Most overworked and underpaid population in the world

Congo Kinshasa is the absolute goldenboy in terms of revolution potential. When do you think it'll happen?

Attached: Congo Kin.JPG (656x624, 71.28K)

"""They""" are a little too in control to let things like that happen. Besides, when have there been actual successful uprisings in third world countries?

China, Russia, and Cuba

Also they have a population of around 80,000,000 people, I'm sure if someone can organize them well enough they'd be able to fight 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧them🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧.

Sounds like the perfect place for the free market

Attached: 3b63c4075f42a923b454e576b753499eca6fbcea35aa5282326b726cb1f3e400.jpg (768x637, 381.3K)

Yeah Congo is the perfect ancap paradise you should totally move there

It was attempted.

Attached: Che Guevara in Congo.jpg (480x360, 38.3K)

Were those nations really as underdeveloped as ones like the Congo? I can imagine all of them were on the brink of industrialization, especially Russia and China since they were both holding their own against other world powers. The DRC, on the other hand, seems much less imaginable as it regards to remaining whole, especially considering they really do not have any sort of dominant culture among them to act as the hegemon, as was in Russia and China.

I thought that was an exaggeration but it turns out they have about 79 million people in the country. That's a lot, but still I wonder if their industry and society is malleable enough for such an undertaking.

I think the society might be a bit of a roadblock. The DRC is very diverse and religious, so I don't see much in the way of revolution being called on easily, or at least being called on without special plans for each group. While Russia was arguably somewhat industrial (though they did lost to Japan though) China before Mao was only like 3% made up of industrial workers. China was more scientifically advanced as Africa, and had some more material wealth, but in terms of living standard and inequality China was almost like Africa in terms of living and trade. Besides, while the Han Chinese culture was a large monolith, the Mongols Tibetans and Uyghurs were as Han as Norwegians are Egyptian. Cuba was kinda close to Bahamas-level in development, but was mostly just a rich resort island for rich Americans and Europeans.

Would westerners attempting to convince Congo people to have a revolution considered imperialist? Would moving there to start one be? Not in a US-military way, but when should a revolution be declared stillborn and won't ever get going without some sort of outside help?

Attached: question cat.png (353x332, 89.24K)

Same thing as happened last time. As soon as resource flows are threaten, all outside powers like Rwanda (they haven't actually ever left in fact) will plunge in hoping to conquer a slice for themselves.

There is nothing that unifies the people of Congo, any "revolutionary" moment will lead to a disintegration of the state and likely never-ending endemic warfare in the space of the former state. There are no vanguard organizations on the ground who could make use of that anarchy like the Bolsheviks managed in Russia, so it will be the same warlords and outside powers of yesteryear who will come out on top.

Boon people are too dumb tbh

Yes, but it really is not that much better now.

What is it with these Holla Forumsyps and smug anime faces

They never even post from any good-to-watchable anime either, it's always some weird loli or harem shit

faggots

Attached: 0e68aef561fbcf566c37aee556a639e5549d4ae84b0e20ccc79c623998ac30fc.jpg (1146x1148, 12.53K)

What the actual fuck. Also revolutions in Africa only happened when the USSR was feeding them. And today there is nobody interested in such operations, unless its the USA organizing a revolution against a government that won't allow trade.

Fetishizing whatever it is that ay que measures is silly. You only need one architect or one engineer to build a bridge or whatever, and a lot of workers. Meaning, you never need too many high ay que people to get anything done. Even space exploration and colonization features more low ay que people harvesting minerals, working them into metals, casting the whole thing, transporting stuff around, etc, than it does big brain nibbas designing it.
That is to say, the average ay que of a country isn't relevant, if it has the required institutions to get its few existing brainiancs into positions to organize the rest.

During the Crimea War against Britain and her allies, Russian artillery had shorter range than British hand guns. They were hilariously outproduced, and outteched.
Later when Russia was fighting Turkey in the Balkans, the Russian soldiers felt lied and betrayed when they found out the Bulgarian people in the Ottoman empire had houses and gardens and owned their property, since back home it was literally feudalism. They were told they will liberate Slavs who are slaves to the evil sultan, yet they saw people wealthier than them, with more rights than them.
Later during WWI, and during the Revolution, Russia still had the institution of the Cossacks - a military caste, a people who had no occupation other than war, and no produce other than looting and rape.

Yes, Russia was fucking backwards. They barely had electricity going. They used a different calendar to the rest of the planet. People had to use vaccinations in secret, as not to be called out by the church. It was faster to go across the ocean than to go across Russia, the place was so badly connected. During the Russian-Japanese war, the Russian reinforcements took a fucking year to arrive and be slaughtered.

Russia wans't that backwards compared to the rest of Europe. During the later stages of the war (WWI) the handily produced more than enough shells, guns etc. for the army. There was in the cities a nucleus of highly develloped industry, which is where the Bolsheviks built their power. A lot of that withered during the civil war, but enough remained to serve as a basis for industrialization, helped by a more efficient agriculture after collectivization. For all of Russia's underdevelopment, there was a lot more to work with there than there would be in Congo.

On the topic of Russia, why does it seem that throughout history it was always a sort of "poor" country? Is it geography, its size? Russia always seemed to have to play catch-up with the rest of Europe. That's not to say it never prospered, so maybe it's just my perception.

They don't even watch the series, unless it's the most normalfag friendly seasonal show, they just save them from Holla Forums or /a/ or whatever.

It was sparsely populated for most of its history, and as we all know concentrated human labour power is where you go to get value. It looks big on a map but it's population in 1800 was only 35 million, compared to 30 for France for example, spread out over a vast area even if you look at European Russia alone. Only in modern times have transport and communications managed to erase some of the distance.

Apparently it's also because it's more farther up north than the rest of the European states, and with this the landscape is prone to severe changes in weather (the swamps that occur during summertime, the freezing over that occurs during winter). With this too is the difficulty in extracting resources in colder temperatures, which machines have difficulty operating in, and is also partially why Ukraine was a big agricultural center – it was further south, and so less susceptible to seasonal changes, and it also had its iconic black soil.

Russia only managed to get some sort of state going when european trade shifted west, thanks to new naval technologies. Its also why the Balkans started declining and with them the Ottomans too. Poland and Hungary ware similarly hit as wealth shifted westwards.

I think over a dozen US military bases in Syria shows us once and for all that isn’t true, the third world revolution, unless you are Cuba, is bound to be couped, crushed or subverted into revisionism unless the first world plays ball, which it may do, while you are useful, but you will always be sold out in the end. The revolution MUST take place in the first world in order to secure its continued existence. I’m basically of the view that in fact “the revolution” hasn’t even had a chance at happening yet, the closest thing we have had to revolution in an industrialised country is Catalonia

What are you talking about? There were at least 20 million people in the DRC when Belgian colonization started

The city of Kinshasa, dummy. Thats where the OP proposed revolution would start.

I wanted to comment this too but

Based BO

58 years ago.

sorry we dont believe in science that contradicts our faith here

go to hell heathen

This.

Attached: 6a91837cfaeaf0ff5e757fff1508b4305dffff3c29f4538c9a61d19e590def12.jpg (500x500, 29.31K)