points?
@@MrDanielfff777 My experience outweighs his points. I don't have anything to prove. 31 years as an organizer in a revolutionary organization. I've worked with people you'd never come within 10 feet of.
@@NkrumahTure Okay??? That does not debunk anything he said....
This is TH-cam, you have the chance to
wow, that was one of the poorest lectures I've ever heard.
Perhaps because you weren't listening well enough
@@integinteg7068 because he didn't blame the west or whitewomen for African"s problem but put it where it belongs on the poor leadership
@@neilnelmar8007 wait don’t get it twisted they are still to blame ( don’t try and act like that’s not true like Africa wouldn’t be what it’s like today if it wasn’t for colonialism, genocide, slavery ect. ) but he gives an interesting perspective on how these leaders are not engaging in “true socialism”( if he even thinks that’s a thing) but one that has the same exploitative nature that capitalism does
@@neilnelmar8007 well said, we always wanna blame others for our problems