Good day, love your documentary videos, it is really informative. please I have a request, can you make a documentary of Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya? his life, rule and how he died? I checked your videos and I didn't see any about him or his rule. Thank you
@Ikechukwu Iyere Thats cause Gaddafi was a socialist who made his country the wealthiest in Africa.His a neoliberal shill,though he does make good videos on anything but economics (because sometimes his solutions are,just privatize it,exactly what Africa has done for centuries because of Europe and has mostly not worked)and broad history.Like Africa only had a couple of socialist leaders and he blames all its problems on them and even calls Nigeria’s leaders and Mobutu socialist,which is just wrong.
I just want to say that as an American these videos give me a lot of insight into African history and politics. The media here tends to ignore Africa a lot so this channel helps educate me a lot. Keep up the good work!
Cameron Sagheb reading books it's better. This videos are not the best source of information. The narrator sticks to a narrative that atrributes solely to african statesmen the responsability for their countries failing to achieve what they pretended. In reality, its way deeper than that.
@@evano5635 How is it propaganda if it's normal for big, rich countries to have 12-18 ministries (e.g. USA has 15) but the poorest have 80-90 with overlapping functions?
As a high school teacher, you should be reading from the thought leaders not a TH-cam content. It’s most more complex then merely highlighted here. I we argued this is a regurgitation of western commentary of those leader somewhat sabotaging the struggle of the funding fathers.
That's the biggest problem. It's hard to build hundreds of years of the production to match the likes of Germany in a 5-year presidency. I'll give capitalism one thing, it makes lots of stuff (of varying usefulness) very quickly, and it's not as easy to replicate the same thing with a system based on a centralised command economy, with a group of relatively inexperienced ministers running the whole show.
@@lorenzlechner-scott4310 I meant of course Free Speech as a political right. In what countries or kingdoms in the 19th century or earlier were you allowed to openly criticize your government? I am unaware of any that don't stem from the Greco-Roman Democracies and Republics. If you know of some I would be interested to learn about them!
@@LiberRaider their are many examples of ancient writings, literature, songs, poems, stories that were not only openly critical of ruling classes and royalty. It is also important to highlight the west were never historically pro free speech quite the opposite frankly.
@@LiberRaider Six Nations (Iroquois) among other tribal nations in what is now the US and Canada. All were encouraged to voice their concerns in council, and still are to this day. My own tribe works the same way, and shocked the Spaniards when they came to the Southeastern US in the 1500s. Women were and are also in the councils. Far more inclusive than the Europeans could have ever imagined back then.The Greco-Roman form of "democracy" only allowed male citizens to be part of it, therefore not a true democracy as we know it now. Where are you from that this isn't taught?
I remember reading that Mansa Musa was asked in Egypt why he doesn't control the gold mines directly. He responded that if he did they wouldn't have any gold; that it was best to let the locals command this, an ultimate sign of trust. Pre-colonial West Africa (can't speak for the whole) engaged in structured ethno-corporatism and interethnic cooperation, something lacking in today's Africa. Food for thought.
Americans and their European counterparts wouldn't allow any socialist state prosper. They either assassinated socialist leaders in Africa or made every necessary step to make sure socialism on continent failed.
Ryan Ejodamen sure bud, it’s not like those socialists were back stabbing each other for foriegn money or anything, socialists being greedy? C’moooon (sarcasm)
Kinda neoliberalish with its assessment but it does point out some important points. I would say that the juxtaposition between Rodney and that other author named isn’t a fair one as Walter Rodney is an intellectual giant within this field in comparison. Thomas Sankara was successful because he wasn’t highly dogmatic towards Marxism-Socialism so much as he wanted real solutions for his people. He was one of the few genuine revolutionaries, perhaps Cabral being the other. The over reliance on slavish clinging to ideology is an issue many other leaders had which gave their policies a lack of flexibility with regards to growth and development. My family’s country Ethiopia is a great example of this and how development was arrested and eventually the state owned structure made it easy for a political mafia to enrich itself. Marxism in theory shouldn’t have even been that big seeing as how Africans themselves have a long tradition of such communal modes of production/societal composition far older than Marx and those would’ve been genuine attempts at rejecting all things colonial which should’ve included the East as much as the West. Anyways I digress, would say that Sankara is a good example of how left leaning policies can be successfully applied only for outside interests to interfere and end such progress. To brush aside the reality of Africa’s precarious lopsided relations with the outside world and how leaders have been cut down young over it gives off a very dense and naive vibe with relation to this portion of our history.
Very good point. As someone who's skeptical of socialism in many forms, nonetheless its successes should be analyzed, and those in the capitalist west shouldn't be so keen to dismiss the left with as much dogma as leftists have historically dismissed any break from orthodoxy. And as much as I hate leftists covering up their failures with conspiracy theories, it's naive to assume that outside colonial powers had no role in the snuffing out of African socialism. Hopefully many African nations in the future will be able to choose their path forward on their own terms, sooner rather than later.
@@colourqueen22 i am Indian and you cant say Indan accent too, we speak 2000 languages. But i am wise enough to reaslied that most people will not know that nor does it mean anything or neither is it offensive, i am no hating or angry but seriouslyu geta life and stop finding reason to hate and get angry for everything. People like you makes the world miserable
@@colourqueen22 thats the way it should be man, people arent perfect. Its all about understanding and respect, one of the many things a like abour African continent is that people shoot straight instead of talking half ass truth
There is a reason they wanted socialism. If you use capitalism the Americans and Europeans will come and invest in your country give you a good economy but then because they are wealthier, they will constitute a large part of the economy and dictate what happens in the countries which wouldn't be independence. The US government could through a big company decide which president they wanted in power and all that. To be free you have to endure
You do realize a large part of the reason we seek loans from china is because the IMF and World bank impose a lot of restrictions on loans to African Nations. Additionally Most "foreign aid" goes out of western government pockets to the African nation and back into western businesses, effectively creating informal monopolies and suppressing the local economy making these countries subservient. In this way the World Bank and the IMF and Foreign Aid have basically privatized colonialism in Africa. Wile I don't think China is altruistic or even the better choice. Let's not pretend that the Western powers ever stop their imperial ambitions over Africa. The only change is it's not direct but informal control of the economy.
Great work on this video. One point though, it's interesting to note the fact that African rebel armies would often declare themselves Marxist - Leninist/Socialist to gain support (often in the forms of arms, and military supplies/training) from the Soviet Union. Because the USSR, post-1953 (death of Stalin) continued to try to export its world revolution of the proletariat. And it saw Africa as the perfect ground for the creation of Socialist allies for the Soviet Union. Many of the rebel groups who called themselves 'Marxists', actually had little interest in the creation of a Marxist state and just used the USSR as a depot for free weapons. I understand even some Islamic radical groups/separatists declared themselves Marxists for this purpose, which is quite ironic. The Soviet Union usually turned a blind eye to the crimes that these rebel groups committed, and just threw guns at the African continent. Fuelling the cycle of violence gripping many parts of the continent.
Devya Dixit I can believe that. All these revolutions from Cuba to Africa were inspired largely by Lenin’s “success”. They just had not seen the full fruits of communism yet.
I think the Russians knew that but just didn`t care because it is better to give guns to Africans that would harras the enemies of the USSR like America and the Taliban
As a person who grew up in Ghana, I think you got it right with them having more corrupt officials than those who want to serve the people of Ghana. Every political leader in Ghana, tends to get elected promising to change the system but in the end, there are just too many corrupt officials in positions of power
@@godofthisshit I am saying the corrupt officials in power corrupt new elected officials who may have actually believed they could have changed the system
I had not watched more than 3 minutes of this piece to see that this was the genesis of our terrifyingly tyrannic government style in Africa. The class of 1950-60 PanAfrica Leaders may have had good intentions....but they were wrong. It created governments that were too power-drunk, too much control...too little restraint. The class of 1950-60 all died...and in their place, men with little or no moral compass took over a system that was setup to amass the sweat of the people into a gigantic government purse. They were wrong. Now Africans suffer for it.
@@AgbaOluebube Capitalist government. Africa needs key politicians who will drive the need the amass wealth and all-around control away from the centre. But make no mistake, this drive won't be from a place of patriotism - it will be from a place of vested interest in seeing corporate entities become strong, even stronger than the government in some aspect: that way, the government becomes less of a participant in the economy. This model will serve more people, make political office less repulsively lucrative, and will attract more diplomatic brains into the polity - even if it may have come from self-seeking foundations.
They weren't the only ones wrong. The people carry the blame as well because ultimately it was the people who allowed them to gain and maintain power. At this point, all African nations have to find what works to help them become stable nations for future generations. What worked for the Europeans and/or Americans simply won't work on the continent of Africa in the same way. Religion is at the core of many of the problems whether it be Christians, Muslims or traditionalists. The one thing the Europeans got right was to create secular societies where no matter what you believe you're accepted but your beliefs are not the beliefs of the State because those are based on secular and neutral principles. If African nations can do that first, then we'll start seeing the progress we need to make life safe and prosperous for all who want it.
Emmanuel Okebugwu most forget that the west was built on something worst than socialism. It was managed by a Feudal system where the serfs/slaves did all the work. Now China has risen because it is managed by socialism on steroids (communism). All Africa needed after colonialism was fair trade during early restoration of cultural and spiritual systems lost due to Europeans interference etc.
Someone overseeing National roads, Someone overseeing Public Transport, Someone overseeing Roads and Public Transport. What's so hard to understand XD /s
The rejection of capitalism as a vestage of colonialism by the early post-colonial African leaders is very reminiscent of a quote from Irish Republican and socialist James Connolly. "If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs." PS I've greatly enjoyed watching your videos and learning about the history of Africa. Much love from Canada.
Wow I’m very impressed with your knowledge of Irish history Connolly’s son was actually smuggled through Norway to the ussr as the Soviets had such a respect for Connolly calling him “head and shoulders above his (western) socialist counterparts”
And it was this mentality that made sure Ireland was one of the poorest nations in Europe until the Celtic Tiger that saw the nation embrace open market economics and ultimately raised the standard of living for almost everyone. Prior to that Ireland was effectively socialist - even De Valera's watered down crypto-socialism was anything but laissez-faire. Taxation and protectionism was higher than most European nations, industrialization was close to non existent and the only way most Irish people were able to find employment was to emigrate. Ireland did not see net immigration until the 1990's, so poor was the nation. Connolly is often quoted by the Irish left, because he was a socialist ideologue who died in 1916, long before his beliefs could be tested and would have failed, as they did with all his contemporaries. Truth is Ireland dodged a bullet with his death - as bad as De Valera's mismanagement was, he wasn't the ideological fanatic Connolly was and Connolly would have probably led Ireland to a famine that would have made the Great one look like a diet.
I dont see how the richest continent in history would be indebted to anyone. If every state handle and maintain their expense/budgets fairly. I understand the foothold Europe has always had on countries that weren't as technologically war bound as them.
@@gaddob3363 are you even from Ireland? this is total shite. Devalera was a complete capitalist, but obviously a colonised country takes a long time to recover. Ireland only became wealthy after we joined the EU and gained access to the wealth that was and still is stolen from Africa and India. Connolly's prediction was entirely true, we did remain subservient to British capital, even after we gained independence.
Yep! I am from Cameroon and when he addressed the Ghanian expansion of Government I saw that as exactly what Biya is doing! SMH. Africans in diaspora always VOTE for the socialis/marxists/commies and that is why they don't understand Americans chasing Trump. The democRAT party in the US is clearly Socialsist and marxist. I am glad America rejected that for free market capitalism with TRUMP!!
The points you mention are precisely what they want to move the discourse away from. You are being very unhelpful to this new program to undermine emerging democratic socialism in Africa and across the world. Please ask no more obvious questions and pretend you are ignorant of history, because that's what these pro-capitalist opinion makers depend on.
When I saw a video by this channel singing the praises of the Western backed criminal Kagame I quickly realized the true intent of its material. To continue to push the Western imperial narratives and propaganda that have allowed Africa to be plundered for centuries. No thanks.
'Absolute' Socialism Promise: The means of production will be in the hands of the people and serve the people's interests. Reality: The means of production are in the hands of the government and serve the government's intrests.
@@nilihcrevo9820 Governements can adopt democratic interests, which is not the same as "the people"'s interests (as theorised by J.-J- Rousseau, for example). For the record, I actually translated this video into French and dubbed it as well. It's going to be uploaded soon.
Excellent video friend, I'm from Kenya and most people that I have interacted with seem to think that the problem is corruption in the government but don't understand it's the bueracracy that fosters the growth and spread of corruption
@MangoMan Power while I'm not going to lie, there's a lot of poverty in the country, life is getting better day by day. Life today is better than 10 or 20 years ago. More people have disposable income so if you travel around the country especially in the urban and suburban areas there are lots of construction of houses, sewages etc. Rural areas are getting connected to the grid so now most of the country have access to electricity.
Being from Eastern Europe, to me this tale of great but failed promises, corruption and autocratic leaders is like looking in the mirror. Same ideologies, same timeline, different places, but same (disappointing) results.
@@AtheismF7W The 2020's look a lot like the 1920's at this stage. I would be surprised if a charismatic populist leader did not appear as a response to this renewed call for international socialism, it is kind of inevitable.
With the same force to destroy those beautiful systems which worked, the west. See China, doing very well and the west is trying to destroy in every way.
@@u.d.7543 I really don't see China as sustainable on a local level, it has to expand to remain profitable and is currently based on slave labor and exploitation of the workers, and has massive corruption and nepotism. It is also evolving into a totalitarian state with total surveillance and extermination camps for dissidents.
@Jimmy Chou Wouldn't have been the case without the oil wealth combined with small population. The Saudi citizens are also very rich thanks to the boon of oil wealth.
I think Paul Kagame of Rwanda is a fine model of progressive, new leadership in Africa. Sure, Kagame may have blood on his record, but his leadership unified a nation on the brink of genocide, ushered in a growing economy for Rwanda(while not allowing foriegn investors too much control and influence), and(so far) has kept governent corruption at bay in what is considered by many to be the cleanest country in Africa.
@@jeffsakala2292 so what? The past administrations allowed millions of tutsis to be slaughtered. They claimed to be democratic, I'd rather live under a dictator who's intelligent and knows what they're doing rather than an incomoptent democratic government who allows mass killings in the streets
Be that as it may he is still a dictator. He has set a terrible precedent. His mentality of wanting to hold on to power for as long as possible is the reason why the continent has so many tyrants.
@@macnosmutano4849 in order for a peaceful transition into democracy a war torn nation like Rwanda requires a strong man in order to ensure the social divide that caused the war in the first place is no more. Only then can the country truly become a free and democratic place.
Is a minister like a secretary of a department? For example in the US there are a few departments in the executive branch. They’re all headed by the secretary of that department.
@@realjrq yes, like a minister for agriculture is the same as the US secretary for agriculture, and would be appointed by the head of government just like in the US
@@thelonewanderer4084 Socialism isn't compatible with true democracy. Socialism restricts individual freedom at the "benefit" of the collective. If you don't agree with socialism, too bad! Because we will force it upon those who disagree. Socialism will always continue to march into oblivion under the dogma that it could create a utopia. You can't say real socialism hasn't been tried because it didn't work, that's ignorance. How many examples do you need, how many people need to die before you realise socialism doesn't work. The best method we have to date is a free market with emphasis on social policy. Don't restrict individuals, but also redistribute resources to those who aren't as capable within a society. Equity is unnatural and unethical, but we can provide a minimum standard for all humans by allowing everybody to have their freedoms to produce and thrive in a society.
Inago Ollisbouris true democracy? You mean the true democracy where people in soviet russia were ignored when 70% of the people voted for the continuing of the udssr, and the usa didn‘t like that so they forced them to do it in secret? Or the true democracy, that voted in boris yeltzin, with 8 procent of the vote? Socialism is authoritarian, not because it wants to, but because the outside will always try to crush it. There are dictators in countries that are socialist, because they need a centralized government, in order to defend themselves. Cuba is a great country because it dealt with all this shit by being blockaded and still people have free healthcare, great education and equality. And what does restrict individuals mean? You mean the individuals that regularly riot because of the shit that trump did. Or the individuals that are never happy as a majority in europa, because no party get‘s over 50 procent of the vote. Socialist countries have democratic systems, that are that sorts out the people vote for vote until there are two. That way people are always voting for the next president. The people decide the goverments decicions and every government role. Sure, we can talk about countries like venezuela, but using them as en example is bullshit, mainly because the country failed because of the implementation of capitalism. At the beginning of the cricis 70% procent of it‘s market was privatized. Another country you could try to use and fail to use is the catalan Union which failed because it was in a civil war. Next country, french commune, which was crushed because civil war. These two example also show the that a centralized government is needed in order to preserve socialism and keep it save from outside threat. Stalin was planning on making the soviet union a full democracy TWICE. Once right before the nazi invasion and another time right before the start of the cold war. There are obviously many other reasons why socialism in the eastern block failed, like the counties adopting a type of socialist, which was not made for their countries. Maxist-Leninism. It is a type of marxism which is created to successfully bring the revolution to russia NOT poland or romania or hungary etc. now we can talk about how the brutal suppression of strikes are actually strikes from people that do not make up the majority of the people most of the time and do not represent most of them either most of the time, or how social democracy was so well Adepted in Scandinavia because many policies were capitalist versions of soviet policies but i don‘t think i need to. Lastly socialism showed it‘s effects when in the twenties creativity in soviet russia skyrocketed but yeah. We can talk about the incompetence of some leaders and their contributions of future problems in the UdSSR or famines, which were btw not caused by incompetent. Although i need to admit that the Ukrainian crop failure was made worse by it. But i think that is enough to show that socialism is working, as long as others don‘t try to tear it down no matter what. And even then countries like cuba show that it can continue, even after over 100 tries of assasination Invasion and over 50 years of terror sponsoring and bombing of the country. And even after all that, they still are the most stable country in latin america, the country with the least illiterats, even surpassing the usa, free healthcare, free education and so much more. Socialism does work, it just needs competent people in power.
The problema was, they were marxists only when it came to the analysis on imperialism (which was mostly correct). There was no history of strong working class movement (which there was in Europe for example), or democracy (this is what they lacked in Soviet bloc also). The co-operative experiments and experiments based on local community control on the means of production have been succesful, and there has been no "lack of initiative" (the essential reason mr. Ayittey provides) in these experiments on the part of the people. Status and respect within the close community and the security provide by it are enough. Also even for those who support capitalism: it has been shown, that initiative to provide better solutions only works on small scale - it is the petty bouregeoisie that is a class of innovation, no the big bourgeoisie. Marx did not see correctly the fate of petit bourgeoisie - although he was correct in his observation, that free market and big business will ultimately squash the small time enterpreneuers, he failed to see that this class would be (at least in countries with high enough education level and enough democracy [as much as one can have in capitalism]) replenished from lower classes in perpetuum. So, as elsewhere, it ws not a failure of socialism, but a failure of the state, a failure of democracy (there is antagonism between state and democracy). And democracy can not be realized without a) a good level of education (knowledge is a means of power; compulsory education has been supported by anarchista also, for example; the education can be provided by strong people's movement also, as it was in North European countries or Germany or Austria), b) strong communities, whether in cities or countryside (the example of Rojava revolution), with strong economic ties between each other and continuously growing economic independence on local level.. in this production co-operatives also come into question; it is also to be noted, that since people create solidarity to humanity through close affiliation groups (as "being defines conciousness", not some abstract notion), these are necessary for wider solidarity, and wider solidarity is a necessity for the individually weak, c) a possibility to "do damage from below", for people to get organized and either provide a democratic localized (but confederalistic) means of violence (Rojava, Spain, workers movements in early 20th century Europe), or by means of economic damage (that is unions by means of strike and sabotage, and consumer co-operatives; the strong workers unions have been the backbone and "sine qua non" of North European "welfare states" - the welfare was forced by the organized power of workers, as they pressured the state and private capitalists) d) limited power of the (bourgeois, it is always bourgeois) state to fight its own people - that is, checks and balances forced upon it by the people, and constant vigilance in upholding these checks and balances e) women's emancipation, which encompasses all mentioned above (this was the thing many African leaders, like Sankara, did understand, to their credit); Rojava is the best example Do get to know the history of a) workers movement in 20th century western and northern Europe (and try not to watch it through parliamentarism, but through unions and co-operatives, and guards, and educational projects), b) communalism and democratic confederalism as described in the writings of Murray Bookchin (available widely in the internet) and Abdullah Öcalan (some pamflets are available in English); Öcalan is also a great feminist c) imperialism: this is what most Africans have done, the notions of Rodney, Nkrumah, Mao, Sankara, Fanon and such are valid when it comes to notions on imperialism (even if one can not agree with them on the question of the state); add to your understanding on imperialism by reading James O'Connor and Juan Martinez-Alier on ecological effects of imperialism d) anarchism: especially Bakunin, Malatesta, Mumford and Makhno are worthwile, and available in internet e) green thinking, as it conincides with creating more means of democracy: that is permaculture, intermediate technology (this was promoted by a christian socialist E.F. Schumacher, who was for a short period an aide to Kaunda), taking the initiative in fighting eco-catastrophy (Sankara's initiative in planting trees by locals was admirable, so has been the fight fought corageously by MEND against Shell) on a local community level f) Marxism outside of the confines of "Marxism-Leninism" or other models of "state socialism": get to know the thought of Korsch, Mattick, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Holloway and Frankfurt school, and the Tiqqun collective (if u are REALLY pro-state solutions, then at least get to know the thoughts of austromarxist like Otto Bauer)
I'll guess before watching: Marx wrote from Germany and Britain, he had industrialized nations in mind, all who tried it were agricultural, sometimes feudal societies
@@StoutProper yeah, I wasn't putting that in an order to suggest germany being the number 1 country he wrote in, I merely added germany because although I wasn't sure whether he had written there as well, since it's his country of origin I guessed he did.
Yes this a big reason why we need a bigger emphasis on pan-African studies in schools. What has already been tried? What has failed and why? What has succeeded and why? Without a proper understanding of Africa's true history, Africans can never move forward as a whole.
"No need to innovate or pursue excellence," well, socialism in the USSR over in Eurasia certainly managed to innovate, look up Soviet inventions for instance. These are some of the USSR's achievements: "Eliminated homelessness", "Eliminated unemployment (for those able to work)", raised life expectancy by 65%", "raised school enrollment by 460%", "achieved full literacy ", "compared to 1913 pre-war growth levels... Industry growth was 908.8%" All of this is also without mentioning increased women's rights, increased rights for ethnic minorities, etc. Women, for example, had increased college enrollment, workforce, and political participation, as well as the fact that a lot had see in the military especially during the Great Patriotic War(World War Two). As well as how the Soviet Union put the Sputnik satellite in space, developed the hydrogen bomb, etc. The USSR did this. Burkina Faso did similar. How could those nations not do the same?
Its such a socialist paradise, but where is USSR today? 🤣 There's no unemployment in USSR because they made sure everyone had a job no matter how fucking redundant and inefficient it will be. Imagine being a farmer forcibly transported thousands of kilometers to a steell mill doing shit with the minimal trainimg. Everyone is employed because everyone is given pretend jobs. But it doesn't matter if you're employed or not in USSR, since there's just too little to use with what you are paid. Since the price of everything is fixed, there's no substantial income to improve production, and the factories who produce everything won't do their best to improve their quota simply because there's almost no compensation of being efficient, only double the quotas. So there's high demand but there's always shortage of everything. By the way did ya know that the first toilet factory in USSR was built only 8 years AFTER they launched the first man in space?
@@FatGouf Never said it was a paradise, just saying socialist nations achieved a lot and that socialism doesn't quash innovation. Most modern innovation occurs with government or government-funded or non-profit research, like microprocessors, vaccines, GPSs, etc. Innovation occurs in spite of capitalism not because, plus, capitalism shuts down things that aren't profitable usually. East Germany made a glass 15x stronger than regular and more chemically pure, reunified Germany got rid of this because it wasn't profitable. Planned obsolescence, contrived durability, and repair locking all exist which harm innovation and such, whereas a Soviet or Yugoslav washer or fridge lasts decades, not just to warranty. I believe in unlocking the human spirit and capacity for innovation and achieving amazing things.
@@FatGouf Where's the sourcing for this? And okay, if this were true, let's learn from past socialisms' mistakes and do better and perhaps reach a point where automation and leisure are more active and rewarded. At least everybody did get paid and have jobs and stability, that is a pro, but we can do better and change things up.
@@FatGouf You shouldn't be forcibly near anything. It should be voluntary for most things. Where's the evidence it was forceful as well? Just saying, because I question virtually everything.
The part about "Malignant legacies" at 10:00 is the part that hurt the most in this excellent video. Dependency on government has become a traditional part of life that is inherited with every new generation.
Yeah and "they" didn't even mention the international sanctions on the nations and lack of investment because they got cut off since they were taking away land from the neo-colonialist corporations. The food exports are the same as we are seeing in Ethiopia today. The nation is starving while the corporations of the world own the land so that they can export the food and generate a surplus in first world countries as it goes for a higher price. The channel could have made a critique of socialism in Africa, but in this case, they're just propagating the propaganda of the puppets in Africa.
This video is HORRIBLE. It reveals what happens to the people, even the educated amongst us when we have historical information but no political education or class lens to see it through.
I'd like to think that they had good intentions but didn't have the right data & knowledge. Today we know, backed up by stats and overwhelming evidence that 100% unhinged capitalism isn't the answer and neither is 100% socialism. The next leaders of Africa must embrace capitalism, reform old outdated policies and also create nation-building (i.e build a black identity - like in Rwanda, where Tribalism isn't allowed). I recommend everyone that's serious about finding solutions to watch two documentaries; 1) The Power of The Poor. 2) The Prince of Yen.
@@phantompage4304 Who said you were Americans? So what if we've existed for years? Black people in Africa have existed for years, but still dead last economically speaking compared to everyone else. We must adopt to the world and change. Being tribal and having some old customs from 1000 years ago isn't always useful - so we need to drop those things.
@@jzk2020 it ain't tribal. It's Ethnic conflict. You haven't been to Africa to know first hand it's problems. Too many ethnicities with different conflicts based on a variety of factors. I don't expect a lost people to understand
@@phantompage4304 Stop assuming. I was born in Africa. Its TRIBAL. And even if you want to call it ethnicity, it doesn't matter. We still can't be operating like we are 5000 different ethnicities. Black people won't survive taking on white/Chinese people that collectively see themselves as 1 people, even though you could technically argue there are different white/chinese tribes/ethnicities.
you know why? because it won't fit into "socialism doesn't work" narration he's one of the socialist leader that work and then got assasinated just like gaddafi
@@skellurip The western world absolutely has to make sure socialism doesn't work because it poses a threat to them. Socialist leaders in Latin America and Africa got assassinated for standing up for themselves.
Yeah there are obviously facts this guy left out. What i would like to see- how bad were trade sanctions on revolutionary African countries; how was their economic growth; were the governments actually controlled by the working classes or just a tool of the national bourgeois wanting to develop their countries without imperialism exploiting tf out of them and keeping them poor. I believe they were national-bourgeois mostly. And most of these govts had to stop calling themselves socialist after the USSR fell and had to seek Western aid. Funniest thing is how capitalists (and pro-capitalists) always blame the failure of ex-socialist, capitalist countries, on socialism. He claims they are just failing because the govt controls some industries. In reality the govts are all subject to capitalist interests, mainly Western capitalists who buy stuff from Africa for cheap or own the African capital and thus keep it undeveloped by overexploitation. No surprise if you have a bunch of foreign capitalists controlling your industries, then when you try to nationalize them, they get mad, leave, and put sanctions, which will hurt the economy. In Mozambique there was a huge exodus of whites If you have socialism, These capitalists promise that capitalism is better. If you switch to capitalism and it's not working, then they say you must privatize all your industries. If you do this, and all your people are dirt poor, they don't give a shit and pay no attention and keep saying socialism failed.
Thomas Sankara was a true revolutionary. He believed that Africa’s vast resources should be used to benefit AFRICANS, not Western corporations and a few African elites. He was killed because his message was so dangerous.
@Sonic Phil well, there must be an alternative to capitalism(for me is a mix of systems) as capitalism in the long run it also became just like communism
I studied the economy of west Africa at school. With reference to Ghana we were taught that the production of cocoa declined with the nationalisation of the cocoa plantations. Under private ownership the trees were replaced when the trees were passed their productive best. However under nationalisation that didn't happen. As a result yields fell.
Wrong. They artificially dropped the the price of cocoa, to Ghana, and lowered the regular quota which had been an increasing export up until they deliberately reduced it. That was the economic squeeze the west placed on Ghanas exports to sabotage it's economy. Ghana had made adjustments that was beginning to work through the "squeeze" before they resorted to the coup d'etat which suddenly removed the legal government and ended it's active participation in the continental unification of Africa. When do white men ever want to see our people totally free of them?
@douglas wahid No, it won't work, feudalism is socialism in another sense. I live in Kenya, East Africa. Most local community leaders were retained. Problem with your point, is that after colonialism, the capitalist-socialist dichotomy was thrust upon most African countries. Previously, various tribes had chiefs, kings or emperers who mostly assumed the role of leading during war(almost like feudalist Europe back then), but after the British and French came, they thrust their systems upon us. Considering we return to feudalism, it would be catastrophic because the countries, let alone the continent as a whole, is super diverse. A country like Kenya, where I live, we have 47 tribes, that would mean 47 feudal entities, which can cause conflict. I think for Africa's case, we just have to move on.
@@michaelamuquandoh6343 that would take decades if not centuries. Remember even in the earl days of America, they had a difficult time letting go of their statehood in favor of nationalism. Heck, they even fought a civil war. I am sure with time Africans will see themselves less along their tribal lines and more as a nation. But that requires decades of living together, intermarriages and community clashes and peace deals before they can finally start prioritizing nationalism over tribalism.
The greatest evidenve why the policies are to blame, instead of this just being bad luck, is to look at Botswanas attempt at capitalism which lead to one of the greatest economic miracles in africa of all time. All governments are run by humans. All humans make mistakes. If a company in capitalism makes a mistake, they lose money and will just be replaced by a better company. If the government in socialism makes a mistake, everyone suffers. Capitalism is the future.
Well what puzzles me is Marxism needs capitalism to first develop the means of production first before the socialism can be successful but all through history largely rural countries have always sort to skip that step.
that "success" is just expolitation. take for example national socialist germany they had several socialist programs and were already failing in Economy, their solution was first exploiting "capitalist" jews then conquest. this is why the whole hitler good years is such bullshit since it is a bunch of socialist projects that look good in the short term and to compensate you go conquer and exploit their Ressources and use the conquered people as slaves. the socialist biggest advantage is always the romantic idea and short term success by giving away "free" stuff that makes the leaders very popular short term but the stuff they give away is labor of the people and to keep it up you have to force people to keep working and since centralizing planning by so many factors requires god to manage it never works. capitalism advantage is that it is decentralized free exchange of goods and services and you dont need a central commitee to plan it and people can adapt to multiple factors way more effeciently than a central leader and bureacrats
Africa should develop a government and economy based on African principles. Obviously, this is different for different places, however it is dangerous to put so much power in the hands of people who were in control during the colonial extraction period. There should be democratic elections, and a focus on efficiency and allowing young African minds to create. As in many African philosophies, the key is balance. There should be an economic floor for citizens, some socialism, and means for them to create businesses, some capitalism. Extremes are where you get yourself in trouble.
Why not just look around the world and choose the systems that work. Carl Marx may have had a good theoretical idea but it has failed wherever it's been attempted.
Frederick Douglas Once said it's better to raised little children than to repair broken man. You can never developed a country if you depend on another countries for aid and supplies for population demand. Money and political policies can't devolped a country. Only the people of that land can develop their land through proper promotion of research and education especially in the scientific domain. African leaders don't use the people of the land to develop the land. They use their slave and colonial masters to do what they earned the right to do for them self. That alone is a failure act by it self. China do all by them self and sell to all they produce. Now that is power. Africa should do same and they will become the most powerful nation on earth.
Apart from the fact that china uses their own people as slaves and now with the land they have been buying in Africa are using the people there as slaves
I lived in Tanzania for 2 years back in the 70s. I got to visit Ujamaa Villages. The residents did not seem to be very happy. They had been forcefully relocated from elsewhere and made to live with people they did not know. Rather than building a community, TANU was breaking apart existing communities in order to get their Ujamaa villagers. Nyerere "retired" from political life in 1985 because his socialism mostly failed. Something else that hurt Tanzania was its 'nationalization' of private wealth, along with its persecution of the Indian merchant and professional class. Indians were pushed into exile after their businesses were confiscated, and the Tanzanian gov't actively promoted resentment of Indians. Indians were called 'Banyani' in the state controlled press - a Swahili term which meant "usurers", or cheats. The British had brought Indians to Tanganyika to form its civil service - the British did not believe that Africans were capable of governing themselves. One heard in Tanzania that Nyerere was the only college-educated black in the country when independence came about. The British did not encourage blacks to get college degrees. With the Indian professional class leaving, Tanzania did not have a competent civil service.
@@NewAfrica You are leading people into oblivion with all these video. In this particular subject on Socialism. Africans are not politically educated and didn't know any from of government. Obviously, No kind of government is going to help 90% of Africa because of corruption. You saying socialism didn't work without accounting for how corrupt leaders are the parasites seems like a failure on your part. Nigeria is a mixed economy but capitalism dominates and no matter what kind of government runs that country, it is still going to continue to face it current problems. You also ignored Thomas Sankara and others who were actually prosperous. This seems more like a capitalist propaganda and I can't tell you have joined the club, the capitalist club and getting the TH-cam MONEY. I hope everything turns out good for you.
I really like the narrator's speaking voice, it is very engaging. I really admire and respect George for how long and consistently he has been doing real research as an economist and not being afraid to loudly proclaim the results to the public no matter how unfashionable his findings are.
Socialism by its very design is destined to fail even without corruption. It does not take into account the psychological impact of motivation and incentives.
Corruption has existed in every government in every part of the world for all of recorded history. The trick is to limit the size of government and limit the effect of corruption on regular people.
We all grew up with hearing the excuse of '800 years of oppression' whenever the question of why Ireland was so economically backward was asked, but by the eighties, after 60 years after independence , the excuse was wearing thin. Ireland's economy was mismanaged on multiple fronts, starting with De Valera's dream of an agrarian society where comely maidens would dance at the crossroads. Through to decades of high taxation, public spending and heavy protectionism. I never said it was socialism, that's why I specifically called it crypto-socialism, few in the political class would have known socialism if it bit them on the arse, but neither was it free market capitalism either, with the State imposing control over many industries, overspending, never making any attempt to expand free trade (indeed was opposed to it), despite a ridiculous reliance on the UK that resulted in a humiliating trade war, and favouring policies based on ideology rather than economic sense. Had someone like Connolly survived and gotten into power, it would have been a lot, lot worse - just like pretty much everywhere else that really adopted socialism. And yes, the wealth gap has grown since the eighties, yet overall standard of living has risen across the board. Or would people be happier if everyone was equally poor? I recognize that we've never failed to produce gobshites who like to view Irish history nostalgically, as it were but if you read pretty much any book on Ireland's economic history it would agree that the place was a basket case.
How's the homelessness crisis in Ireland going? I swear it's dramatically worse every time I visit. Beautiful country and great craic but a "growing wealth gap" is a bit of a trivialisation for just how bad the inequality has become.
@@MrDoomedtofail Strawman argument. I didn't suggest Ireland is some sort of economic utopia; naturally there are problems. The point I made is that it is overall better off than it was for the first 60 years of independence, which it is by far by almost all metrics.
@@nish_56 Says the man who attacks someone for dragging a discussion off topic, then chooses to give his halfpence worth on that off topic argument. The hypocrisy is strong with this one... What would our free state have looked like under Jim Connolly? A safe bet it would have looked like every other state that went down that road. Without exception.
@@degamispoudegamis That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. I criticized the management of Ireland post independence, I made no criticism of the independence movement, so God knows where you pulled that conclusion. Sitting in that armchair has clearly addled your brain.
Zimbabwe is the lone place in Africa that I’d consider moving to, aside from Cape Town. It’s people are lovely, smart, and generally kind. It’s a shame that all that potential is wasted. I know that people like Mugabe would do or say anything to remain in power, but I think it’s a shame that so much emphasis was placed on “colonialists” or “whites” as the enemy. I dream of starting a farm there, creating jobs and food and helping to care for the many beautiful children of Zimbabwe, but I’m not sure it’s possible. I’m American, not English or Boer, but I’m not sure that would matter.
I mean it's hard to build a planned economy when in many of these countries during the time of their independence you could literally count the number of high school and university graduates using your fingers. Granted many of them still had access to experts from their former colonisers and later from other advanced economies such as the USSR. Many of these post independence African countries even if they happened to be authoritarian were still ineffective in the sense they could barely enforce their laws and public services over their own boundaries, in such circumstances I doubt any sort of state control over the economy could have been ever successful.
Lack of vision, transparency and accountability on the part of governments and officials coupled with Western governments subtly undermining these developing nations are the primary causes of the faiures. One answer is to engage and encourage the youth into political debates and genuinely accept some of their recommendations without belittling them. Civic education must be encouraged and implemented without partisanship.
The discussion of communism, or the other forms of socialism, in Africa is incomplete without mentioning the primary reason why it was embraced in the first place. It was not a 100% internal push that promoted it. The western world which engaged in colonialism was indeed capitalist for the most part. Although not of course homogeneously democratic. Pure monarchies were still the standard in Europe during colonialism. In any case obviously European nations benefited from colonialism. That said. Around the time of the cold war - While Europe itself was turning ever more to democracy (The primary reason why the militant occupation of Africa was coming to and end) - Africa became an ideological battleground between the West and the Soviet Union of the time. It was about promoting their own ideology while at the same time undermining the benefit Europe garnered from its colonies. The west primarily protected their interests in Africa, while the Soviets were all too happy to undermine colonialism through training and other support of independence fighters. With regards to training it should be noted that much of this training happened within Africa in sympathetic nations that were allies of the Soviets, but a significant portion actually saw individuals being trained by the KGB inside the Soviet Union itself. A big part of this training was ideological indoctrination into the tenets of Communism. This "special" training was not military in nature - These individuals were being coached in how to take and maintain political control. To this day it is most common to see African leaders who are still remnants of this training program - Directly or by proxy. Take South Africa for instance. In South Africa almost the entire top structure of the ruling ANC party are also members of the SACP (South African Communist Party), or union leaders who received training from the Soviets pre-1994. They have even at times publicly alluded to the exact methods of their training - Often in a bragging way. Spying, counter-intelligence, propaganda, and all the rest. In SA the ANC was fighting with other indigenous parties and groups just about as much as it was fighting with the incumbent colonial government. Purely for ideological reasons and to maintain a hold on the "discussion" around the transition of power so to speak. While the Soviets provided arms for the cannon fodder troops doing the actual freedom fighting on the ground; They hand raised many future "leaders" in their own image to further their own agenda. And these Soviet representatives, which held, or still hold power for decades, were by and large never in it to go hungry afterwards - Quite the contrary. In any case it was inevitable that the Soviet message would find a welcome home in Africa considering the history with the alternative. The irony is that even with the history between Africa and the Western world - It was the wrong choice that was made. Communism is a crock of s***. Africans were manipulated into it.
When Africa was under the colonisation of European powers it wasn't capatilism that was the main ideology but mercantilism which is different and focused on the extraction of wealth rather than the creation. I also think Marxism spoke to many African leaders in literature, philosophy and politics because it aligned well with traditional African values of community and equality. I also think it is counter intuitive to say that all the great African thinkers at the time where manipulated into adopting a Marxism when the reality was most of the global academic world supported Marxism in its many forms because the reality is capatalism is used by the USA in a neo-colonial way which exploits cheap foreign labour.
Finding this channel has to be the best thing that’s happened to me. It’s so enlightening. To chart a proper course forward, we really need to look back and learn. Thank you
8:08 can we just appreciate the choice of image for the economic situation under Mugabe's rule. i.e. the kind with huge swabs of paper money in his arms I find that to be a funny picture indeed.
It is hilarious, except when that's your money and all that doesn't buy a loaf of bread... Zimbabweans are really lovely, I have met quite a few in SA. Pity we are turning into the same, but no neighbouring countries to go to when we collapse.. It's frightening :(
@@Kerrigan.le.Awesome It's frightening when I actually think about the results of being stuck in a economic situation such as inflation. It is very sad.
@@Father_Golden And the saddest part is politicians blaming others and indirectly (sometimes blatantly) inciting violence against those groups. Foreign nationals get a very hard time in SA whenever riots start. It's happening now with trucks being attacked and if they find the driver is foreign... It's really bad...
When you look at the image of barrels of money being pushed to buy groceries, its funny in the first moment but then you realize this kind of inflation leads to starvation and it stops being funny I think.
Not just Africa, many of the thought leaders of the diaspora at that time were drawn to it. We are still suffering the consequences today. When they realized it was a fallacy some flirted with foreign capitalism but still try to keep control of, or limit domestic private enterprise. Thank god for Marcus Garvey because there are few black leaders of that time who encouraged the young black male to get up and do for himself.
Not a single mention of the possibility of 'outside interference'... the *totally invisible* invisible hand..... Ayittey holds a B.Sc. in Economics from the University of Ghana, Legon, an M.A. from the University of Western Ontario in Canada, and a Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba. He has taught at Wayne State College and Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. He held a National Fellowship at the Hoover Institution in 1988-89, and then joined The Heritage Foundation as a Bradley Resident Scholar.[2] He founded The Free Africa Foundation in 1993, to serve as a catalyst for reform in Africa.[4] In 2008, Dr. Ayittey was listed by Foreign Policy as one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" who "are shaping the tenor of our time".... a suitable, educational blinkering ?
Your videos are brilliant my friend. I left a piece of my soul is in Africa after 9 months visiting 19 countries there. I’m only now diving deep into African History and African politics and I get so much information from these documentaries. Keep up the great work. Much love from Australia 🇦🇺 👍
@@cheezybrotherstudios socialism/communism/collectivism is based around taking away from the individual. They can only steal and redistribute. Capitalism is about the individual creating wealth. Its about the free will of people. Obviously there is also an ugly deformation of capitalism, which some would say isnt capitalism. Oligarchies and monopolies forming throigh illicit means. Oligarchies that use the law to remove themselves from the free market. Unfair business practices like what amazon did and still does to become bigger.
Because producing more of the means of production would inevitably cause the collapse of a market, also known as overconsumption and overproduction. Thats one of the biggest criticism Marx had about capitalism, it has innate contradictions that would be the death of it. Unless you're somehow advocating for the collapse of capitalism which will then turn to a socialist revolution, which is uhhh.... kinda accelerationist of you.
@@Xerathiel That's actually a common misconception. Marx and his idea of socialism and communism was extremely individualistic. Infact, he criticized capitalism of being collectivist. This is further proof in the Communist Manifesto, Marx criticized capitalism for only being individualist for the bourgeois and not for the proletariat. "In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." MLK had a similar quote to Marx: Whenever the government provides opportunities in privileges for white people and rich people they call it “subsidized” when they do it for Negro and poor people they call it “welfare.” The fact that is the everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit. And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of 90 percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all to often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem." Max Stirner, who is considered to be one of the most individualistic person to have ever lived with his philosophy "egoism" criticized Marx by calling him a collectivist. All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Everyone one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from a community of goods. The individual's mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mind, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. One the Contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will-bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have." Marx responded in "The German Ideology" "The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature....Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life" Basically put, the individual can only become an individual when the basic needs of oneself are met. Another one, in Gundrisse, which is a response to Proudhon, another anarcho individualist similar to Stirner. "This so-called contemplation from the standpoint of society means nothing more than the overlooking of the differences which express the social relation (relation of bourgeois society). Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. As if someone were to say: Seen from the perspective of society, there are no slaves and no citizens: both are human beings. Rather, they are that outside society. To be a slave, to be a citizen, are social characteristics, relations between human beings A and B. Human being A, as such, is not a slave. He is a slave in and through society. What Mr Proudhon here says about capital and product means, for him, that from the viewpoint of society there is no difference between capitalists and workers; a difference which exists precisely only from the standpoint of society" The individual is not an individual merely from outside forces. But from ourselves and our encounters with others. Even Max himself accidentally agrees with Marx when saying: "I love men too - not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me" The egoist, is based on self realization with purpose of one's happiness. How this is achieved is all up to you, the egoist. Whether you want to alone or to be with the love of your life. It is both altruism and selfishness that drives a human to live. This is known as "the law of opposites" in Marxism, or "yin yang" in dualism. Or simply "egoism". Simply put, individualism cannot exist without collectivism. Marx was as strong of an individualist as Max. They both misunderstood each other. Just as much as Ayn Rand completely misunderstood Marx. Liberal humanism or "liberalism" which is the very foundation capitalism is founded upon, has nothing of this idea. It believes that since from birth, we all have free will. Not only has neurology proven this wrong, but it proved that Marx was right. Free will, is determined by one's influence and desires. Thus, it becomes compatibalism, a contradictionary mix of determinism and free will. Hegel himself said a similar quote to all of these: "Contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and of all life."
I started laughing at Ghana and its many variations of the 'transport ministry' then my county Kenya popped up with its 94 ministers. We are similar, us Africans and our issues.
I disagree with your definition, Marxist Socialism is defined by Worker ownership of the means of production. You should look at Thomas Sankara and the progress he made in Burkina Faso, Ghaddfi in Libya and Schelleyes Islands under Socialism. I’m surprised you did not mention the IMF and World Bank, I would argue they had the worse impact for all of Africa with unplayable loans. Soviet Foreign Aid was similar, what your referring is a form of Regulated Capitalism where upper classes still controls the means of production but it’s controlled under the government rather then private companies.
Agree with your assessment Rehan, having "socialism" under a corrupt authoritarian government only leads to state run capitalism where the economy is used to enrich the few...not Marxism or Socialism.
Pan-African thought and spirituality should manifest in ways that have been compromised by centuries of colonial oppression and methods. Allowing our Ancestral Memory to guide the way could provide a remarkable consensus of possibilities we already know to be necessary and viable.
YES! This is what so many miss. Marx marvelled at capitalism's good qualities and even stated that it was necessary for capitalism to occur before socialism. Countries that try to collectivise before they have the infrastructure, economy, society, and logistics set up and streamlined to do so will stumble and fail. It's why we socialists look to Norway as the future. It's not strictly capitalist nor socialist, yet its socialist policies are unparalleled successes compared to third world countries that have tried the same things. One needs to have the means and knowledge before one tries to build a bridge.
I am not from Norway, but Denmark. Same model. When Americans hear how we run things in Scandinavia you can see how it bothers them that this so called socialism apparently works. We have a mixed economy. Pure capitalism is not good at all imo. Neither is pure socialism.
There is a well documented pattern throughout history that a people, once released from the control of colonialists, will end up imitating the colonialist style of government, often while proclaiming that it is nothing like it, and even insisting that their style is revolutinary, for the good of all, and incorruptible. Yet, in the end, the result is no different, and sometimes worse.
Thomas Sowell noticed that colonialism did more good than harm in a number of places. For the first generation, he generalized, colonialism is terrible. But for the subsequent generations, it's a net positive. One of those tough lessons in history, I suppose. I mean, it took Mussolini to be in charge of Somalia to force them to finally, once and for all, abolish the 1,300-year Bantu slave trade. It's a bad look when the OG fascist is the objective and unequivocal moral compass of a country.
Thank you for your video, I am from Namibia and our current political leadership has embraced these socialist policies for years leading to high government spending and High unemployment with the youth population. These policies although idealistic and good natured, fail to account for the greed of human beings, as such their is always exploitation and corruption with in the institutions that are meant to help the people. Further more the dependence brought on by the over reliance on government cannot be understated as it has led to political parties promising, more and more services without adequate means to finance there handouts leading ever more debt and eventual economic collapse.
@@christiannewaye7306 GDP is just a the average GDP per citizen. Namibia is one of the most unequal societies, meaning GDP per capita is a bad measure. I don't have a problem with inequality, personally I think it's natural. But we must make it more barreble to be poor through free market capitalism. Atleast internally.
Kleopas Shitaleni That’s not remotely true again there’s no definitive evidence the privatization helps job growth at all compared to state owned companies. Also if you factor in income inequality a large chunk of the higher income people are either Afrikaners were descendants of the German colonies in class that’s not to say the members of the ruling party Haven’t become corrupt but statistically taking in all of the material conditions a lot of the economic growth comes from socialism in fact they have discussed at the party conference to return to socialism maybe towards wat Vietnam House which is a socialist market economy similar to Seychelles
@@SJO897 Resource allocation wasn't controlled by a king/chief, rather by individuals or family villages. Neither was trading in most parts of Africa. That's closer to a free market than socialism.
no they worked just like socialist state without sugarcoding it. privacy is key in capitalism and tell me what privacy does a slave have or was any african allowed to compete with the european Businesses that would beat them in the long run since they have the knowledge of the terrain and had their focus in africa?
Very good video! Interesting perspective on socialist economics. We mostly get the USA vs. USSR perspective on capitalism/socialism and whatnot, but little is said about Africa's perspective or experiences. Well done.
I completely agree and relate to the legacy of marxism on a nation. I`m from Serbia and the 2 issues mentioned still plague my county 20 years after it stopped being socialist.
nope nope, look at George Ayitteh he is litteraly backed by us based libertarian think tank to promote capitalism... he got money from corporate interest group disguised as think tank group
It seems a certain amount of socialism can be beneficial, especially as an economy develops. Look at Singapore, Rwanda, Norway - all these nations have achieved strong economic growth while their governments held onto key functions. But your video shows that Africa's wild swing away from colonialism and the market economy was too much, too fast. It would have been smarter to take pride in traditional decision-making structures and keep these at the foundation of the political system, while gradually introducing democratic, socialist and/or capitalist reforms. Great video! Thanks.
The term "government run enterprise" is laughable. How can a referee be a fighter in his own bouts. He will always declare himself the winner. So, such governments would always claim success despite the growing incapacity of their "government run concerns".
The Chinese have pulled it off pretty damn well. So has England’s old government run businesses like the post office, trams trains And health care like nhs.
@@sefp yeah, because those leaders had actual direction. Here in Nigeria, if you ask a politician what his political views were, he would be completely stumped
Zimbabwe, when it was a British colony (Rhodesia), was one of the richest states in Africa (with a better standard of living for all its people), after 40 years of Marxist/anti-Western/anti-white terror it is one of the poorest. Botswana was one of the poorest countries in Africa (never a British colony, but a Protectorate); however, since the mid-sixties it has pursued policies of democracy, a strong legal system, non-discriminatory (not anti-white) employment, co-operation with international bodies and companies, careful social policies and capitalism. Botswana has never been to war with any of its neighbours, had a civil war or a reign of state terror. It is now one of the richest countries in Africa, it has a higher standard of living, more freedom, less corruption and greater human rights than practically any other state in Africa.
This video on its own is a sign of hope. You remind me of Aggrey Klaaste, who was the editor of The Sowetan in South Africa for decades. Good sense is so rare. My take is, the African economies are hampered by patronage. Anyone with an income is expected to support not just his own family, but his extended family as well, and any friends he might have made along the way who have fallen on hard times. The cult of the African Big Man just won't go away. When you add tribalism to it... African countries should be broken up into ethnic enclaves, to reduce ethnic rivalry (related languages can be grouped together); children should be educated in their mother tongue until the age of 16 (this would massively raise the general IQ of the population). With small countries looking after their own people and not exploiting others, government would be more approachable and accountable, with fewer opportunities for graft. People would be free to generate and keep their own wealth. In every population, there are people with a nous for business, who just want to buy and sell and make deals. These people should be free to do what they love best, which makes money for everyone.
That also sounds nice in theory. However ressources are not equally distributed. For example in Nigeria the north wants access to the oil in the south. In other places there are similar problems.
I still agree that Marxist socialism was the best and might still be the only way forward....take a step back and you will realize that it is in line with African values before colonization and Nkrumah was right...furthermore all countries in the past who followed through with Marxist socialism to the core have been successful in development
@@adamwalker2377 No I got the reference, but it seemed to be attacking socialism. Whereas with capitalism that windmill wouldn’t be built at all unless there’s a reasonable profit margin
@@sama847 and what happened with that windmill in the book? Or was that not a depiction of "real communism"? Under a free society (which we don't presently have), you could invest in your own windmill or voluntarily coop with others to share the cost. Leaving fiction for a minute, have you ever heard of a "well share"? People in remote areas do it all the time in order to share the costs. Would you prefer the government tell you exactly how much electricity/water you can have?
@@adamwalker2377 Id prefer the system not be rigged to benefit those at the very top. As it is right now. I want the government I live under to take care of its citizens rather than the citizens “coop”, I.E corporations. George Orwell was a socialist to the point where he went to Spain to fight fascists. He understood the importance of people working together out of a sense of civic duty rather than corporate profits
These African leaders were blinded by passion and distrust for everything Western. It is interesting that most of these pioneers schooled in the West but didn't try to understand how a small group of people became highly advanced and civilized. While Japan. Korea and Taiwan loathed the west they drew a lot of lesson from them and went ahead to build market economies as China did later on.
I live in Britain and used to work with a black lady from Zimbabwe who went back there from time to time to visit relatives. She mentioned how bad things had got under Mugabe and I asked if any black Zimbabweans said things had been better under Ian Smith's white settler regime. She replied 'Of course' as though it was so obvious she was surprised I needed to ask. Sad.
Karl Marx focused a large amount of his work on discussing Historical Materialism, or the idea that society have to develop in stages by going through multiple periods of different "modes of production" (one of which is industrialization). It was a total misuse and misrepresentation of Marxist ideology to perceive Africa as ready for this kind of state socialism and eventually communism (communism btw is a society WITHOUT a state, WITHOUT social/economic classes and WITHOUT money, the soviet union was not communist at all, it had all of them). Much of Africa started off without any of the things that were already taken for granted in the West, including: a well-trained and outfitted bureaucracy, well-defined property rights, industrialized production, widspread education (primary or higher), infrastructure, government services and so forth. Much of the work we've seen been done in Africa with donor partners or by Africans themselves have been in trying to finally deal with all these prerequisites of modern society. Schools, universities, roads, telecommunications etc., major strives have been made to make African countries catch up in their productive capacities. And of course, socialism can't really work out in war-torn countries, because socialism and communism much more relies on a populated of people who trust each other and have good relationships, something war prevents.
@MajorLeague Clearly not. You contradict yourself from other threads where you claim Marxism failed when applied to rural economies like revolutionary Russia.
The "Not REAL Socialism, Real Socialism has never been tried" argument. They tried their best and it failed. If Socialism can't handle human nature then it's a failed philosophy.
Africa has to heal, cell by cell, organ by organ, bone by bone. We are kinda hoping the continent heals at once but one by one and over a considerable length of time, opportunities for countries to correct mistakes and to reassert themselves will arise. Edit: I hope we would have good leaders who get the support of the people, near and far. No more despots.
Be CAREFUL my friend with your assessment. You seem to have omitted key reasons, powers, and persons responsible for this failure. Hello IMF, World Bank and the other conspirators. You also omit one of the most GLARINGLY SUCCESSFUL socialistic system in Africa and the world, --Libya under the leadership of Muarmar Gaddafi. He had, if not the most progressive country in Africa, surely one of the top players on the Continent. Gaddafi used socialism with some capitalistic attachments. He nationalized the crude oil of Libya and used it to raise the standard of living for his people. Be sure to purchase a copy of his Green Book.
Bullocks. He was a mad man. He had fetish for black women the reason for his "pan africanism". Otherwise the Arabs were racist to blacks and berbers. He forced arabic on berbers and suppressed their language and identity by claiming they are Arabs. He funded IRA and many other terrorist organisations including the ones who did Munich massacre. Great leader?? He was just a Arab supremist mad man whose country ran only because of oil just like the saudis
wow I wish i would have stumbled upon this years ago. I believe America is willingly about to usher this in. scary times. great article I was looking for history ideas for our homeschool. thanks!
Please help support our growth subscribing to our Patreon: www.patreon.com/NewAfrica
Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/WeAreNewAfrica
NewAfrica are Neoliberal Shills confirmed
Good day, love your documentary videos, it is really informative. please I have a request, can you make a documentary of Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya? his life, rule and how he died? I checked your videos and I didn't see any about him or his rule. Thank you
god bless you
NewAfrica cultural Marxism is scary
@Ikechukwu Iyere Thats cause Gaddafi was a socialist who made his country the wealthiest in Africa.His a neoliberal shill,though he does make good videos on anything but economics (because sometimes his solutions are,just privatize it,exactly what Africa has done for centuries because of Europe and has mostly not worked)and broad history.Like Africa only had a couple of socialist leaders and he blames all its problems on them and even calls Nigeria’s leaders and Mobutu socialist,which is just wrong.
I just want to say that as an American these videos give me a lot of insight into African history and politics. The media here tends to ignore Africa a lot so this channel helps educate me a lot. Keep up the good work!
Cameron Sagheb reading books it's better. This videos are not the best source of information. The narrator sticks to a narrative that atrributes solely to african statesmen the responsability for their countries failing to achieve what they pretended. In reality, its way deeper than that.
@@walterrei1780 do you have some good suggetions?
yeah the only times i hear about Africa is whenever some terrorist attack happens or whenever some disease kills a lot of people
I also recommend that you check out Hardc0re Crypt0. An African who makes great content like this.
Why do you rely on the media for information? They are only wanting click rates. And people don't click on Africa. Not the media's fault.
As a high school history teacher in Kenya this channel has provided me with more insight on African history to teach my students
@@evano5635 How is it propaganda if it's normal for big, rich countries to have 12-18 ministries (e.g. USA has 15) but the poorest have 80-90 with overlapping functions?
As a high school teacher, you should be reading from the thought leaders not a TH-cam content. It’s most more complex then merely highlighted here. I we argued this is a regurgitation of western commentary of those leader somewhat sabotaging the struggle of the funding fathers.
hard to seize the means of production when there is no means of production to seize
yikes i
True. Just like it's hard to redistribute wealth when there's no wealth to redistribute.
That's the biggest problem. It's hard to build hundreds of years of the production to match the likes of Germany in a 5-year presidency. I'll give capitalism one thing, it makes lots of stuff (of varying usefulness) very quickly, and it's not as easy to replicate the same thing with a system based on a centralised command economy, with a group of relatively inexperienced ministers running the whole show.
@@dog-ez2nu Facts... China is a great exception.
@@mwanikimwaniki6801 You do know that China's economic success have come as a result of adopting even more capitalistic tendencies?
I’m from the west and we are not made aware of these facts at all. I’m now on a mission to learn more. Thanks for the video!
You realize that TH-cam is a western innovation and so is high-speed internet and free speech. So you actually are being made aware of it. . . Right?
@@LiberRaider I don't think you can claim free speech as a western innovation
@@lorenzlechner-scott4310 I meant of course Free Speech as a political right. In what countries or kingdoms in the 19th century or earlier were you allowed to openly criticize your government? I am unaware of any that don't stem from the Greco-Roman Democracies and Republics. If you know of some I would be interested to learn about them!
@@LiberRaider their are many examples of ancient writings, literature, songs, poems, stories that were not only openly critical of ruling classes and royalty. It is also important to highlight the west were never historically pro free speech quite the opposite frankly.
@@LiberRaider Six Nations (Iroquois) among other tribal nations in what is now the US and Canada. All were encouraged to voice their concerns in council, and still are to this day. My own tribe works the same way, and shocked the Spaniards when they came to the Southeastern US in the 1500s. Women were and are also in the councils. Far more inclusive than the Europeans could have ever imagined back then.The Greco-Roman form of "democracy" only allowed male citizens to be part of it, therefore not a true democracy as we know it now. Where are you from that this isn't taught?
I remember reading that Mansa Musa was asked in Egypt why he doesn't control the gold mines directly. He responded that if he did they wouldn't have any gold; that it was best to let the locals command this, an ultimate sign of trust. Pre-colonial West Africa (can't speak for the whole) engaged in structured ethno-corporatism and interethnic cooperation, something lacking in today's Africa. Food for thought.
that is just sahara, what about other places of africa?
@@StreetDrilla
What do you mean 'Sahara?' West Africa is non-Sahara.
@@peterporkeresq.2817 northern mali is on the sahel belt
@@StreetDrilla
Precisely, and Sahel is part of the Savanna, not the Sahara.
@@peterporkeresq.2817 Savanna is a car in GTA San Andreas, Sahara is desert. You are wrong, I am right.
I don't know, Tomas Sankara seemed to be doing fine until he was assasinated.
Size of country matters too, some of these countries have way too many people for the government to feed,
Americans and their European counterparts wouldn't allow any socialist state prosper. They either assassinated socialist leaders in Africa or made every necessary step to make sure socialism on continent failed.
@@random-J We have food to feed 10 billion people yet 20 million people starve to death every year. Overpopulation is a capitalist lie.
@@hakimibnobaydah Yes, its greed
Ryan Ejodamen sure bud, it’s not like those socialists were back stabbing each other for foriegn money or anything, socialists being greedy? C’moooon (sarcasm)
Any other Americans here who finally found a channel that can show us African history?
African here who finally found a channel that can show me African history😁
Look up speeches by "Dr Amos N Wilson"!
American here. Love this channel.
Canadian here.
Yeah, teaches us a lot about our history.
Kinda neoliberalish with its assessment but it does point out some important points. I would say that the juxtaposition between Rodney and that other author named isn’t a fair one as Walter Rodney is an intellectual giant within this field in comparison.
Thomas Sankara was successful because he wasn’t highly dogmatic towards Marxism-Socialism so much as he wanted real solutions for his people. He was one of the few genuine revolutionaries, perhaps Cabral being the other. The over reliance on slavish clinging to ideology is an issue many other leaders had which gave their policies a lack of flexibility with regards to growth and development. My family’s country Ethiopia is a great example of this and how development was arrested and eventually the state owned structure made it easy for a political mafia to enrich itself. Marxism in theory shouldn’t have even been that big seeing as how Africans themselves have a long tradition of such communal modes of production/societal composition far older than Marx and those would’ve been genuine attempts at rejecting all things colonial which should’ve included the East as much as the West. Anyways I digress, would say that Sankara is a good example of how left leaning policies can be successfully applied only for outside interests to interfere and end such progress. To brush aside the reality of Africa’s precarious lopsided relations with the outside world and how leaders have been cut down young over it gives off a very dense and naive vibe with relation to this portion of our history.
Very well said I agree 100%
Very very good reply, thank you!
The saddest part? Said outside interests can strike from within...
Very good point. As someone who's skeptical of socialism in many forms, nonetheless its successes should be analyzed, and those in the capitalist west shouldn't be so keen to dismiss the left with as much dogma as leftists have historically dismissed any break from orthodoxy. And as much as I hate leftists covering up their failures with conspiracy theories, it's naive to assume that outside colonial powers had no role in the snuffing out of African socialism. Hopefully many African nations in the future will be able to choose their path forward on their own terms, sooner rather than later.
Best comment so far
I am indian, i am glad i found this channel. Africa is so interesting, to add to it, the narrator with african accent makes it so authentic...subbed!!
I think he has such a subtle and crisp accent tho I like how articulate he is just blends together to. Make him nice to listen to
There is no African accent, his sounds Nigerian or Ghanaian
@@colourqueen22 so Ghanian and Nigerian arent Africans? I am not here to pander to your political correctness, get a grip and a life
@@colourqueen22 i am Indian and you cant say Indan accent too, we speak 2000 languages. But i am wise enough to reaslied that most people will not know that nor does it mean anything or neither is it offensive, i am no hating or angry but seriouslyu geta life and stop finding reason to hate and get angry for everything. People like you makes the world miserable
@@colourqueen22 thats the way it should be man, people arent perfect. Its all about understanding and respect, one of the many things a like abour African continent is that people shoot straight instead of talking half ass truth
Africa: rejected European imperialism
Also Africa: European imperialism with Chinese characteristics
@Gibson Ampaw what is that?
There is a reason they wanted socialism. If you use capitalism the Americans and Europeans will come and invest in your country give you a good economy but then because they are wealthier, they will constitute a large part of the economy and dictate what happens in the countries which wouldn't be independence. The US government could through a big company decide which president they wanted in power and all that. To be free you have to endure
@@awaahsimon5259 double edged sword
You do realize a large part of the reason we seek loans from china is because the IMF and World bank impose a lot of restrictions on loans to African Nations. Additionally Most "foreign aid" goes out of western government pockets to the African nation and back into western businesses, effectively creating informal monopolies and suppressing the local economy making these countries subservient. In this way the World Bank and the IMF and Foreign Aid have basically privatized colonialism in Africa. Wile I don't think China is altruistic or even the better choice. Let's not pretend that the Western powers ever stop their imperial ambitions over Africa. The only change is it's not direct but informal control of the economy.
Fascism seems to be the only model that works in Africa.
Great work on this video.
One point though, it's interesting to note the fact that African rebel armies would often declare themselves Marxist - Leninist/Socialist to gain support (often in the forms of arms, and military supplies/training) from the Soviet Union. Because the USSR, post-1953 (death of Stalin) continued to try to export its world revolution of the proletariat. And it saw Africa as the perfect ground for the creation of Socialist allies for the Soviet Union.
Many of the rebel groups who called themselves 'Marxists', actually had little interest in the creation of a Marxist state and just used the USSR as a depot for free weapons. I understand even some Islamic radical groups/separatists declared themselves Marxists for this purpose, which is quite ironic. The Soviet Union usually turned a blind eye to the crimes that these rebel groups committed, and just threw guns at the African continent. Fuelling the cycle of violence gripping many parts of the continent.
Bruh wtf is your pfp
Devya Dixit I can believe that. All these revolutions from Cuba to Africa were inspired largely by Lenin’s “success”. They just had not seen the full fruits of communism yet.
I think the Russians knew that but just didn`t care because it is better to give guns to Africans that would harras the enemies of the USSR like America and the Taliban
What's funny more blame to America/The West but not the Soviet Union/Russia by every leftists in the West lol
Did you not watch the video and see how they enacted laws to centralize the economy and enlarge the size of government beyond necessity?
We need to cut down on these ministries! Let's set up the Ministry of Ministry Management!
😂😂 good one
As a person who grew up in Ghana, I think you got it right with them having more corrupt officials than those who want to serve the people of Ghana. Every political leader in Ghana, tends to get elected promising to change the system but in the end, there are just too many corrupt officials in positions of power
Same in Liberia . The corruption is so deep and everywhere.
@Max A So elected officials sleep well?
@@godofthisshit I am saying the corrupt officials in power corrupt new elected officials who may have actually believed they could have changed the system
Nkrumah was a fool
I had not watched more than 3 minutes of this piece to see that this was the genesis of our terrifyingly tyrannic government style in Africa. The class of 1950-60 PanAfrica Leaders may have had good intentions....but they were wrong.
It created governments that were too power-drunk, too much control...too little restraint.
The class of 1950-60 all died...and in their place, men with little or no moral compass took over a system that was setup to amass the sweat of the people into a gigantic government purse.
They were wrong.
Now Africans suffer for it.
We are here now at this point in history, how do we make right all those wrongs nwannem?
@@AgbaOluebube Capitalist government.
Africa needs key politicians who will drive the need the amass wealth and all-around control away from the centre. But make no mistake, this drive won't be from a place of patriotism - it will be from a place of vested interest in seeing corporate entities become strong, even stronger than the government in some aspect: that way, the government becomes less of a participant in the economy. This model will serve more people, make political office less repulsively lucrative, and will attract more diplomatic brains into the polity - even if it may have come from self-seeking foundations.
They weren't the only ones wrong. The people carry the blame as well because ultimately it was the people who allowed them to gain and maintain power. At this point, all African nations have to find what works to help them become stable nations for future generations. What worked for the Europeans and/or Americans simply won't work on the continent of Africa in the same way.
Religion is at the core of many of the problems whether it be Christians, Muslims or traditionalists. The one thing the Europeans got right was to create secular societies where no matter what you believe you're accepted but your beliefs are not the beliefs of the State because those are based on secular and neutral principles. If African nations can do that first, then we'll start seeing the progress we need to make life safe and prosperous for all who want it.
IPOB is the way forward !
Emmanuel Okebugwu most forget that the west was built on something worst than socialism. It was managed by a Feudal system where the serfs/slaves did all the work. Now China has risen because it is managed by socialism on steroids (communism). All Africa needed after colonialism was fair trade during early restoration of cultural and spiritual systems lost due to Europeans interference etc.
Ministry of Roads and Highways
Ministry of Transport
Ministry of Roads and Transport
Can someone explain this???????????????????????
More money to share
Yeah, its outrageous that the Ministry of Highways and Transport has been completely neglected!
Someone overseeing National roads, Someone overseeing Public Transport, Someone overseeing Roads and Public Transport. What's so hard to understand XD
/s
@@Akinwalesegun ... and more friends to give good jobs to.
Just sounds like a bloated bureaucracy to me
The rejection of capitalism as a vestage of colonialism by the early post-colonial African leaders is very reminiscent of a quote from Irish Republican and socialist James Connolly.
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs."
PS I've greatly enjoyed watching your videos and learning about the history of Africa. Much love from Canada.
Wow I’m very impressed with your knowledge of Irish history Connolly’s son was actually smuggled through Norway to the ussr as the Soviets had such a respect for Connolly calling him “head and shoulders above his (western) socialist counterparts”
And it was this mentality that made sure Ireland was one of the poorest nations in Europe until the Celtic Tiger that saw the nation embrace open market economics and ultimately raised the standard of living for almost everyone.
Prior to that Ireland was effectively socialist - even De Valera's watered down crypto-socialism was anything but laissez-faire. Taxation and protectionism was higher than most European nations, industrialization was close to non existent and the only way most Irish people were able to find employment was to emigrate. Ireland did not see net immigration until the 1990's, so poor was the nation.
Connolly is often quoted by the Irish left, because he was a socialist ideologue who died in 1916, long before his beliefs could be tested and would have failed, as they did with all his contemporaries. Truth is Ireland dodged a bullet with his death - as bad as De Valera's mismanagement was, he wasn't the ideological fanatic Connolly was and Connolly would have probably led Ireland to a famine that would have made the Great one look like a diet.
I dont see how the richest continent in history would be indebted to anyone. If every state handle and maintain their expense/budgets fairly. I understand the foothold Europe has always had on countries that weren't as technologically war bound as them.
@@gaddob3363 Your edited opinions are in poor taste. 🙄
@@gaddob3363 are you even from Ireland? this is total shite. Devalera was a complete capitalist, but obviously a colonised country takes a long time to recover. Ireland only became wealthy after we joined the EU and gained access to the wealth that was and still is stolen from Africa and India. Connolly's prediction was entirely true, we did remain subservient to British capital, even after we gained independence.
Leopold Senghor, what an ironic name for an African Nationalist.
He is the Belgian king in disguise
We should give him a hand
Wait...
*Congo bruh moment*
@@historyrhymes1701 Cool to see you here!
I was thinking the same thing😂
I legit blanked out when I saw it
Cameroon under Paul Biya has even a ministry of special duties to the president 😂😂😂.
Ministry of Harem duties
Yep! I am from Cameroon and when he addressed the Ghanian expansion of Government I saw that as exactly what Biya is doing! SMH. Africans in diaspora always VOTE for the socialis/marxists/commies and that is why they don't understand Americans chasing Trump. The democRAT party in the US is clearly Socialsist and marxist. I am glad America rejected that for free market capitalism with TRUMP!!
Why West-backed coups, unjust loans and IMF's structural adjustment programs were not mentioned?
Fair point. Please stay tuned for our next video which will be released this Friday
The points you mention are precisely what they want to move the discourse away from. You are being very unhelpful to this new program to undermine emerging democratic socialism in Africa and across the world. Please ask no more obvious questions and pretend you are ignorant of history, because that's what these pro-capitalist opinion makers depend on.
Very good point, the video seems to blame our leaders for the failure of socialism in africa.
What about the bad economic policies that bankrupted the countries resulting in them having to run to the IMF in the first place?
When I saw a video by this channel singing the praises of the Western backed criminal Kagame I quickly realized the true intent of its material. To continue to push the Western imperial narratives and propaganda that have allowed Africa to be plundered for centuries. No thanks.
Expectation :
Governments serve its citizens
Reality :
Citizens serve governments
'Absolute' Socialism
Promise:
The means of production will be in the hands of the people and serve the people's interests.
Reality:
The means of production are in the hands of the government and serve the government's intrests.
@@oliverd.shields2708 that's correct, that's why the interest of the people should be one of the interest of the government too
@@nilihcrevo9820 Governements can adopt democratic interests, which is not the same as "the people"'s interests (as theorised by J.-J- Rousseau, for example). For the record, I actually translated this video into French and dubbed it as well. It's going to be uploaded soon.
Citizens serve the ruling tribe*
@@oliverd.shields2708 That doesn't bode well for the impartial desire to convey information on this or the French channel.
Excellent video friend, I'm from Kenya and most people that I have interacted with seem to think that the problem is corruption in the government but don't understand it's the bueracracy that fosters the growth and spread of corruption
Verry good asessment
Very true
@MangoMan Power while I'm not going to lie, there's a lot of poverty in the country, life is getting better day by day. Life today is better than 10 or 20 years ago. More people have disposable income so if you travel around the country especially in the urban and suburban areas there are lots of construction of houses, sewages etc. Rural areas are getting connected to the grid so now most of the country have access to electricity.
Corrupt leaders tend to come and go, but a corrupt bureaucracy perpetuates itself.
I'm from Latin America and we have similar problems. But people don't get the more power you give to the government the less power you have
Being from Eastern Europe, to me this tale of great but failed promises, corruption and autocratic leaders is like looking in the mirror. Same ideologies, same timeline, different places, but same (disappointing) results.
History doesnt repeat itself but it sure does Rhyme.
@@AtheismF7W The 2020's look a lot like the 1920's at this stage. I would be surprised if a charismatic populist leader did not appear as a response to this renewed call for international socialism, it is kind of inevitable.
With the same force to destroy those beautiful systems which worked, the west. See China, doing very well and the west is trying to destroy in every way.
@@u.d.7543 I really don't see China as sustainable on a local level, it has to expand to remain profitable and is currently based on slave labor and exploitation of the workers, and has massive corruption and nepotism. It is also evolving into a totalitarian state with total surveillance and extermination camps for dissidents.
@Jimmy Chou Wouldn't have been the case without the oil wealth combined with small population. The Saudi citizens are also very rich thanks to the boon of oil wealth.
I think Paul Kagame of Rwanda is a fine model of progressive, new leadership in Africa. Sure, Kagame may have blood on his record, but his leadership unified a nation on the brink of genocide, ushered in a growing economy for Rwanda(while not allowing foriegn investors too much control and influence), and(so far) has kept governent corruption at bay in what is considered by many to be the cleanest country in Africa.
He’s a dictator
Correction, he saved a nation ravaged by genocide
@@jeffsakala2292 so what? The past administrations allowed millions of tutsis to be slaughtered. They claimed to be democratic, I'd rather live under a dictator who's intelligent and knows what they're doing rather than an incomoptent democratic government who allows mass killings in the streets
Be that as it may he is still a dictator. He has set a terrible precedent. His mentality of wanting to hold on to power for as long as possible is the reason why the continent has so many tyrants.
@@macnosmutano4849 in order for a peaceful transition into democracy a war torn nation like Rwanda requires a strong man in order to ensure the social divide that caused the war in the first place is no more. Only then can the country truly become a free and democratic place.
Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Fake Buddah
Why fake?
The original quote is by St. Augustine. He said “Resentment is like investing poison and expecting someone else to die.”
Anger against the colonialist governments is right and necessary
@@mauricez.3218 What about the post colonial governments
@@mauricez.3218 true, but movements based in anger and resentment tend to cycle back and turning as terrible as their counterparts
123 ministers...Jesus Christ!!!
no jesus christ is not one of the ministers...
That's Africa for you....
Is a minister like a secretary of a department? For example in the US there are a few departments in the executive branch. They’re all headed by the secretary of that department.
@@realjrq yes, like a minister for agriculture is the same as the US secretary for agriculture, and would be appointed by the head of government just like in the US
@@thicky how do you know? there are so many
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
“Socialism without democracy is pseudo-socialism, just as democracy without socialism is pseudo-democracy.” - Wilhelm Liebknecht
I think this is only true for those who want power to not help the masses but help themselves
@@thelonewanderer4084 Socialism isn't compatible with true democracy. Socialism restricts individual freedom at the "benefit" of the collective. If you don't agree with socialism, too bad! Because we will force it upon those who disagree. Socialism will always continue to march into oblivion under the dogma that it could create a utopia. You can't say real socialism hasn't been tried because it didn't work, that's ignorance. How many examples do you need, how many people need to die before you realise socialism doesn't work. The best method we have to date is a free market with emphasis on social policy. Don't restrict individuals, but also redistribute resources to those who aren't as capable within a society. Equity is unnatural and unethical, but we can provide a minimum standard for all humans by allowing everybody to have their freedoms to produce and thrive in a society.
This is the reason socialism and communism will always fail. The failings of man.
Inago Ollisbouris true democracy? You mean the true democracy where people in soviet russia were ignored when 70% of the people voted for the continuing of the udssr, and the usa didn‘t like that so they forced them to do it in secret? Or the true democracy, that voted in boris yeltzin, with 8 procent of the vote? Socialism is authoritarian, not because it wants to, but because the outside will always try to crush it. There are dictators in countries that are socialist, because they need a centralized government, in order to defend themselves. Cuba is a great country because it dealt with all this shit by being blockaded and still people have free healthcare, great education and equality. And what does restrict individuals mean? You mean the individuals that regularly riot because of the shit that trump did. Or the individuals that are never happy as a majority in europa, because no party get‘s over 50 procent of the vote. Socialist countries have democratic systems, that are that sorts out the people vote for vote until there are two. That way people are always voting for the next president. The people decide the goverments decicions and every government role. Sure, we can talk about countries like venezuela, but using them as en example is bullshit, mainly because the country failed because of the implementation of capitalism. At the beginning of the cricis 70% procent of it‘s market was privatized. Another country you could try to use and fail to use is the catalan Union which failed because it was in a civil war. Next country, french commune, which was crushed because civil war. These two example also show the that a centralized government is needed in order to preserve socialism and keep it save from outside threat. Stalin was planning on making the soviet union a full democracy TWICE. Once right before the nazi invasion and another time right before the start of the cold war. There are obviously many other reasons why socialism in the eastern block failed, like the counties adopting a type of socialist, which was not made for their countries. Maxist-Leninism. It is a type of marxism which is created to successfully bring the revolution to russia NOT poland or romania or hungary etc. now we can talk about how the brutal suppression of strikes are actually strikes from people that do not make up the majority of the people most of the time and do not represent most of them either most of the time, or how social democracy was so well Adepted in Scandinavia because many policies were capitalist versions of soviet policies but i don‘t think i need to. Lastly socialism showed it‘s effects when in the twenties creativity in soviet russia skyrocketed but yeah. We can talk about the incompetence of some leaders and their contributions of future problems in the UdSSR or famines, which were btw not caused by incompetent. Although i need to admit that the Ukrainian crop failure was made worse by it. But i think that is enough to show that socialism is working, as long as others don‘t try to tear it down no matter what. And even then countries like cuba show that it can continue, even after over 100 tries of assasination Invasion and over 50 years of terror sponsoring and bombing of the country. And even after all that, they still are the most stable country in latin america, the country with the least illiterats, even surpassing the usa, free healthcare, free education and so much more. Socialism does work, it just needs competent people in power.
The problema was, they were marxists only when it came to the analysis on imperialism (which was mostly correct). There was no history of strong working class movement (which there was in Europe for example), or democracy (this is what they lacked in Soviet bloc also).
The co-operative experiments and experiments based on local community control on the means of production have been succesful, and there has been no "lack of initiative" (the essential reason mr. Ayittey provides) in these experiments on the part of the people. Status and respect within the close community and the security provide by it are enough.
Also even for those who support capitalism: it has been shown, that initiative to provide better solutions only works on small scale - it is the petty bouregeoisie that is a class of innovation, no the big bourgeoisie. Marx did not see correctly the fate of petit bourgeoisie - although he was correct in his observation, that free market and big business will ultimately squash the small time enterpreneuers, he failed to see that this class would be (at least in countries with high enough education level and enough democracy [as much as one can have in capitalism]) replenished from lower classes in perpetuum.
So, as elsewhere, it ws not a failure of socialism, but a failure of the state, a failure of democracy (there is antagonism between state and democracy). And democracy can not be realized without
a) a good level of education (knowledge is a means of power; compulsory education has been supported by anarchista also, for example; the education can be provided by strong people's movement also, as it was in North European countries or Germany or Austria),
b) strong communities, whether in cities or countryside (the example of Rojava revolution), with strong economic ties between each other and continuously growing economic independence on local level.. in this production co-operatives also come into question; it is also to be noted, that since people create solidarity to humanity through close affiliation groups (as "being defines conciousness", not some abstract notion), these are necessary for wider solidarity, and wider solidarity is a necessity for the individually weak,
c) a possibility to "do damage from below", for people to get organized and either provide a democratic localized (but confederalistic) means of violence (Rojava, Spain, workers movements in early 20th century Europe), or by means of economic damage (that is unions by means of strike and sabotage, and consumer co-operatives; the strong workers unions have been the backbone and "sine qua non" of North European "welfare states" - the welfare was forced by the organized power of workers, as they pressured the state and private capitalists)
d) limited power of the (bourgeois, it is always bourgeois) state to fight its own people - that is, checks and balances forced upon it by the people, and constant vigilance in upholding these checks and balances
e) women's emancipation, which encompasses all mentioned above (this was the thing many African leaders, like Sankara, did understand, to their credit); Rojava is the best example
Do get to know the history of
a) workers movement in 20th century western and northern Europe (and try not to watch it through parliamentarism, but through unions and co-operatives, and guards, and educational projects),
b) communalism and democratic confederalism as described in the writings of Murray Bookchin (available widely in the internet) and Abdullah Öcalan (some pamflets are available in English); Öcalan is also a great feminist
c) imperialism: this is what most Africans have done, the notions of Rodney, Nkrumah, Mao, Sankara, Fanon and such are valid when it comes to notions on imperialism (even if one can not agree with them on the question of the state); add to your understanding on imperialism by reading James O'Connor and Juan Martinez-Alier on ecological effects of imperialism
d) anarchism: especially Bakunin, Malatesta, Mumford and Makhno are worthwile, and available in internet
e) green thinking, as it conincides with creating more means of democracy: that is permaculture, intermediate technology (this was promoted by a christian socialist E.F. Schumacher, who was for a short period an aide to Kaunda), taking the initiative in fighting eco-catastrophy (Sankara's initiative in planting trees by locals was admirable, so has been the fight fought corageously by MEND against Shell) on a local community level
f) Marxism outside of the confines of "Marxism-Leninism" or other models of "state socialism": get to know the thought of Korsch, Mattick, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Holloway and Frankfurt school, and the Tiqqun collective (if u are REALLY pro-state solutions, then at least get to know the thoughts of austromarxist like Otto Bauer)
vmvrantanen thank you, Murray bookchin is the goat
Good speech
vmvrantanen brilliant assessment. Bravo!
Or maybe communism is just evil because it restricts freedom of choice, which is always evil.
@Vaughn reed jr we struggled with cronyism capitalism don't get it twisted.
I'll guess before watching: Marx wrote from Germany and Britain, he had industrialized nations in mind, all who tried it were agricultural, sometimes feudal societies
Pretty sure he wrote mostly from Britain
@@StoutProper yeah, I wasn't putting that in an order to suggest germany being the number 1 country he wrote in, I merely added germany because although I wasn't sure whether he had written there as well, since it's his country of origin I guessed he did.
@@teergeret conclusion, don't try communism on a country that hasn't industrialized yet.
@@johanmikkael6903
That would be Africa, Asia, Latin America and (Eastern) Europe.
@@johanmikkael6903 in Marx's time that was basically just Europe and the US
I wish a million African politicians could watch this
Yes this a big reason why we need a bigger emphasis on pan-African studies in schools.
What has already been tried? What has failed and why? What has succeeded and why?
Without a proper understanding of Africa's true history, Africans can never move forward as a whole.
They probably did they just either didn't understand anything or don't care XD
jay kj Pan-Africanist is part of the problem due to its Marx-Leninist tendencies
South Africa's goverment think the free market is the enemy and communism great, they make me loose hope.
He that forgets history, are doomed to repeat it.
"No need to innovate or pursue excellence," well, socialism in the USSR over in Eurasia certainly managed to innovate, look up Soviet inventions for instance.
These are some of the USSR's achievements: "Eliminated homelessness", "Eliminated unemployment (for those able to work)", raised life expectancy by 65%", "raised school enrollment by 460%", "achieved full literacy ", "compared to 1913 pre-war growth levels... Industry growth was 908.8%"
All of this is also without mentioning increased women's rights, increased rights for ethnic minorities, etc. Women, for example, had increased college enrollment, workforce, and political participation, as well as the fact that a lot had see in the military especially during the Great Patriotic War(World War Two). As well as how the Soviet Union put the Sputnik satellite in space, developed the hydrogen bomb, etc.
The USSR did this. Burkina Faso did similar. How could those nations not do the same?
Its such a socialist paradise, but where is USSR today? 🤣 There's no unemployment in USSR because they made sure everyone had a job no matter how fucking redundant and inefficient it will be. Imagine being a farmer forcibly transported thousands of kilometers to a steell mill doing shit with the minimal trainimg. Everyone is employed because everyone is given pretend jobs. But it doesn't matter if you're employed or not in USSR, since there's just too little to use with what you are paid. Since the price of everything is fixed, there's no substantial income to improve production, and the factories who produce everything won't do their best to improve their quota simply because there's almost no compensation of being efficient, only double the quotas. So there's high demand but there's always shortage of everything. By the way did ya know that the first toilet factory in USSR was built only 8 years AFTER they launched the first man in space?
@@FatGouf Never said it was a paradise, just saying socialist nations achieved a lot and that socialism doesn't quash innovation. Most modern innovation occurs with government or government-funded or non-profit research, like microprocessors, vaccines, GPSs, etc. Innovation occurs in spite of capitalism not because, plus, capitalism shuts down things that aren't profitable usually. East Germany made a glass 15x stronger than regular and more chemically pure, reunified Germany got rid of this because it wasn't profitable. Planned obsolescence, contrived durability, and repair locking all exist which harm innovation and such, whereas a Soviet or Yugoslav washer or fridge lasts decades, not just to warranty. I believe in unlocking the human spirit and capacity for innovation and achieving amazing things.
@@FatGouf Where's the sourcing for this? And okay, if this were true, let's learn from past socialisms' mistakes and do better and perhaps reach a point where automation and leisure are more active and rewarded. At least everybody did get paid and have jobs and stability, that is a pro, but we can do better and change things up.
@@FatGouf You shouldn't be forcibly near anything. It should be voluntary for most things. Where's the evidence it was forceful as well? Just saying, because I question virtually everything.
@@FatGouf It should be redesigned or RECONSTRUCTED to be more efficient, productive, rewarding, meritocratic, enjoyable, and free.
The part about "Malignant legacies" at 10:00 is the part that hurt the most in this excellent video.
Dependency on government has become a traditional part of life that is inherited with every new generation.
Did you really just leave out Thomas Sankara and Franz Fanon?
Yeah and "they" didn't even mention the international sanctions on the nations and lack of investment because they got cut off since they were taking away land from the neo-colonialist corporations. The food exports are the same as we are seeing in Ethiopia today. The nation is starving while the corporations of the world own the land so that they can export the food and generate a surplus in first world countries as it goes for a higher price.
The channel could have made a critique of socialism in Africa, but in this case, they're just propagating the propaganda of the puppets in Africa.
This video is HORRIBLE. It reveals what happens to the people, even the educated amongst us when we have historical information but no political education or class lens to see it through.
Cuz they actually did really well. But this channel only cares about propaganda rather than a neutral insight
@@Communist1945. wrong
@@renjurichard no you
I'd like to think that they had good intentions but didn't have the right data & knowledge.
Today we know, backed up by stats and overwhelming evidence that 100% unhinged capitalism isn't the answer and neither is 100% socialism.
The next leaders of Africa must embrace capitalism, reform old outdated policies and also create nation-building (i.e build a black identity - like in Rwanda, where Tribalism isn't allowed).
I recommend everyone that's serious about finding solutions to watch two documentaries; 1) The Power of The Poor. 2) The Prince of Yen.
We ain't Americans. our Ethnic groups have existed for years.
@@phantompage4304 Who said you were Americans? So what if we've existed for years? Black people in Africa have existed for years, but still dead last economically speaking compared to everyone else. We must adopt to the world and change. Being tribal and having some old customs from 1000 years ago isn't always useful - so we need to drop those things.
@@jzk2020 it ain't tribal. It's Ethnic conflict. You haven't been to Africa to know first hand it's problems. Too many ethnicities with different conflicts based on a variety of factors. I don't expect a lost people to understand
@@phantompage4304 Stop assuming. I was born in Africa. Its TRIBAL. And even if you want to call it ethnicity, it doesn't matter. We still can't be operating like we are 5000 different ethnicities. Black people won't survive taking on white/Chinese people that collectively see themselves as 1 people, even though you could technically argue there are different white/chinese tribes/ethnicities.
Thank you so much for the documentary suggestions
"Operation vijiji"
Me: *In terms of maturity, we have no maturity.*
With it's follow up campaign, Operation Vajayjay
I feel as though Thomas Sankara should've been mentioned somewhere in the video, perhaps you could do a case study of him in another video?
you know why?
because it won't fit into "socialism doesn't work" narration
he's one of the socialist leader that work and then got assasinated
just like gaddafi
@@skellurip The western world absolutely has to make sure socialism doesn't work because it poses a threat to them. Socialist leaders in Latin America and Africa got assassinated for standing up for themselves.
Yeah there are obviously facts this guy left out. What i would like to see- how bad were trade sanctions on revolutionary African countries; how was their economic growth; were the governments actually controlled by the working classes or just a tool of the national bourgeois wanting to develop their countries without imperialism exploiting tf out of them and keeping them poor. I believe they were national-bourgeois mostly. And most of these govts had to stop calling themselves socialist after the USSR fell and had to seek Western aid.
Funniest thing is how capitalists (and pro-capitalists) always blame the failure of ex-socialist, capitalist countries, on socialism. He claims they are just failing because the govt controls some industries. In reality the govts are all subject to capitalist interests, mainly Western capitalists who buy stuff from Africa for cheap or own the African capital and thus keep it undeveloped by overexploitation.
No surprise if you have a bunch of foreign capitalists controlling your industries, then when you try to nationalize them, they get mad, leave, and put sanctions, which will hurt the economy. In Mozambique there was a huge exodus of whites
If you have socialism, These capitalists promise that capitalism is better. If you switch to capitalism and it's not working, then they say you must privatize all your industries. If you do this, and all your people are dirt poor, they don't give a shit and pay no attention and keep saying socialism failed.
Thomas Sankara was a true revolutionary. He believed that Africa’s vast resources should be used to benefit AFRICANS, not Western corporations and a few African elites. He was killed because his message was so dangerous.
Thomas Sankara: Am I a joke to you?
Sankara was in power for 3 years, every leader of those failed states probably would have had the same legacy, had they ruled for a shorter period.
@@paulelago9453 yes but under sankara the brukina Faso was better than today
Seretse Khama: yes
@Sonic Phil well, there must be an alternative to capitalism(for me is a mix of systems) as capitalism in the long run it also became just like communism
@Sonic Phil Cuba is a successful socialist country
What builds a nation is the awareness of one's individual responsibility not a government.
This comment needs more likes!
I studied the economy of west Africa at school. With reference to Ghana we were taught that the production of cocoa declined with the nationalisation of the cocoa plantations. Under private ownership the trees were replaced when the trees were passed their productive best. However under nationalisation that didn't happen. As a result yields fell.
Wrong. They artificially dropped the the price of cocoa, to Ghana, and lowered the regular quota which had been an increasing export up until they deliberately reduced it. That was the economic squeeze the west placed on Ghanas exports to sabotage it's economy. Ghana had made adjustments that was beginning to work through the "squeeze" before they resorted to the coup d'etat which suddenly removed the legal government and ended it's active participation in the continental unification of Africa.
When do white men ever want to see our people totally free of them?
Brilliant assessment on why African countries are still poor, the cult of personality and large governments.
@douglas wahid No, it won't work, feudalism is socialism in another sense. I live in Kenya, East Africa. Most local community leaders were retained. Problem with your point, is that after colonialism, the capitalist-socialist dichotomy was thrust upon most African countries. Previously, various tribes had chiefs, kings or emperers who mostly assumed the role of leading during war(almost like feudalist Europe back then), but after the British and French came, they thrust their systems upon us. Considering we return to feudalism, it would be catastrophic because the countries, let alone the continent as a whole, is super diverse. A country like Kenya, where I live, we have 47 tribes, that would mean 47 feudal entities, which can cause conflict. I think for Africa's case, we just have to move on.
@@unlockwithjsr or brainwash the people to accept nationalism over tribalism and have a healthy balance of capitalism and socialism.🤔
Zeus' healthy yes this, your wise.
@@michaelamuquandoh6343 that would take decades if not centuries. Remember even in the earl days of America, they had a difficult time letting go of their statehood in favor of nationalism. Heck, they even fought a civil war. I am sure with time Africans will see themselves less along their tribal lines and more as a nation. But that requires decades of living together, intermarriages and community clashes and peace deals before they can finally start prioritizing nationalism over tribalism.
@@corvusglaive5769good point, but they didn't have the technology and information we have now so that could be the deal breaker.
The greatest evidenve why the policies are to blame, instead of this just being bad luck, is to look at Botswanas attempt at capitalism which lead to one of the greatest economic miracles in africa of all time.
All governments are run by humans. All humans make mistakes. If a company in capitalism makes a mistake, they lose money and will just be replaced by a better company. If the government in socialism makes a mistake, everyone suffers. Capitalism is the future.
Botswana also didn't have the United States constantly trying to undermine and overthrow it, the way that all the socialist countries did . . .
@@ballz4kidz
The US didn't try to undermine socialist/communist Tanzania, Somalia, Benin, Ethiopia or Mozambique. Yet they all failed anyway.
@@shauncameron8390 Cuba now inclusive. Socialism has never worked.
Burkina Faso: 😐
@@opeyemiade1550 how is cuba being included here when its remarkable its persisted as well as it has considering the US embargo ?
Well what puzzles me is Marxism needs capitalism to first develop the means of production first before the socialism can be successful but all through history largely rural countries have always sort to skip that step.
that "success" is just expolitation. take for example national socialist germany they had several socialist programs and were already failing in Economy, their solution was first exploiting "capitalist" jews then conquest. this is why the whole hitler good years is such bullshit since it is a bunch of socialist projects that look good in the short term and to compensate you go conquer and exploit their Ressources and use the conquered people as slaves. the socialist biggest advantage is always the romantic idea and short term success by giving away "free" stuff that makes the leaders very popular short term but the stuff they give away is labor of the people and to keep it up you have to force people to keep working and since centralizing planning by so many factors requires god to manage it never works. capitalism advantage is that it is decentralized free exchange of goods and services and you dont need a central commitee to plan it and people can adapt to multiple factors way more effeciently than a central leader and bureacrats
Yes capitalism is meant to be an evolutionary phase to getting to socialism but we’re stuck in it now
Africa should develop a government and economy based on African principles. Obviously, this is different for different places, however it is dangerous to put so much power in the hands of people who were in control during the colonial extraction period. There should be democratic elections, and a focus on efficiency and allowing young African minds to create. As in many African philosophies, the key is balance. There should be an economic floor for citizens, some socialism, and means for them to create businesses, some capitalism. Extremes are where you get yourself in trouble.
What do you recommend?
@@lesleykramer7207
Social democracy he said
Why not just look around the world and choose the systems that work. Carl Marx may have had a good theoretical idea but it has failed wherever it's been attempted.
@Roman Stigs
Dude ...Democratic socialism. Look it up. It is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
@@grahamt5924
Nah. He was right but he did not know that capitalism can reform after the 19 century.
Frederick Douglas Once said it's better to raised little children than to repair broken man. You can never developed a country if you depend on another countries for aid and supplies for population demand. Money and political policies can't devolped a country. Only the people of that land can develop their land through proper promotion of research and education especially in the scientific domain. African leaders don't use the people of the land to develop the land. They use their slave and colonial masters to do what they earned the right to do for them self. That alone is a failure act by it self. China do all by them self and sell to all they produce. Now that is power. Africa should do same and they will become the most powerful nation on earth.
You're right g. Africa is a continent but you've got the right idea
Apart from the fact that china uses their own people as slaves and now with the land they have been buying in Africa are using the people there as slaves
So, they ends justify the means? That’s..... dangerous in certain circumstances
I lived in Tanzania for 2 years back in the 70s. I got to visit Ujamaa Villages. The residents did not seem to be very happy. They had been forcefully relocated from elsewhere and made to live with people they did not know. Rather than building a community, TANU was breaking apart existing communities in order to get their Ujamaa villagers. Nyerere "retired" from political life in 1985 because his socialism mostly failed.
Something else that hurt Tanzania was its 'nationalization' of private wealth, along with its persecution of the Indian merchant and professional class. Indians were pushed into exile after their businesses were confiscated, and the Tanzanian gov't actively promoted resentment of Indians. Indians were called 'Banyani' in the state controlled press - a Swahili term which meant "usurers", or cheats. The British had brought Indians to Tanganyika to form its civil service - the British did not believe that Africans were capable of governing themselves. One heard in Tanzania that Nyerere was the only college-educated black in the country when independence came about. The British did not encourage blacks to get college degrees. With the Indian professional class leaving, Tanzania did not have a competent civil service.
Really happy I found this page .. let's keep learning and changing our mindsets .
Welcome aboard!
@@NewAfrica You are leading people into oblivion with all these video. In this particular subject on Socialism. Africans are not politically educated and didn't know any from of government. Obviously, No kind of government is going to help 90% of Africa because of corruption. You saying socialism didn't work without accounting for how corrupt leaders are the parasites seems like a failure on your part. Nigeria is a mixed economy but capitalism dominates and no matter what kind of government runs that country, it is still going to continue to face it current problems. You also ignored Thomas Sankara and others who were actually prosperous. This seems more like a capitalist propaganda and I can't tell you have joined the club, the capitalist club and getting the TH-cam MONEY. I hope everything turns out good for you.
Burkina Faso?
Replacing the Colonial tyranny with Domestic tyranny
Lol so true
* People's republic of colonial tyranny
I really like the narrator's speaking voice, it is very engaging. I really admire and respect George for how long and consistently he has been doing real research as an economist and not being afraid to loudly proclaim the results to the public no matter how unfashionable his findings are.
Socilism fails when corruption is injected , greed is at the root off all evil and failure
More accurately: Socialism Fails!
Socialism by its very design is destined to fail even without corruption. It does not take into account the psychological impact of motivation and incentives.
Corruption has existed in every government in every part of the world for all of recorded history. The trick is to limit the size of government and limit the effect of corruption on regular people.
We all grew up with hearing the excuse of '800 years of oppression' whenever the question of why Ireland was so economically backward was asked, but by the eighties, after 60 years after independence , the excuse was wearing thin. Ireland's economy was mismanaged on multiple fronts, starting with De Valera's dream of an agrarian society where comely maidens would dance at the crossroads. Through to decades of high taxation, public spending and heavy protectionism.
I never said it was socialism, that's why I specifically called it crypto-socialism, few in the political class would have known socialism if it bit them on the arse, but neither was it free market capitalism either, with the State imposing control over many industries, overspending, never making any attempt to expand free trade (indeed was opposed to it), despite a ridiculous reliance on the UK that resulted in a humiliating trade war, and favouring policies based on ideology rather than economic sense. Had someone like Connolly survived and gotten into power, it would have been a lot, lot worse - just like pretty much everywhere else that really adopted socialism.
And yes, the wealth gap has grown since the eighties, yet overall standard of living has risen across the board. Or would people be happier if everyone was equally poor?
I recognize that we've never failed to produce gobshites who like to view Irish history nostalgically, as it were but if you read pretty much any book on Ireland's economic history it would agree that the place was a basket case.
How's the homelessness crisis in Ireland going? I swear it's dramatically worse every time I visit. Beautiful country and great craic but a "growing wealth gap" is a bit of a trivialisation for just how bad the inequality has become.
@@MrDoomedtofail Strawman argument. I didn't suggest Ireland is some sort of economic utopia; naturally there are problems. The point I made is that it is overall better off than it was for the first 60 years of independence, which it is by far by almost all metrics.
@@nish_56 Says the man who attacks someone for dragging a discussion off topic, then chooses to give his halfpence worth on that off topic argument. The hypocrisy is strong with this one...
What would our free state have looked like under Jim Connolly? A safe bet it would have looked like every other state that went down that road. Without exception.
@@degamispoudegamis That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. I criticized the management of Ireland post independence, I made no criticism of the independence movement, so God knows where you pulled that conclusion. Sitting in that armchair has clearly addled your brain.
@@gaddob3363 the same thing that happened in Ireland happened in the indian subcontinent.
A quarter of my family doesn't live in Zimbabwe anymore, I miss home.
Why not go back now? Mugabe is dead.
Zimbabwe is the lone place in Africa that I’d consider moving to, aside from Cape Town. It’s people are lovely, smart, and generally kind. It’s a shame that all that potential is wasted.
I know that people like Mugabe would do or say anything to remain in power, but I think it’s a shame that so much emphasis was placed on “colonialists” or “whites” as the enemy. I dream of starting a farm there, creating jobs and food and helping to care for the many beautiful children of Zimbabwe, but I’m not sure it’s possible. I’m American, not English or Boer, but I’m not sure that would matter.
@@Deontjie The legacy of this Deon, socialism destroys generations, the state is bureaucratic and the currency was made worthless
I mean it's hard to build a planned economy when in many of these countries during the time of their independence you could literally count the number of high school and university graduates using your fingers. Granted many of them still had access to experts from their former colonisers and later from other advanced economies such as the USSR. Many of these post independence African countries even if they happened to be authoritarian were still ineffective in the sense they could barely enforce their laws and public services over their own boundaries, in such circumstances I doubt any sort of state control over the economy could have been ever successful.
Lack of vision, transparency and accountability on the part of governments and officials coupled with Western governments subtly undermining these developing nations are the primary causes of the faiures. One answer is to engage and encourage the youth into political debates and genuinely accept some of their recommendations without belittling them. Civic education must be encouraged and implemented without partisanship.
This has beautifully articulated the reality we find ourselves living on this continent. Thank you and keep up the good work.
The discussion of communism, or the other forms of socialism, in Africa is incomplete without mentioning the primary reason why it was embraced in the first place. It was not a 100% internal push that promoted it.
The western world which engaged in colonialism was indeed capitalist for the most part. Although not of course homogeneously democratic. Pure monarchies were still the standard in Europe during colonialism. In any case obviously European nations benefited from colonialism.
That said. Around the time of the cold war - While Europe itself was turning ever more to democracy (The primary reason why the militant occupation of Africa was coming to and end) - Africa became an ideological battleground between the West and the Soviet Union of the time. It was about promoting their own ideology while at the same time undermining the benefit Europe garnered from its colonies. The west primarily protected their interests in Africa, while the Soviets were all too happy to undermine colonialism through training and other support of independence fighters.
With regards to training it should be noted that much of this training happened within Africa in sympathetic nations that were allies of the Soviets, but a significant portion actually saw individuals being trained by the KGB inside the Soviet Union itself.
A big part of this training was ideological indoctrination into the tenets of Communism. This "special" training was not military in nature - These individuals were being coached in how to take and maintain political control. To this day it is most common to see African leaders who are still remnants of this training program - Directly or by proxy. Take South Africa for instance. In South Africa almost the entire top structure of the ruling ANC party are also members of the SACP (South African Communist Party), or union leaders who received training from the Soviets pre-1994. They have even at times publicly alluded to the exact methods of their training - Often in a bragging way. Spying, counter-intelligence, propaganda, and all the rest. In SA the ANC was fighting with other indigenous parties and groups just about as much as it was fighting with the incumbent colonial government. Purely for ideological reasons and to maintain a hold on the "discussion" around the transition of power so to speak. While the Soviets provided arms for the cannon fodder troops doing the actual freedom fighting on the ground; They hand raised many future "leaders" in their own image to further their own agenda. And these Soviet representatives, which held, or still hold power for decades, were by and large never in it to go hungry afterwards - Quite the contrary.
In any case it was inevitable that the Soviet message would find a welcome home in Africa considering the history with the alternative. The irony is that even with the history between Africa and the Western world - It was the wrong choice that was made. Communism is a crock of s***. Africans were manipulated into it.
When Africa was under the colonisation of European powers it wasn't capatilism that was the main ideology but mercantilism which is different and focused on the extraction of wealth rather than the creation. I also think Marxism spoke to many African leaders in literature, philosophy and politics because it aligned well with traditional African values of community and equality. I also think it is counter intuitive to say that all the great African thinkers at the time where manipulated into adopting a Marxism when the reality was most of the global academic world supported Marxism in its many forms because the reality is capatalism is used by the USA in a neo-colonial way which exploits cheap foreign labour.
@@lorenzlechner-scott4310 watch parenti lecture (1984)
@@_thelegendaryduck_8523 can you please give a quick synopsis I don't want to watch another lecture I'm supposed to be on holiday
Great dialogue going in here from all conversants. Saved. Will revisit later.
Finding this channel has to be the best thing that’s happened to me. It’s so enlightening. To chart a proper course forward, we really need to look back and learn. Thank you
8:08 can we just appreciate the choice of image for the economic situation under Mugabe's rule. i.e. the kind with huge swabs of paper money in his arms I find that to be a funny picture indeed.
It is hilarious, except when that's your money and all that doesn't buy a loaf of bread... Zimbabweans are really lovely, I have met quite a few in SA. Pity we are turning into the same, but no neighbouring countries to go to when we collapse.. It's frightening :(
@@Kerrigan.le.Awesome It's frightening when I actually think about the results of being stuck in a economic situation such as inflation. It is very sad.
@@Father_Golden And the saddest part is politicians blaming others and indirectly (sometimes blatantly) inciting violence against those groups. Foreign nationals get a very hard time in SA whenever riots start. It's happening now with trucks being attacked and if they find the driver is foreign... It's really bad...
When you look at the image of barrels of money being pushed to buy groceries, its funny in the first moment but then you realize this kind of inflation leads to starvation and it stops being funny I think.
Not just Africa, many of the thought leaders of the diaspora at that time were drawn to it. We are still suffering the consequences today. When they realized it was a fallacy some flirted with foreign capitalism but still try to keep control of, or limit domestic private enterprise. Thank god for Marcus Garvey because there are few black leaders of that time who encouraged the young black male to get up and do for himself.
Interesting and well argued analysis. I dont agree with everything, but found the presentation quite good, appreciate acknowledging this is your view.
Not a single mention of the possibility of 'outside interference'... the *totally invisible* invisible hand..... Ayittey holds a B.Sc. in Economics from the University of Ghana, Legon, an M.A. from the University of Western Ontario in Canada, and a Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba. He has taught at Wayne State College and Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. He held a National Fellowship at the Hoover Institution in 1988-89, and then joined The Heritage Foundation as a Bradley Resident Scholar.[2] He founded The Free Africa Foundation in 1993, to serve as a catalyst for reform in Africa.[4] In 2008, Dr. Ayittey was listed by Foreign Policy as one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" who "are shaping the tenor of our time".... a suitable, educational blinkering ?
Hmm. I know this voice. Bigups bro. Good work you're doing here! Dope content! Keep it coming. Africa is proud of you.
Thanks for Educating me
Your videos are brilliant my friend. I left a piece of my soul is in Africa after 9 months visiting 19 countries there. I’m only now diving deep into African History and African politics and I get so much information from these documentaries. Keep up the great work. Much love from Australia 🇦🇺 👍
Thank you! 👍🏿🙌🏿
MegaUltra stop listening to the neo-liberal crap this channel is spouting. The owner of the channel isn’t even African. He’s just pretending to be.
It fails everywhere.
But, but twitter would disagree with you!
@@broly7643 ahhh yes the Twitter political theorists.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
the road to hell is paved with marxist intentions
Why would you seize the means of production, when you can produce more means of production?
Michael Foye this guys gets it
You really think this makes sense
@@cheezybrotherstudios socialism/communism/collectivism is based around taking away from the individual. They can only steal and redistribute.
Capitalism is about the individual creating wealth. Its about the free will of people.
Obviously there is also an ugly deformation of capitalism, which some would say isnt capitalism. Oligarchies and monopolies forming throigh illicit means. Oligarchies that use the law to remove themselves from the free market. Unfair business practices like what amazon did and still does to become bigger.
Because producing more of the means of production would inevitably cause the collapse of a market, also known as overconsumption and overproduction. Thats one of the biggest criticism Marx had about capitalism, it has innate contradictions that would be the death of it.
Unless you're somehow advocating for the collapse of capitalism which will then turn to a socialist revolution, which is uhhh.... kinda accelerationist of you.
@@Xerathiel That's actually a common misconception. Marx and his idea of socialism and communism was extremely individualistic. Infact, he criticized capitalism of being collectivist.
This is further proof in the Communist Manifesto, Marx criticized capitalism for only being individualist for the bourgeois and not for the proletariat.
"In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality."
MLK had a similar quote to Marx:
Whenever the government provides opportunities in privileges for white people and rich people they call it “subsidized” when they do it for Negro and poor people they call it “welfare.” The fact that is the everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit. And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of 90 percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all to often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem."
Max Stirner, who is considered to be one of the most individualistic person to have ever lived with his philosophy "egoism" criticized Marx by calling him a collectivist.
All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Everyone one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from a community of goods. The individual's mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mind, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. One the Contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will-bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have."
Marx responded in "The German Ideology"
"The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature....Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life"
Basically put, the individual can only become an individual when the basic needs of oneself are met.
Another one, in Gundrisse, which is a response to Proudhon, another anarcho individualist similar to Stirner.
"This so-called contemplation from the standpoint of society means nothing more than the overlooking of the differences which express the social relation (relation of bourgeois society). Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. As if someone were to say: Seen from the perspective of society, there are no slaves and no citizens: both are human beings. Rather, they are that outside society. To be a slave, to be a citizen, are social characteristics, relations between human beings A and B. Human being A, as such, is not a slave. He is a slave in and through society. What Mr Proudhon here says about capital and product means, for him, that from the viewpoint of society there is no difference between capitalists and workers; a difference which exists precisely only from the standpoint of society"
The individual is not an individual merely from outside forces. But from ourselves and our encounters with others.
Even Max himself accidentally agrees with Marx when saying:
"I love men too - not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me"
The egoist, is based on self realization with purpose of one's happiness. How this is achieved is all up to you, the egoist. Whether you want to alone or to be with the love of your life. It is both altruism and selfishness that drives a human to live.
This is known as "the law of opposites" in Marxism, or "yin yang" in dualism. Or simply "egoism". Simply put, individualism cannot exist without collectivism. Marx was as strong of an individualist as Max. They both misunderstood each other. Just as much as Ayn Rand completely misunderstood Marx.
Liberal humanism or "liberalism" which is the very foundation capitalism is founded upon, has nothing of this idea. It believes that since from birth, we all have free will. Not only has neurology proven this wrong, but it proved that Marx was right. Free will, is determined by one's influence and desires. Thus, it becomes compatibalism, a contradictionary mix of determinism and free will.
Hegel himself said a similar quote to all of these:
"Contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and of all life."
I just found your channel and I am happy to learn about different countries to broaden my knowledge of the world.
I started laughing at Ghana and its many variations of the 'transport ministry' then my county Kenya popped up with its 94 ministers. We are similar, us Africans and our issues.
I’m a big proponent of the late George B.N. Ayittey. So happy to have come across this video! Love the education you provide about us!
Thank you soo much for all the work you do..it is much appreciated 💪🏾
I disagree with your definition, Marxist Socialism is defined by Worker ownership of the means of production. You should look at Thomas Sankara and the progress he made in Burkina Faso, Ghaddfi in Libya and Schelleyes Islands under Socialism. I’m surprised you did not mention the IMF and World Bank, I would argue they had the worse impact for all of Africa with unplayable loans. Soviet Foreign Aid was similar, what your referring is a form of Regulated Capitalism where upper classes still controls the means of production but it’s controlled under the government rather then private companies.
@Yonis Ali What are you saying, I don't understand.
Agree with your assessment Rehan, having "socialism" under a corrupt authoritarian government only leads to state run capitalism where the economy is used to enrich the few...not Marxism or Socialism.
This is totally Cameroon... commission to all issues 🤦🏾♂️
Pan-African thought and spirituality should manifest in ways that have been compromised by centuries of colonial oppression and methods.
Allowing our Ancestral Memory to guide the way could provide a remarkable consensus of possibilities we already know to be necessary and viable.
Marks: socialism should work in high development countries
Russia, China, Africa and anybody with low development: he said "socialism should work"
YES! This is what so many miss. Marx marvelled at capitalism's good qualities and even stated that it was necessary for capitalism to occur before socialism. Countries that try to collectivise before they have the infrastructure, economy, society, and logistics set up and streamlined to do so will stumble and fail.
It's why we socialists look to Norway as the future. It's not strictly capitalist nor socialist, yet its socialist policies are unparalleled successes compared to third world countries that have tried the same things.
One needs to have the means and knowledge before one tries to build a bridge.
@@SolarFlareAmerica norway also has other things going on then socialism. And norway proably discust marx. But the utopian socialist might like it.
@Thelondonbadger
That's because NATO and the US provides it military protection.
I am not from Norway, but Denmark. Same model. When Americans hear how we run things in Scandinavia you can see how it bothers them that this so called socialism apparently works. We have a mixed economy. Pure capitalism is not good at all imo. Neither is pure socialism.
@Thelondonbadger Norway have a big defense budget actually. It is number 7 in the world with gdp into defence budget per capita.
There is a well documented pattern throughout history that a people, once released from the control of colonialists, will end up imitating the colonialist style of government, often while proclaiming that it is nothing like it, and even insisting that their style is revolutinary, for the good of all, and incorruptible. Yet, in the end, the result is no different, and sometimes worse.
Thomas Sowell noticed that colonialism did more good than harm in a number of places.
For the first generation, he generalized, colonialism is terrible. But for the subsequent generations, it's a net positive.
One of those tough lessons in history, I suppose.
I mean, it took Mussolini to be in charge of Somalia to force them to finally, once and for all, abolish the 1,300-year Bantu slave trade. It's a bad look when the OG fascist is the objective and unequivocal moral compass of a country.
In India, our tyrannical overlords turned brown. Socialist authoritarians will never fix your country.
its centralized power , colonialism was just not that much with sugarcoding for africans.
Thank you for your video, I am from Namibia and our current political leadership has embraced these socialist policies for years leading to high government spending and High unemployment with the youth population. These policies although idealistic and good natured, fail to account for the greed of human beings, as such their is always exploitation and corruption with in the institutions that are meant to help the people. Further more the dependence brought on by the over reliance on government cannot be understated as it has led to political parties promising, more and more services without adequate means to finance there handouts leading ever more debt and eventual economic collapse.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Leanfraks How is the true when Namibia has one of the highest GDP per capita us in Africa
@@christiannewaye7306 GDP is just a the average GDP per citizen. Namibia is one of the most unequal societies, meaning GDP per capita is a bad measure. I don't have a problem with inequality, personally I think it's natural. But we must make it more barreble to be poor through free market capitalism. Atleast internally.
Kleopas Shitaleni still comparably to most of Africa they had a higher standard of living same thing with Seychelles
Kleopas Shitaleni That’s not remotely true again there’s no definitive evidence the privatization helps job growth at all compared to state owned companies. Also if you factor in income inequality a large chunk of the higher income people are either Afrikaners were descendants of the German colonies in class that’s not to say the members of the ruling party Haven’t become corrupt but statistically taking in all of the material conditions a lot of the economic growth comes from socialism in fact they have discussed at the party conference to return to socialism maybe towards wat Vietnam House which is a socialist market economy similar to Seychelles
The ironic thing is, most of Pre-colonial Africa societies operated more similarly to what we now call free markets.
not true at all.
@@SJO897
Resource allocation wasn't controlled by a king/chief, rather by individuals or family villages. Neither was trading in most parts of Africa.
That's closer to a free market than socialism.
@@dalitsobanda1032 😂 Just like free slave trading which is also a form of capitalism.
no they worked just like socialist state without sugarcoding it. privacy is key in capitalism and tell me what privacy does a slave have or was any african allowed to compete with the european Businesses that would beat them in the long run since they have the knowledge of the terrain and had their focus in africa?
slaves isnt capitalism since it violates the right of the privacy of the slave. the first privacy is that you own yourself
Very good video! Interesting perspective on socialist economics. We mostly get the USA vs. USSR perspective on capitalism/socialism and whatnot, but little is said about Africa's perspective or experiences. Well done.
I completely agree and relate to the legacy of marxism on a nation. I`m from Serbia and the 2 issues mentioned still plague my county 20 years after it stopped being socialist.
As an african, this channel is pure gold.
Telling the african narrative through an african lens.
nope nope, look at George Ayitteh he is litteraly backed by us based libertarian think tank to promote capitalism...
he got money from corporate interest group disguised as think tank group
@@skellurip well atleast he's an African.
@@johncarlollavor2146 that's only make it worse
It seems a certain amount of socialism can be beneficial, especially as an economy develops. Look at Singapore, Rwanda, Norway - all these nations have achieved strong economic growth while their governments held onto key functions. But your video shows that Africa's wild swing away from colonialism and the market economy was too much, too fast. It would have been smarter to take pride in traditional decision-making structures and keep these at the foundation of the political system, while gradually introducing democratic, socialist and/or capitalist reforms.
Great video! Thanks.
There is no socialism in Singapore
The term "government run enterprise" is laughable. How can a referee be a fighter in his own bouts. He will always declare himself the winner. So, such governments would always claim success despite the growing incapacity of their "government run concerns".
Well it dont sound funny when sweeden do it
The Chinese have pulled it off pretty damn well. So has England’s old government run businesses like the post office, trams trains And health care like nhs.
@@sefp yeah, because those leaders had actual direction. Here in Nigeria, if you ask a politician what his political views were, he would be completely stumped
@@sefp The country was poor until they allowed private enterprise.
@@LiteralCrimeRave that's factually incorrect bro
This does destroy the narrative that European Colonialism caused African poverty.
Zimbabwe, when it was a British colony (Rhodesia), was one of the richest states in Africa (with a better standard of living for all its people), after 40 years of Marxist/anti-Western/anti-white terror it is one of the poorest. Botswana was one of the poorest countries in Africa (never a British colony, but a Protectorate); however, since the mid-sixties it has pursued policies of democracy, a strong legal system, non-discriminatory (not anti-white) employment, co-operation with international bodies and companies, careful social policies and capitalism. Botswana has never been to war with any of its neighbours, had a civil war or a reign of state terror. It is now one of the richest countries in Africa, it has a higher standard of living, more freedom, less corruption and greater human rights than practically any other state in Africa.
This video on its own is a sign of hope. You remind me of Aggrey Klaaste, who was the editor of The Sowetan in South Africa for decades. Good sense is so rare.
My take is, the African economies are hampered by patronage. Anyone with an income is expected to support not just his own family, but his extended family as well, and any friends he might have made along the way who have fallen on hard times. The cult of the African Big Man just won't go away. When you add tribalism to it...
African countries should be broken up into ethnic enclaves, to reduce ethnic rivalry (related languages can be grouped together); children should be educated in their mother tongue until the age of 16 (this would massively raise the general IQ of the population).
With small countries looking after their own people and not exploiting others, government would be more approachable and accountable, with fewer opportunities for graft. People would be free to generate and keep their own wealth. In every population, there are people with a nous for business, who just want to buy and sell and make deals. These people should be free to do what they love best, which makes money for everyone.
That also sounds nice in theory. However ressources are not equally distributed. For example in Nigeria the north wants access to the oil in the south. In other places there are similar problems.
Who pays for the infrastructure and how?
Private businesses, especially when they hold monopolies and oligopolies, do not need to rely always on customer satisfaction.
I will make Africa better
I will improve Africa.
I will change all this; I will change the World.
change the world
my final massage
goodbye
I still agree that Marxist socialism was the best and might still be the only way forward....take a step back and you will realize that it is in line with African values before colonization and Nkrumah was right...furthermore all countries in the past who followed through with Marxist socialism to the core have been successful in development
LOL.
Just be patient. When that windmill gets built, we'll all get free heat.
You’d rather a corporation come in and charge you for every second the windmill is on?
@@sama847 it was a reference to the book "Animal Farm". You missed the reference.
@@adamwalker2377 No I got the reference, but it seemed to be attacking socialism. Whereas with capitalism that windmill wouldn’t be built at all unless there’s a reasonable profit margin
@@sama847 and what happened with that windmill in the book? Or was that not a depiction of "real communism"?
Under a free society (which we don't presently have), you could invest in your own windmill or voluntarily coop with others to share the cost.
Leaving fiction for a minute, have you ever heard of a "well share"? People in remote areas do it all the time in order to share the costs.
Would you prefer the government tell you exactly how much electricity/water you can have?
@@adamwalker2377 Id prefer the system not be rigged to benefit those at the very top. As it is right now. I want the government I live under to take care of its citizens rather than the citizens “coop”, I.E corporations. George Orwell was a socialist to the point where he went to Spain to fight fascists. He understood the importance of people working together out of a sense of civic duty rather than corporate profits
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"
These African leaders were blinded by passion and distrust for everything Western. It is interesting that most of these pioneers schooled in the West but didn't try to understand how a small group of people became highly advanced and civilized. While Japan. Korea and Taiwan loathed the west they drew a lot of lesson from them and went ahead to build market economies as China did later on.
yes.
very true.
Being European myself, I really like your channel, very informative 👍
I live in Britain and used to work with a black lady from Zimbabwe who went back there from time to time to visit relatives. She mentioned how bad things had got under Mugabe and I asked if any black Zimbabweans said things had been better under Ian Smith's white settler regime. She replied 'Of course' as though it was so obvious she was surprised I needed to ask. Sad.
Karl Marx focused a large amount of his work on discussing Historical Materialism, or the idea that society have to develop in stages by going through multiple periods of different "modes of production" (one of which is industrialization). It was a total misuse and misrepresentation of Marxist ideology to perceive Africa as ready for this kind of state socialism and eventually communism (communism btw is a society WITHOUT a state, WITHOUT social/economic classes and WITHOUT money, the soviet union was not communist at all, it had all of them).
Much of Africa started off without any of the things that were already taken for granted in the West, including: a well-trained and outfitted bureaucracy, well-defined property rights, industrialized production, widspread education (primary or higher), infrastructure, government services and so forth. Much of the work we've seen been done in Africa with donor partners or by Africans themselves have been in trying to finally deal with all these prerequisites of modern society. Schools, universities, roads, telecommunications etc., major strives have been made to make African countries catch up in their productive capacities. And of course, socialism can't really work out in war-torn countries, because socialism and communism much more relies on a populated of people who trust each other and have good relationships, something war prevents.
@MajorLeague
Clearly not. You contradict yourself from other threads where you claim Marxism failed when applied to rural economies like revolutionary Russia.
The "Not REAL Socialism, Real Socialism has never been tried" argument. They tried their best and it failed. If Socialism can't handle human nature then it's a failed philosophy.
Africa has to heal, cell by cell, organ by organ, bone by bone. We are kinda hoping the continent heals at once but one by one and over a considerable length of time, opportunities for countries to correct mistakes and to reassert themselves will arise.
Edit: I hope we would have good leaders who get the support of the people, near and far.
No more despots.
just invest in infrastructure
Why did socialism fail in Africa?
Before watching the video, because it's socialism. It fails everywhere, why should Africa be different?
Such a profound and truthful answer
Such a low IQ and lying answer.
This is by far the best TH-cam channel
In short: the same reason it failed everywhere else.
@Critique Everything Socialism has. Communism has not.
@Critique Everything Of course it hasn't been achieved. It always fails.
@@billmelater6470 the famous last words of a socialist on his way to the gulag
@@tballstaedt7807 Famous last words of a capitalist sent to the American prison system. Don't drop the soap
@@AJ213Probably REAL. FUKKIN" TALK!!!!!!!!!
A stunning eye opening report - very informative! Great work! Thank you!
Be CAREFUL my friend with your assessment. You seem to have omitted key reasons, powers, and persons responsible for this failure. Hello IMF, World Bank and the other conspirators. You also omit one of the most GLARINGLY SUCCESSFUL socialistic system in Africa and the world, --Libya under the leadership of Muarmar Gaddafi. He had, if not the most progressive country in Africa, surely one of the top players on the Continent. Gaddafi used socialism with some capitalistic attachments. He nationalized the crude oil of Libya and used it to raise the standard of living for his people. Be sure to purchase a copy of his Green Book.
Why are you butthurt
Your right similar to what Norway is doing.
Bullocks. He was a mad man. He had fetish for black women the reason for his "pan africanism". Otherwise the Arabs were racist to blacks and berbers. He forced arabic on berbers and suppressed their language and identity by claiming they are Arabs. He funded IRA and many other terrorist organisations including the ones who did Munich massacre. Great leader?? He was just a Arab supremist mad man whose country ran only because of oil just like the saudis
please oil allowed lybia to be what somewhat stable the country had a high unemployment and poverty
Divine Goddess Norway is a free market capitalistic state with some socialist policy’s, not the other way around.
wow I wish i would have stumbled upon this years ago. I believe America is willingly about to usher this in. scary times. great article I was looking for history ideas for our homeschool. thanks!