I am one of the few who are from south america. I arrived as the poll closed, but in any case I want to signal that probably most of your pro-west camp are the westerners themselves.
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay definitely consider themselves as part of the west culturally and politically (although in Argentina part of the peronist movement does not agree on the political identification). In the rest of south america is a debated topic, usually falling in a left (Latinoamérica is its own civilization/culture/race) vs right (Latinoamérica is western, christian and white). My country Bolivia may be the least western both in our own eyes and in European standards.
Thanks for a great blog, and for highlighting topics that rarely get covered in Australia. I made a new folder for Africa in my History section, for saving many of your articles. I promise I will subscribe soon, it's just finances are tight.
I assume my answers went thru in the survey, as there was no "submit" button.
Just on the "political" designation question, long experience has shown that the "communism" and "fascism" labels, purportedly on opposite poles, are in fact almost identical in outlook and psychology - it attracts the same kind of people, and they have, when in power, the same oppressive methods and objectives, as well as the same body count. I often say: "far left = far right + Marx". It's how China was so easily able to move from full Marxism to fascism after Mao died.
Socialists, democratic or otherwise, are just communists/fascists who aren't yet in power.
Aiyyo, 4% of readers who replied to the poll identify as fascist (at the time of this comment). That's... interesting. I don't think I've ever met an avowed fascist; it's always seemed to me a label that we apply to others, rather than to ourselves. I didn't notice a total number of responses, so maybe that's one person who mis-clicked? I'd be curious to hear from anyone repping fascism here (yes, I might regret that, but what the hell).
how are you more socially right wing than a conservative? Do you see conservativism as "liberalism driving below the speed limit" while you see yourself as trying to restore some ideal from the past?
To put it simply, yes. Not to sound pretentious but I'm also not a reactionary. What I like about fascism (in the proper sense of the term) is nationalism and radical-right modernism. "Conservatism" as it's generally understood in Western politics is petty, impotent, and too moderate in my opinion
I checked 'not sure' on political scale; for lack of alternatives. I know pretty well where I stand: I think 'conservative' corresponds to being 10, a normal time to be selfish, 'liberal' corresponds to being 15, and seeking your personal freedom, and 'socialism' corresponds to being 20, and discover that there are other people too. If we are allowed to develop these 'ideologies' at a proper age, we can continue to develop after 30. If inhibited, and disturbed at any stage we risk getting stuck in any of them, and in the most serious case fall in the fascist pit. I am 79, in the big pool of 45+, and in the non existent pool of 'Swedish'.
Your work on giving Africa a proper place in its own history is just great. The Mercator projection of the earth was deliberately applied to diminish Africa, and really sticks on our minds. DNA techniques have established that we are all descendants from people wandering out of Africa, but I prefer to think that the rest of the world is populated by people who have been chased away from Africa; as it seems from how we have behaved coming back.
Hi there! I'm from Mozambique, and I came across your newsletter via YouTube. I can't quite remember who directed me to you, but I'm glad they did. I was looking for someone who wasn’t just another disingenuous prick about our situation or someone who sugarcoats Africa’s problems to appear "good." I wanted to find someone who was genuinely honest.
Even though I might not be as sharp or as earnest as I’d like, I’ve been searching for voices like yours. As a young man living in Africa trying to make sense of the world, your insights have been enlightening. You've reminded me that, even if things seem bleak, there’s still hope. We might not see the shade of the trees we plant today, but they still matter.
Keep up the great work!
P.S. I ended up choosing Fascist just for the shits and giggles, and then realized you can’t change your answer. Feel free to ignore that response. Or keep it if you like; we need more fascist representation over here. It seems like there’s only 4% of us in the newsletter—unacceptable! The Führer will hear about this.
This was one of my earlier articles, and I may redo it in the future. But I already had it editorialized by my Mozambican friend who is related to your first president.
I am reading mostly to test my theory on Africa or generally the "Third World".
My theory is this. The Soviet Union was supporting the anti-colonial movements, which logically resulted in the newly independent countries adopting Soviet-style economic policies, that is, state-owned businesses, heavily centralized, bureaucratic.
This led to decades of economic problems. No surprise, this didn't work well anywhere, from Russia to Cuba.
But eventually people in Africa started to figure out that this was a bad idea, that markets are actually a good thing (after all even Marx said that as long as we are not in a post-scarcity stage, we need market competition), and there is a sort of a "capitalist revolution" going on (Dambisa Moyo, Paul Kagame....) and it is actually working. If there would be an index fund tracking the average GDP growth of African countries, just about now would be a good time to invest in that. There is a China, 1990's type of period brewing.
Hi JustOgre! Are you a relatively new subscriber? If so, i have a lot of pieces to recommend to you. A couple things you said that need correction:
1) third world countries adopted socialist policies because in the 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union was one of the fastest growing economies. The Soviets didn't stagnate until the 1970s. People genuinely thought the Soviets had a better model back then. In addition, even most European countries had many state owned firms at the time. Policies like state owned enterprises, import substitution industrialization, and artificially strong currencies were in vogue across the third world.
3) it's not that African countries figured out that markets were great its just that when they went bankrupt, they could only get IMF loans if they made some market reforms. But many including my country Ghana still has some state owned enterprises. Many African countries have state owned mining, cash crop marketing boards, or state owned oil/gas firms. Rwanda and Ethiopia sill has state owned airlines. Africa is certainly less socialist than it was in the 60s and 70s, but by American standards they are all still very socialist.
4) if there was an index fund tracking average gdp growth in African countries , Africa would be in a lost decade with no growth again since 2014. Most African countries even now are commodity dependent and when commodity prices are stagnating, African countries don't grow. Only 20% have managed to grow without a commodity boom - Rwanda, Ivory Coast, etc. But for Zambia & Congo when copper prices fall the country stagnates. For Angola, Nigeria, or Gabon when oil prices fall, the country stagnate. For Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger when gold prices fall the countries stagnate. Look at the final graph in this article I wrote: https://open.substack.com/pub/yawboadu/p/5-answers-to-questions-you-may-have-ee7?r=garki&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
5) Rwanda is not some super capitalist country. It still has many by state owned enterprises. The only difference is that their SOEs are well run - RwandaAir the national carrier is government owned so is their energy and railway.
Hope this helps. I am sure you have more questions so feel free to follow up with me here or DMs.
Overall, the majority of what he says is accurate. However, it's essential to acknowledge that the Western Cape is a beautiful and safe region (because its ruled by the DA and not the ANC). South Africa is still better than most of Sub-Saharan Africa despite the decline of South African public services. The nation still functions better than most African countries, with living standards rising between 2000-2012 due to a mining boom, but declining since then. Also the country attracts way more foreign direct investment than the rest of the continent, including North Africa.
It's important to note that Mozambique, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Zimbabwe faced similar post-colonial challenges but chose to expel their white populations. Now Mozambique and Zimbabwe are impoverished states while Angola & Equatorial Guinea are oil kleptocracies. Whereas South Africa opted for a more "inclusive" approach, implementing affirmative action regime that would be extreme by American standards.
He accurately highlights the decline of public infrastructure and water services post-apartheid. He is also accurate about each president and the thuggery of the ANC. He correctly notes the African National Congress's (ANC) ties to the South African Communist Party and the training of many ANC members in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He also accurately states that Nelson Mandela lacked economic expertise, being a trained lawyer, and that many post-apartheid ANC members were inexperienced.
He's 100% right that the ANC were AIDS denialists. You had people who believed that if you raped virgins you can lose your AIDS
Lastly, his comparison of Zuma to a left-wing Donald Trump is apt.
Hopefully, now that the ANC has finally lost its majority and has to share power with the more competent Democratic Alliance (DA) which rules Western cape there is a chance South Africa will improve. But we'll see the ANC is litered with incompetent thugs.
I have been working on my South Africa article for 2 years now but I am still not done.
The podcast you sent me has given me a more nuanced perspective, (only finished 90 minutes so far) but it hasn't dissuaded me from the my core contention
Sending love and gratitude from South Africa. Your work is incredible and I couldn't be a more proud subscriber 🌟🇿🇦
I am one of the few who are from south america. I arrived as the poll closed, but in any case I want to signal that probably most of your pro-west camp are the westerners themselves.
Do some South American countries consider itself part of the West?
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay definitely consider themselves as part of the west culturally and politically (although in Argentina part of the peronist movement does not agree on the political identification). In the rest of south america is a debated topic, usually falling in a left (Latinoamérica is its own civilization/culture/race) vs right (Latinoamérica is western, christian and white). My country Bolivia may be the least western both in our own eyes and in European standards.
Thanks for a great blog, and for highlighting topics that rarely get covered in Australia. I made a new folder for Africa in my History section, for saving many of your articles. I promise I will subscribe soon, it's just finances are tight.
I assume my answers went thru in the survey, as there was no "submit" button.
Just on the "political" designation question, long experience has shown that the "communism" and "fascism" labels, purportedly on opposite poles, are in fact almost identical in outlook and psychology - it attracts the same kind of people, and they have, when in power, the same oppressive methods and objectives, as well as the same body count. I often say: "far left = far right + Marx". It's how China was so easily able to move from full Marxism to fascism after Mao died.
Socialists, democratic or otherwise, are just communists/fascists who aren't yet in power.
Maduro is a much better example. Many Marxists say "Maduro is fascist not a socialist" lol
Aiyyo, 4% of readers who replied to the poll identify as fascist (at the time of this comment). That's... interesting. I don't think I've ever met an avowed fascist; it's always seemed to me a label that we apply to others, rather than to ourselves. I didn't notice a total number of responses, so maybe that's one person who mis-clicked? I'd be curious to hear from anyone repping fascism here (yes, I might regret that, but what the hell).
Yea in the comments, you'll see that someone did that as a joke.
You're right, "fascist" is a misnomer in this case. I only picked it because I'm to the right of "conservative"
how are you more socially right wing than a conservative? Do you see conservativism as "liberalism driving below the speed limit" while you see yourself as trying to restore some ideal from the past?
To put it simply, yes. Not to sound pretentious but I'm also not a reactionary. What I like about fascism (in the proper sense of the term) is nationalism and radical-right modernism. "Conservatism" as it's generally understood in Western politics is petty, impotent, and too moderate in my opinion
Okay, it's currently 75 votes, thus 3 fascists (mis-clickers, people who enjoy lying on polls, etc). Still.
I checked 'not sure' on political scale; for lack of alternatives. I know pretty well where I stand: I think 'conservative' corresponds to being 10, a normal time to be selfish, 'liberal' corresponds to being 15, and seeking your personal freedom, and 'socialism' corresponds to being 20, and discover that there are other people too. If we are allowed to develop these 'ideologies' at a proper age, we can continue to develop after 30. If inhibited, and disturbed at any stage we risk getting stuck in any of them, and in the most serious case fall in the fascist pit. I am 79, in the big pool of 45+, and in the non existent pool of 'Swedish'.
Your work on giving Africa a proper place in its own history is just great. The Mercator projection of the earth was deliberately applied to diminish Africa, and really sticks on our minds. DNA techniques have established that we are all descendants from people wandering out of Africa, but I prefer to think that the rest of the world is populated by people who have been chased away from Africa; as it seems from how we have behaved coming back.
Thanks for mentioning the Mercator projection.
For each article, I always mention the size of the African country.
People were shocked when I said that Sudan is half the size of the European Union!
Hi there! I'm from Mozambique, and I came across your newsletter via YouTube. I can't quite remember who directed me to you, but I'm glad they did. I was looking for someone who wasn’t just another disingenuous prick about our situation or someone who sugarcoats Africa’s problems to appear "good." I wanted to find someone who was genuinely honest.
Even though I might not be as sharp or as earnest as I’d like, I’ve been searching for voices like yours. As a young man living in Africa trying to make sense of the world, your insights have been enlightening. You've reminded me that, even if things seem bleak, there’s still hope. We might not see the shade of the trees we plant today, but they still matter.
Keep up the great work!
P.S. I ended up choosing Fascist just for the shits and giggles, and then realized you can’t change your answer. Feel free to ignore that response. Or keep it if you like; we need more fascist representation over here. It seems like there’s only 4% of us in the newsletter—unacceptable! The Führer will hear about this.
Appreciate the comment! Also, you probably heard of me through h0ser!
Yeah, that's him, thanks!
I wrote about Mozambique here also btw:
https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/economic-and-geopolitical-history
This was one of my earlier articles, and I may redo it in the future. But I already had it editorialized by my Mozambican friend who is related to your first president.
I'll see, I better start reading that one as well then, but I'll be waiting on the remastered version.
Ohh, didn't read your whole comment before posting mine about fascists. 1/3 explained, anyway.
I am reading mostly to test my theory on Africa or generally the "Third World".
My theory is this. The Soviet Union was supporting the anti-colonial movements, which logically resulted in the newly independent countries adopting Soviet-style economic policies, that is, state-owned businesses, heavily centralized, bureaucratic.
This led to decades of economic problems. No surprise, this didn't work well anywhere, from Russia to Cuba.
But eventually people in Africa started to figure out that this was a bad idea, that markets are actually a good thing (after all even Marx said that as long as we are not in a post-scarcity stage, we need market competition), and there is a sort of a "capitalist revolution" going on (Dambisa Moyo, Paul Kagame....) and it is actually working. If there would be an index fund tracking the average GDP growth of African countries, just about now would be a good time to invest in that. There is a China, 1990's type of period brewing.
Hi JustOgre! Are you a relatively new subscriber? If so, i have a lot of pieces to recommend to you. A couple things you said that need correction:
1) third world countries adopted socialist policies because in the 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union was one of the fastest growing economies. The Soviets didn't stagnate until the 1970s. People genuinely thought the Soviets had a better model back then. In addition, even most European countries had many state owned firms at the time. Policies like state owned enterprises, import substitution industrialization, and artificially strong currencies were in vogue across the third world.
2) Soviet socialism worked fine in Seychelles - probably the only example od marxist leninism being very successful. I just want to give you that context because some people would quibble whej tou say "socialism didnt work anywhere" https://open.substack.com/pub/yawboadu/p/the-economic-and-geopolitical-history-6a9?r=garki&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
3) it's not that African countries figured out that markets were great its just that when they went bankrupt, they could only get IMF loans if they made some market reforms. But many including my country Ghana still has some state owned enterprises. Many African countries have state owned mining, cash crop marketing boards, or state owned oil/gas firms. Rwanda and Ethiopia sill has state owned airlines. Africa is certainly less socialist than it was in the 60s and 70s, but by American standards they are all still very socialist.
4) if there was an index fund tracking average gdp growth in African countries , Africa would be in a lost decade with no growth again since 2014. Most African countries even now are commodity dependent and when commodity prices are stagnating, African countries don't grow. Only 20% have managed to grow without a commodity boom - Rwanda, Ivory Coast, etc. But for Zambia & Congo when copper prices fall the country stagnates. For Angola, Nigeria, or Gabon when oil prices fall, the country stagnate. For Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger when gold prices fall the countries stagnate. Look at the final graph in this article I wrote: https://open.substack.com/pub/yawboadu/p/5-answers-to-questions-you-may-have-ee7?r=garki&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
5) Rwanda is not some super capitalist country. It still has many by state owned enterprises. The only difference is that their SOEs are well run - RwandaAir the national carrier is government owned so is their energy and railway.
Hope this helps. I am sure you have more questions so feel free to follow up with me here or DMs.
Thank you! Do you have something to South Africa? Would be interested whether you think this is largely true or not: https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-south-africas-brave-new-world
Overall, the majority of what he says is accurate. However, it's essential to acknowledge that the Western Cape is a beautiful and safe region (because its ruled by the DA and not the ANC). South Africa is still better than most of Sub-Saharan Africa despite the decline of South African public services. The nation still functions better than most African countries, with living standards rising between 2000-2012 due to a mining boom, but declining since then. Also the country attracts way more foreign direct investment than the rest of the continent, including North Africa.
It's important to note that Mozambique, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Zimbabwe faced similar post-colonial challenges but chose to expel their white populations. Now Mozambique and Zimbabwe are impoverished states while Angola & Equatorial Guinea are oil kleptocracies. Whereas South Africa opted for a more "inclusive" approach, implementing affirmative action regime that would be extreme by American standards.
He accurately highlights the decline of public infrastructure and water services post-apartheid. He is also accurate about each president and the thuggery of the ANC. He correctly notes the African National Congress's (ANC) ties to the South African Communist Party and the training of many ANC members in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He also accurately states that Nelson Mandela lacked economic expertise, being a trained lawyer, and that many post-apartheid ANC members were inexperienced.
He's 100% right that the ANC were AIDS denialists. You had people who believed that if you raped virgins you can lose your AIDS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/03/aids.chrismcgreal
Lastly, his comparison of Zuma to a left-wing Donald Trump is apt.
Hopefully, now that the ANC has finally lost its majority and has to share power with the more competent Democratic Alliance (DA) which rules Western cape there is a chance South Africa will improve. But we'll see the ANC is litered with incompetent thugs.
I have been working on my South Africa article for 2 years now but I am still not done.
I've already ranted about corruption in developing countries so I'm not going repeat myself here.
The podcast you sent me has given me a more nuanced perspective, (only finished 90 minutes so far) but it hasn't dissuaded me from the my core contention
Which one? The one by Lant Prichette or the one by the British bangladeshi guy. For what it's worth I probably agree with you more than Ken Opalo.
The Bangladeshi on spotify. I am definitely going to finish it. The dude is mega sharp.
Lant prichette is very good as well. Although he makes me very pessimistic. He has lectures on YouTube if you wanna look him up.
Whats the name of the podcast?
You can also read the transcript here - https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/mushtaq-khan-institutional-economics/
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3lhOjjGoBoDd6vQXE2G74T?si=dZuwsaIJRZu9ohcmRpcngQ
It's an extremely good listen!