[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / jenny / komica / polru / russian / vor / yuri ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart
Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 44291a908dc90ec⋯.jpg (42.08 KB, 252x311, 252:311, Marien Ngouabi.jpg)


*coolest African leader from cold war era*

Nothing Personal, Kid


File: 408a9465085803f⋯.jpg (37.44 KB, 500x355, 100:71, Sankara Castro.jpg)

File: 5ce4dd1f1a085c4⋯.jpg (97.41 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, Allende Castro.jpg)


Sankara was good leader and great man, however Marien Ngouabi changed the country's name to the People's Republic of the Congo, declaring it to be Africa's first Marxist–Leninist state.

Having said that African,Asian and Latin America should watch each others back's more carefully.


File: a98fe34822b9416⋯.png (338.49 KB, 760x470, 76:47, Samora-Machel.png)



>blocks your paths

Just memeing, Sankara really was the best.


File: 707f12538436491⋯.png (535.27 KB, 900x540, 5:3, Thomas Sankra.png)


Sankara was cool, but Ngouabi was cool and the first one!




He was too good for this world...


File: efd2451b634b759⋯.jpg (59.94 KB, 464x715, 464:715, vol-3-foto-cover.jpg)

Anyone here fuck with John Garang? New Sudan > Southern Separatism by a mile


File: 10a40d957905c19⋯.jpg (103.44 KB, 467x599, 467:599, Agostinho Neto.jpg)


Thomas Sankara was good leader, but don't overlook other great African revolutionaries who did just as much good and were just as brutally oppressed.


I have a question here: /pol/ likes to pretend that the struggles of post-independence African states has been down to "niggers being dumb" or some shit. What you guys suppose is tge biggest reason for it? I'm inclined to say neocolonialism, how many good leaders were killed/deposed in the early years? But I'd also be interested to hear why places like Tanzania didn't seem to see much improvement under Michel. Maybe I'm wrong though.



>Tanzania didn't seem to see much improvement under Michel.

Tanzania and Mozambique are very different countries, and the leader of the former was Nyerere.

Mozambique and Angola had to deal with ruinous civil wars. Here's one book on that subject: http://b-ok.cc/book/1085701/3365f5

As for Tanzania, while Nyerere's economic policies were disappointing, his record in other fields was generally quite good. To quote the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/15/world/julius-nyerere-of-tanzania-dies-preached-african-socialism-to-the-world.html):

>After vast investment in education, literacy rose phenomenally, and 83 percent of Tanzanians were able to read and write. Mr. Nyerere also succeeded in promoting Swahili so that it superseded dozens of tribal tongues to become a true national language.

>Some Western countries, notably the Scandinavians, were so impressed that they provided billions of dollars, making Tanzania one of the 10 largest recipients of foreign aid per capita. . . .

>Mr. Nyerere also gained international prestige for his principled support of the struggles for majority rule in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola, and for Tanzania's military counter offensive against Idi Amin of Uganda, which routed the dictator and sent him into exile. The third world honored him, and he won the respect of such Western leaders as Olof Palme, Pierre Trudeau, Willy Brandt and Jimmy Carter.



Of course, can't believe I mixed them up, feel like a real idiot now

I understand the case of civil wars, so it seems to be me that in cases such as Tanzania or other peaceful countries, the problem was leaders who weren't Marxist and ultimately sold out to neoliberalism (or in some cases like Mugabe, merely became corrupt)?



In the case of Zimbabwe, during the 1990s there was a growing contradiction between the government carrying out neoliberal economic policies and people wanting to see land reform implemented. ZANU-PF went from winning 81% of the vote in 1995 to 48% in 2000 (the main opposition obtaining 47%.) In order to remain in power, ZANU-PF carried out "fast-track land reform" which, while it did redistribute land to landless people, was carried out ineptly, with instances of corruption. The imperialist countries also began to exert pressure on the Zimbabwean government in response to the reform.

In the case of Tanzania, Nyerere's economic policies as I said produced disappointing results, and with the ascendancy of neoliberalism and "collapse of Communism" in the late 80s/early 90s the ruling party became social-democratic.



As far as I know Zanzibar had Marxist-Leninist revolution and became 'Cuba of Africa', but after it merged with Tanganyika to create the United Republic of Tanzania, Tanzania embraced 'African Socialism'. What was Tanzanians relations with Marxist-Leninist world? Did it receive any support from Soviet's and Cuba?



>What was Tanzanians relations with Marxist-Leninist world? Did it receive any support from Soviet's and Cuba?

Nyerere had generally good relations with both the West (US, UK, West Germany, etc.) and the East (USSR, China.) As a conservative critic acknowledged, "He was outwardly charming and modest and must have been one of the only people to have had good personal relations with both Queen Elizabeth II and Kim Il-sung."

The USSR considered Tanzania one of the countries on the "non-capitalist path" toward socialism (like Ba'athist Syria, Burma under Ne Win, Ghana under Nkrumah, etc.)

Even Albania had cordial relations with Tanzania (partly as a residue of the Sino-Albanian alliance, since Nyerere was particularly friendly with China among the socialist countries.)


File: ee1c962c1bab9b3⋯.png (51.27 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, Flag_of_the_People's_Repub….png)


Is there any more information about him and the Peoples Republic of Congo? There's only a few I can find but I'm not sure.



I have a few books on the subject of the People's Republic. What do you want to know?



Some questions. Is it better than Zaire? Is the Economy well off? Is the literacy and life expectancy rate is higher? Is it actually socialism or a opportunist state? What its foreign relations on other countries? What are the successes and failures of Nguouabi and how the Congolese see him today?

Also what books you have about the country if you're willing to talk about them.



>Is it better than Zaire? Is the Economy well off? Is the literacy and life expectancy rate is higher?

You presumably meant to type "was," since Zaire hasn't existed in two decades and Congo-Brazzaville dropped any socialist aspirations even earlier.

But yes, Congo-Brazzaville was a better place to live in than Zaire. Jonathan Kwitny, whose book "Endless Enemies" is a good exposé on US foreign policy, writes the following on pages 400-402:

>Government boards [in Zaire] claim monopoly rights to all mineral resources. Marketing constraints discourage agricultural production. The controls can be beaten, if at all, only by those rich enough to bribe their way through. The Zairian form of government was described by one Peace Corps volunteer there as a "kleptocracy."

>By contrast, the Congo allows considerable free commerce. "There there is no trouble," say Jimmy [a Zairian national], who has been in the paint business in Africa for thirty-eight years. "The government encourages investment. Here I am a socialist and a communist and a capitalist. The people are"—and up goes his thumb. He is so happy in the Congo, he says, that he recently bought a bar and restaurant in the capital city of Brazzaville, and has encouraged his son, just finishing school in Europe, to settle in Brazzaville.

>True, over the years the Congo has cooperated with the U.S.S.R. It funneled arms to the MPLA movement, later the government, in Angola (which has its own questionable pro-Soviet label). But Congolese citizens don't look furtively about for secret police when they speak, the way Zairians do. As Nicole Brenier, economic officer at the U.S. embassy, puts its, "They are Marxists, but not living like Marxists. Nothing is Marxist in the culture here. They are living like capitalists." Adds John Archibald, another U.S. diplomat in the Congo, "It's like day and night with Zaire. The economy here is knowing. The people are happy. The policy is very pragmatic They're not dumb. Who needs enemies?" . . . .

>While Zaire receives financial aid from U.S. taxpayers, the Congo doesn't, and not just because of its "communist" label. With a per capita gross national product exceeding $500, the Congolese are simply too rich to qualify for U.S. aid. In Zaire, which is potentially much wealthier, per capita GNP hangs around $150.

As for whether it was "actually socialism or a opportunist state," it never claimed to have built socialism, and Ngouabi certainly seemed like a sincere person, but I assume Sassou-Nguesso didn't care much for ideology. He certainly doesn't today.

>What its foreign relations on other countries?

Today, it's pro-France. In the 1970s-80s, it was... pro-France, with cordial ties to the USSR.

>What are the successes and failures of Nguouabi and how the Congolese see him today?

He's apparently not liked all that much in the southern part of the Congo, since he's viewed as a "tribalist" who gave power to the north. Other than that I don't know. Likewise his main achievement seems to have been simply establishing a revolutionary government in the country.

>Also what books you have about the country if you're willing to talk about them.

There's a book in the "Marxist Regimes" series dealing with Benin, Congo-Brazzaville and Burkina Faso. There's also "Coups and Army Rule in Africa" by Samuel Decalo which has a chapter on Congo-Brazzaville.

Post last edited at



Well Congo which used to be M-L has HDI of 0.606, while unfortunate Congo which remained western colony trough the cold war has HDI of 0.457 . Imperialism, not even once.


Is he the African Bordiga?



No, Ngouabi had no problem with socialist countries, whereas Bordiga cut himself off from the international communist movement with his sectarianism.

Also Ngouabi was the leader of a country, Bordiga wasn't.

Also Bordiga "as Bordiga" (aka when he started crafting his own ideology) was irrelevant.


Any good books on African history as well as the effects of colonialism and the current political climate? This all sounds very interesting to me.



There's a four-volume history of Africa in English written by a Hungarian Marxist historian:

* https://archive.org/details/HistoryBlackAfricaI

* https://archive.org/details/HistoryBlackAfricaII

* https://archive.org/details/HistoryBlackAfricaIII

* https://archive.org/details/HistoryBlackAfricaIV

As for the effects of colonialism, the classic account is Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa": http://b-ok.cc/book/1169719/2ac936



Nice, and while I'm here, may I just ask about communism? I'm new to Marxism and have only read the communist manifesto because it was one of the intro in /leftypol/ and this is my first time on /Marx/. But I was wondering what is your response to the argument against Marxism that it's bad because it has never worked. Juden Peterstein has said that it is arrogant to say that because it implies that you could implement it better than anyone else. What's your response to this?



We'd argue that Marxism works both as a way of analyzing history and as a way of explaining the necessity of replacing capitalism with socialism.

The USSR was the first country to build socialism. It had numerous successes to its credit, and the Soviet conception of socialism became a model to be emulated by most other socialist states. But as decades went by it became clear that this model had flaws, and also that the construction of socialism is a more complicated, long-term process than originally envisioned. Hence why Marxists in China, Cuba, and other countries on the socialist road have been trying to create models that work better.

I'd agree that discounting the experience of the international communist movement and saying "well this is how *I* could make socialism work" is arrogant. This is what ultra-leftists do when they handwave away the experience of socialist construction in various countries during the 20th century.



>Hence why Marxists in China, Cuba, and other countries on the socialist road have been trying to create models that work better.

Why don't they just scrap it all together? Is it really worth the risks? And when you talk about Marxism being a good way to analyse history are you referring to historical materialism? In that case, I think it's a myopic view of history since there are multiple factors that should be taken into account when looking at history. But then again I could be wrong.



Looking at history as a class struggle between those who own private property (bourgeoisie) and those who have nothing (proletariat). Unless I'm mistaken.



>Is it really worth the risks?

Considering the risks of capitalism are a new world war and/or environmental destruction, yes. Hence the popular saying that the choice is between "socialism or barbarism."

>I think it's a myopic view of history since there are multiple factors that should be taken into account when looking at history.

As Engels noted, "Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But each of these also reacts upon the others and upon the economic basis. This is not to say that the economic situation is the cause and that it alone is active while everything else is mere passive effect, but rather that there is reciprocal action based, in the final analysis, on economic necessity. . . men make their own history, but in a given environment by which they are conditioned, and on the basis of extant and actual relations of which economic relations, no matter how much they may be influenced by others of a political and ideological nature, are ultimately the determining factor and represent the unbroken clue which alone can lead to comprehension."

Post last edited at



Thanks for the reading material. Got any other intro Marxist literature that deal with other basic Marxist concepts like labour theory of value and other stuff. Thanks.




Neat, can you also explain equality to me? I was watching cuck philosophy and he said that in Marxism they don't try to achieve equality of outcome or equality of opportunity or some other form of equality. Then what is the aim of it? And could you also answer my questions about why shouldn't we just scrao Marxism? Why try to fix a broken system until it works?

Also, sorry for bombarding you with questions.



Have just read the whole thing. I have one more question now, what is meant by "means of production belonging to society as a whole."?



On equality, answer is sufficient: >>11132

As Engels said, "the real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity."

>And could you also answer my questions about why shouldn't we just scrao Marxism? Why try to fix a broken system until it works?

Because it isn't a "broken system." Socialism was built in what were very largely semi-feudal countries, surrounded by hostile states intent on crushing them. It registered impressive successes relative to the unfavorable base it had to build on. The problem is that necessary reforms were either not taken in time, or were implemented ineptly.

Capitalism is a system that has also undergone considerable changes since its emergence in the 18th century, either due to simple "trial and error" or due to working-class struggles for greater political rights and improved workplace conditions. But it still remains a system of exploitation which seeks to perpetuate itself at the expense of a more advanced social formation (socialism.)



As Lenin says right after he uses that phrase, "It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth."

Publicly-owned = property nationalized by the workers' state and operating on the basis of a society-wide plan (rather than just market forces.)

Post last edited at



Are you familiar with the Pareto distribution? I heard it from, again, Jordan Peterson. Apparently inequality is a natural phenomena in nature and the distribution of wealth in a nation can be studied like the ways molecules behave. There is even a field where they study this call economic physics if I remember correctly. Also, I've heard there was wealth inequality even in the soviet union.



>Apparently inequality is a natural phenomena in nature

How does that inequality manifest itself though? It's one thing to say "one man is shorter than another" or "one man is dumber than another." But clearly slaveowners, feudal nobility and capitalists are not "natural" entities, they arise with the development of society.

>Also, I've heard there was wealth inequality even in the soviet union.

Yes, which is natural. Marx pointed out that the proceeds of labor cannot apply equally under socialism. Some people will obtain more from socialist society than others.

Only under communism will it be possible to distribute products based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."



>capitalists are not "natural" entities, they arise with the development of society.

Not according to the Pareto distribution. When measuring any creative endeavour such as music, business or film, and even monopoly, a pattern emerges where 10% of the people take at least 80% of the wealth generated in that creative endeavour. This is a natural phenomena and one of the arguments against Marxism is that it attempts to take this away, which is impossible. It has even been called the Mathew phenomena if I'm not mistaken after the verse Mathew 12:13

>For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.



>Empirical observation has found the 80-20 distribution to fit a wide range of cases, including natural phenomena and human activities.


Probably was around for as long as as somewhat complex societies have existed. The only truly equal societies are hunter gatherer groups such like the types that exist in the Sahara.



The freer the market the freer the people



But again, Marxists aren't concerned with obtaining "truly equal" incomes in class societies, which is all the "Pareto distribution" is relevant to.

Since you said you read the Manifesto, you presumably stumbled upon these words by Marx: "We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it."



Is this what you're looking for?


Also, I kinda wanna be a Marxist since I would like to live in a world that has eradicated poverty completely or has at least made it into something that isn't as common. I have freed myself from the desire of wealth and no longer desire to be a bourgeois but simply live a comfortable life where I can spend my life studying.



The Pareto distribution would say that even this isn't position and that sooner or later you'll have a small majority who own a overwhelming majority of the wealth.



A small minority*



>sooner or later you'll have a small majority who own a overwhelming majority of the wealth.


At this point the "Pareto distribution" basically ends up being a fancier way of saying "human nature" in response to Marxist arguments.



Pareto distribution is only evident among the capitalist class. The working class under capitalism is still stratified internally by a Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution--which is unequal but not nearly as unequal as the Pareto principle.


[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / jenny / komica / polru / russian / vor / yuri ]