How can socialism help make africa less shit? Do african proles even exist?

How can socialism help make africa less shit? Do african proles even exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

By doing what it does to everywhere that's shit. Abolish exploitation and actually allow Africa and it's people to build up some industry that benifits them and not their Capitalist overlords.


Uh, yeah.

Most africans are peasants

The answer is yes it fucking can and of course.

get Stalinist dictator to kill everyone and force the live people into not acting like niggos

it can't some races can't into socialism

Comrade, I'm reasonably certain most people in Russian Empire also were peasants. In fact, I think Russia's share of peasants was higher than in Africa.

So far, the majority of marxist-leninist parties in africa have been systematically obliterated by the US.

Learn some african history, socialism was the main force of anti-imperialism after WWII.

Unfortunately, most of them got the Afghanistan treatment by the US, and are now basically completely fucked forever due to the US backed/controlled salafi wahabi jihadists that control those areas now.

I don't think it can. Sub-Saharan Africa is doomed to be this way because the average IQ is 70. The only hope is that a method to increase it will come about.

go back to Holla Forums

What are you trying to say? IQ isn't real? There is no difference in IQ between races? It's all environment?

...

Probably that you have an iq of 70 for thinking that poor africans in shit conditions and no schooling have an avarage iq of 70, determined by their heritage alone.

But it's been proven time and time again that education does nothing to improve IQ. There have also been studies on sub-Saharan African children who were adopted and brought to the west, and as they grew up their IQ still remained the same as those left in Africa.

...

mkay. Equal distribution of nothing is still nothing.


Africa badly needs infrastructure. Only the public sector can provide that, especially when African business men seem like total cowboys, the private sector cannot even be relied upon to do the job, let alone treat workers fairly.

Social investment by governments into basic infrastructure could allow economic growth, and if the wealth doesn't pool at the top, that growth could have a massive positive multiplier on other areas of the economy.
Importing capitalist industries with wage slaves will not increase liquidity amongst the proletariat and peasants, which would help lift their standards of living and encourage small businesses.
Oh yeah but theyre corrupted as fuck and their political system is a meme in most countries so scratch that

A lot of parts of Africa are in this weird position where they will have 4G phones before they have roads. And the infrastructure which there is, is usually shockingly maintained see:
youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M

A lot of poorer african countries would benefit from stronger states investing in infrastructure, but they don't have the tax payers to pay for it.

Picrelated was in top-5 richest people of all time, IIRC.

It's not nearly as low as 70 in most of its countries. Richard Lynn's data is the sole source of evidence for this, and it's long since been found that he basically fudged data by ignoring contrary evidence in favor of horrible test samples, like a single class of very poor children for a single nation. Ironically, this is partially proven by the correlation he found of national IQ and wealth: he said Equatorial Guineans are literally retarded on average, yet their country is the wealthiest in sub-Saharan Africa and their violent crime rate is quite low. Malnutrition, disease and pollution are so rampant that the continent's average IQ is absolutely unsurprising. When neurological development is impeded, heritability of IQ drops like a rock.

Here is a comprehensive analysis that factors in all possible useful data for the region: iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

Regardless, bringing up IQ all the time makes you sound like a sperg that can't tolerate the idea of sympathizing with blacks–stupid people still have the right to not be exploited, and in Africa, colonialism never really ended. Many of its national leaders only serve as middlemen for Western and Chinese industry.

They will all get killed in market "socialism" real fast.

It should be bannable offence.

How much exactly niggers in Africa hate each other? Can they potentially cast aside their differences and unite?

Ethnic tensions in Africa seem to be a lot more subtle than in the West, where they are partially maintained by strong visual differences between people of different races, which leads to cognitive bias. Radical left politics were not uncommon in the region, but no one cares about them so the US was free to crush them as they saw fit if they were covert enough about it. Unsurprisingly, tribal leaders were usually the domestic opposition.

I'm always suspicious that the borders are a bit too straight tbh… Look at how intense the borders are in Europe, including enclaves, then in Africa it's all straight lines. That can't help, think of all the separatist movements in Europe too and these are well off people with much less access to guns, fighting much stronger states.

Britain used to have battles just as intense as in African countries now, just we made private armies illegal 300ish years ago…

Collective ownership and worker's control not planned economy and gulags okay praise Tito.

...

Regardless, market socialism is neither ineffective nor an oxymoron. If you can sell cars to the West after being so underdeveloped that your capital region was mostly rural, you progressed a shit ton.

Massive IMF debt and high levels of unemployment, praise tito.

The hell it isn't both.

That's still not socialism. Moreover, efficiency is measured by alternatives. Some peasants were making nukes.

Bread lines and totalitarianism, praise the rest of the eastern bloc!

In all seriousness though the IMF ruins everything it touches regardless of economic system, so pointing it out doesn't mean shit.

Real Scotsman Socialism doesn't let IMF anywhere near and uses Comecon instead.

Bro Tito didnt want to have to suck up to stalin, stalin tried to assassinate him after all.

Fucking ideologues. I'm pretty sure everyone would rather prosper than live under a specific label.

50% of this board is all about those 3 years of pure gommunism is kekalonia, so dont be so quick to assume people are sane.

It's effective in regards to generating plutocracy, that I grant you.


Socialism is just another word. But if you understand it to describe a post-capitalist system then Yugoslavia sure as hell didn't apply.

Not an excuse.

Fucking revisionists. They are pretty sure everyone would prosper if they just put good label on them.

Not an argument.

It was post capitalist in that the capitalists as a class of owners were replaced by the workers themselves operating the collective enterprises.

Hey guys, you were talking about Africa, were you not?

Still not an excuse.

And argument is not needed. It was made by IMF. Also, "quote".

It's not. It stops being capitalist when there is no more capitalist mode of production.

We were considering Cultural Market "Socialism" as a means of salvation, no?

I'm of opinion that it won't work and Sankaras will not help:

capital-socialism is cancer

I dont see whats wrong with that. My goal is a classless society, whether we "make them all bourgoiesie" or "make them all proletarians" doesnt matter, the latter just seems like protestantism that fetishizes manual labour.

Mode. Of. Production.

In industrial (unmanaged) society bourgeoisie gets destroyed and turns into proletariat and capitalists. This is not some conspiracy that stops happening, if you kill a few rich guys. It's an objective historical process.

Simply making everyone petit-bourgeoisie AGAIN and letting go of things doesn't work, because people can still get rich and get poor. They will still dissolve into proletariat and capitalists. You are simply postponing the inevitable clusterfuck that is capitalism.

The only choice to get to classless society is to change the very basis of economic relations.

Sub-Saharan Africa IQs per nation vary from ≤65 to 80. Only one nation has 80 average. It is around 70. The average for the whole continent is around 75.


Rindermann's analysis found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. According to Hunt, due to there being far more data available, Rindermann's analysis was more reliable than those by Lynn and Vanhanen.

In 2013, Rindermann compared previous research on cognitive ability estimates for African IQ with new psychometric test studies, student assessment studies, variables correlate most strongly with intelligence outside Africa, and other indicators of cognitive ability. After correction, he made a guess for average African IQ of 75.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence

Also he is not talking about Richard Lynn. He talking about adoption studies. Avoid men made of straw.

You can't become a capitalist if you cant own the means of production private, which is exactly what any form of market socialism will make sure doesn't happen.

Except you are changing the mode of production. The capitalists are no longer employing the proletariat to work in the factories because the distinction between worker and capitalist has literally been erased since he factories are owned by the workers themselves. It's literally the definition of a classless society, and it is basically the same as a planned socialist economy except that workers manage production directly instead of through the intermediary of a worker's state.

You are absolutely right
I just wish Lelnin had read Marx, maybe he would've understood that YOU CAN'T FUCKING GO TO SOCIALISM FROM FEUDALISM WITHOUT GOING THROUGH CAPITALISM

It's the only thing that can help Africa.

PROGRESS and FREEDOM not HISTORY and KANGZ ok. praise fanon

Surely their fully corrupted dictators will suddenly see the light when absolutely all power is consolidated under them instead of continuing to be shit.

...

Quit using terms you clearly know nothing about. Two points below.

1. Market socialism is not classless, it's just the most extreme reformist measure to ease class tensions. If there is a market that naturally implies some resource is not held in common. Such relations generate inequality as sure as fire generates smoke. There will always be billionaires under capitalism, there will always be propertyless and unemployed individuals. That was as true in Yugoslavia as it was in the United States.

2. Any industrial society where wage-labor is dominant and the means of production circulate as commodities is capitalist, end of story. The inevitable result of this program is that each firm's production will be geared towards meeting the demands of capital, not the needs of society. The fact that you've increased the size of the bourgeoisie says nothing here, it is the same exploitative system.


There is nothing indirect about democracy over a socialist plan.


He did. Go read Lenin's stuff, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.


It was never the intention of Lenin to impose socialism on Russia without the help of the Western nations, no individual or party can impose it. A revolution occurred and the Bolshevik party emerged accordingly as the proletariat's political arm, it wasn't the plot of any one person.

At any rate the actual process of building socialism was, obviously, left up to Stalin. The difficulties that were mentioned now and at the time were very real but we now know the Soviet state managed to nonetheless succeed in spite of the imperialist attacks launched on it.

The straight lines are mostly north africa in the middle of the desert. Nobody lives by those borders so nobody really cares enough to go jigsaw.

But if there is no distinction between the bourgeoisie and he proletariat then who is being exploited?

Almost everyone since your program requires even most of the propertied capitalists to engage in manual labor.

Yes but they control the means of production and reap the benefits equally, how is that exploitation?

Exploitation doesn't occur because of a few evil guys at the top taking all the cash, that's the bourgeois and anarchist view, not the Marxist one. Do you really think that markets naturally tend to generate a lot of producers (highly-competitive), that they're always in equilibrium, and that competition is always beneficial? If so, then the fault for any exploitation lies on the capitalists who lower wages for their own profit rather than as a natural reaction to market forces. And, of course, if you believe that their is no case for market socialism at all since capitalists will always act rationally. Yet if you don't believe that there is no case for market socialism as your capitalists will be forced to react in the same way as the old ones by inheriting their system.

Except that the nature of collective enterprise means that any self interested action taken by the capitalists will benefit everybody in the co-operative since they are both the capitalists and the workers. The only issue then would be strife caused between individual cooperatives themselves which I will admit is a flaw not addressed by market socialism. However it still manages to lead not only to worker control of the means of production and greater economic equality while avoiding the massive unwieldliness of a centrally planned economy.

Two words:

Lange
Model

This doesn't address anything I said. My previous post would've served as an accurate reply to this sentence if you had posted it earlier.

The Lange model commodifies labor, it is another form of capitalism. And at any rate he himself considered the need for a market obsolete later in his life. (in truth, it had always been obsolete)

Taking a look at the Wikipedia now, certainly intriguing. Imo something that Marx may have failed to see is that perhaps there are multiple intermediary stages of economic development between standard socialism and capitalism, which is why I have gone with market socialism as what seemed to me to be a logical first step, but this seems like it would be a close second step.

plan which coops are allowed to exist

I don't give a damn about what the man himself thought later in his life. Theres plenty of people who turn reactionairy, stupid or other dumb shit later in their life. What he wrote down earlier I agree with, and it bears his name. He is not the final authority on it, he does not have a patent on it. He is not god, jesus or whatever, he is just some guy who at one point wrote down a good idea I agree with.

Also, commodification of labour will never stop existing unless you stop proportionally rewarding peoples labour, something which is against the idea of socialism. IE to stop commodifying labour you must reward the same regardless of labour done, which means that people will not get the fruit of their labour, but a set amount according to arbitrary rules set by whatever institution.

Or you must abolish money and "labour vouchers" (shitty money) altogether, at which point you should be getting to communism.

Then I might be having a hard time grasping what you were trying to say in your last post. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're saying that markets and competition naturally lead to exploitation since such competition is often detrimental to large segments of the population. Also that market forces will end up causing wages to fluctuate resulting in the same kinds of inequality that would exist under capitalism. So if this is the case then market socialism solves nothing because it's the markets themselves that are the problem and not who actually controls the means of production?

Your own citation does nothing to overwrite mine. They're cited side by side. Mine is not paywalled.
He did mention data for the continent of Africa, and Lynn's data is usually presented uncritically because he's the only one to make claims as broad as his.

Mentioning adoption studies is stupid in itself because they have proven to be unreliable: different major studies have provided drastically different results.