1. To what degree were communists involved in decolonization?

communists supplied various warlords leading to decades of pointless civil war

the credit for decolonization goes to voters in Europe

Are Alabama and Hawaii colonies now?

In Africa, liberals were willing to side with genocidal fascists as long as it lined their pockets and made the commies mad.

The Soviets forcibly annexed almost every former territory of Imperial Russia because...they were really just looking out for the best interests of the newly-freed peoples?

Also most of the Caucasian/Central Asian territories could be a pretty good case for being Soviet colonies in all but name, given the influx of Russian immigrants sent to "develop" them economically

It's not as if these nations were repressed. They were incorporated into a proletarian state that liberated the majority of the people in these countries.

Bourgeois policymakers in Poland and the Baltics opposed such an incorporation because they knew it would lead to their stranglehold on local population being broken.

1. A lot. Soviets funded a lot of black paramilitary groups in Africa.
2. Credit implies that it had a positive effect.

I ask again -- is Hawaii a colony?

A colony is not a conquered territory, but an exploited territory not represent in governance.

Kazakhs and Armenians played an enormous role in Soviet politics. There's a reason why the citizens of these bourgeois post-Soviet states miss the USSR even more than Russians do.

america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/19/most-residents-ofexsovietstatessayussrbreakupharmful.html

>"Why, the newly-freed proletarians of Ukraine, Central Asia, and the Caucasus are resisting their emancipation from bourgeois subordination by the Soviet banner well. Am I so out of touch?"
>"No. It's the non-Russian proletariat that is wrong"

>Africa was better under colonialism I promise
>Even though malnutrition, education, and life expectancy were dramatically worse than they are today

They generally didn't resist, though.

>I ask again -- is Hawaii a colony?

kek, most of Hawaii's history prior to statehood was as an effective colony. "Oh it's a state now, therefore it couldn't have been a colony :^)" doesn't negate that

>There's a reason why the citizens of these bourgeois post-Soviet states miss the USSR even more than Russians do.

Gee, it's almost as if the swift, chaotic collapse of the USSR instead of a slow, orderly transition might make people prefer things as they were before the USSR broke up

1) This is a pretty involved question. If the question is asking about the degree of the involvement of the Soviet bloc or China in he decolonization of Africa, then the answer is that they were mainly involved by proxy. They were interested in supporting revolutionary groups that would eventually set up socialist governments. In some cases, such as in Angola and Mozambique, they were more involved and their participation in decolonization (or rather, post-colonization government formation) is more complex.
From a different perspective, most revolutionary groups in Africa were driven by ideologies that promoted communism, from negritude in French West Africa to Pan-Africanism in South Africa. The basic ideas of communism played a much more major role than socialist states themselves. The fundamental idea that drives African revolutions, that oppressed classes should take to arms in order to fight for the right of self-determination and the right to own the means of production (the argument being that colonialism strips the natives of the means of production) is ultimately Marxist, regardless of whether the ideologies of the revolutionary groups credit Marx with their ideas explicitly.

2) They do get credit, I think, at least in academic literature. What do you mean?

Yeah, thank god for decolonization

Uh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmachi_movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian–Soviet_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcaucasian_Socialist_Federative_Soviet_Republic#History

>that oppressed classes should take to arms in order to fight for the right of self-determination and the right to own the means of production (the argument being that colonialism strips the natives of the means of production) is ultimately Marxist,

How is it "Marxist" if they wish to secure the means of production for the nation, instead of the wider class struggle?

That's not what I said. The best way to decolonize is NOT to promote random warlords to run the country, but to actually co operate with the white men to educate black ones in how to run a state, under limited supervision. Completely changing the structure and culture of a nation takes time. Otherwise you get a Zimbabwe.

>poverty didn't exist in colonial Africa

Colonialism is inextricably tied to capitalism

In Southeast Asia, it was a bunch of Liberals and Monarchists calling for independence. The gommies were sprinkled all over the region, with the only success story being Vietnam.

Not on the scale of post-colonial Africa.

Africa was actually a food exporter when whitey ran things.

>"These people are generally uninterested in actual Marxist tenets, but we still want to support them so we'll create some tortuous logic that what they're doing is completely Marxist, we Third Worldist now"

Because I only expressed a small part of what is really a much larger argument, and you decided to go full language police on me.

Class struggle can happen regardless of whether or not the revolutionary leaders can recite Das Kapital backwards on command, you know.

Oh, come the fuck on.

The USSR quashed dissent with their secret police, detained and jailed millions of people without trial, deported millions of ethnic minorities to Siberia and Central Asia and basically left them there to starve, forced peasant farmers to collectivize with disastrous results (many millions of deaths, in some SSRs actually resulting in immigrants outnumbering the natives in their own lands), outright stole much of their land from locals and gave it to ethnic Russian settlers, suppressed local languages and cultural practices in favor of Russian, enslaved millions of people in forced labor camps, and retarded economic and social progress for generations with their various policies.

Apart from just knowing my fucking history, I have the privilege of knowing a whole fucking bunch of people from the non-Russian SSRs and Soviet satellite states -- Latvia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, Tatarstan -- many of whom weren't able to get out until the Soviet Union fell, and all of whom experienced its policies firsthand. I'd love to see my old Latvian professor's reaction, or her husband's, to "It's not as if these nations were repressed. Bourgeois policymakers in the Baltics opposed such an incorporation because they knew it would lead to their stranglehold on the local population being broken." She'd probably spit in your naive, capitalist-country-raised face. Really, she would.

Africa still is a food exporter

Should have been more precise.

Africa was a NET food exporter.

Conditions in Africa after independence are universally better than they were before, even in spite of the HIV crisis

Food production hasn't dropped. Instead, local demand has risen.

>Conditions in Africa after independence are universally better than they were before,
That's not really true. The difference in development between Africa and the rest of the world has never been so acute.

A conjunction of both.

Take a guess why your professor wanted to move to America

Source on local production dropping?

It dropped in rhodesia/zimbabwe.

>failed state is a failure

wow what a surprise

Google "food production per capita"

Yeah I bet they had to crush the Hungarian Uprising with tanks because the Hungarians were just too fucking happy and free.

>per capita

See

>That's not really true. The difference in development between Africa and the rest of the world has never been so acute.
In fairness, as that chart shows, life expectancy growth generally kept pace with the world average until the mid-late 80s, at which point it took a nosedive. There are other factors, of course, but a lot of that is obviously due to HIV/AIDS.

Would the colonial gov'ts have handled the HIV crisis better? Maybe. But that's kind of an unfair metric to use, in my opinion -- the HIV crisis is not something anybody could have predicted and not something the post-colonial governments could have been expected to be equipped to deal with.

Obviously life expectancy isn't the only metric by which to measure a country's success. Generally I'm on your side here. But as far as that chart goes, you're being a little unfair.

>Zimbabwe

I dont even need to say anything, Rhodesia was Africas breadbasket and now everyones starving.

So yeah, the commies played a role, but no commie wants to admidt it because they played a big role in making Africa a even bigger shitheap

I'm not sure whether you're the person I replied to, or what kind of point you're trying to make here.

Given the content of my post (which was by no means exhaustive), I think I made it pretty clear why she wanted out.

If food production can't even keep up with population increase it shows that Africans are unable to manage themselves. At the very least you'd expect that the per capita agricultural production remain constant.

India, China, Latin America, and all other non-African developing regions of the world managed to increase their agricultural output to keep up with their population growth.

In some actual cases, food production actually declined in net terms, in Zimbabwe for instance.

Africa is better now than under colonialism by literally every measure imaginable

Except that life expectancy isn't really a good metric. Life expectancy in Victorian England was 25 years yet it was a society which rested on a far sounded base than african countries today.

Life expectancy has increased in Africa thanks to foreign aid and foreign technology. This has led to an uncontrolled population growth. The alarming thing is that Africa is now entirely dependent on foreign aid and foreign technology. And its population is still increasing.

You do realize that the vast majority of countries are net food importers?

Being a food importer is fine if you're an advanced industrial economy. It's less fine when your country is made up of illiterate sustenance farmers...

But yeah, I'm sure the 21th century will be the "African century". Lmao.

ibtimes.co.uk/zimbabwe-pleads-1-5bn-food-aid-prevent-mass-starvation-1542917

africametro.com/southern-africa/mugabe-begs-white-farmers-to-come-back

China has consumed more food than it produces for decades now.

While India is a food exporter, this commerce comes at the cost of a 45% rate of childhood malnutrition, substantially higher than Nigeria's 30%.

We'll compare Nigeria with India and China in 2050.

40% of Sub-Saharan Africans live in cities. 64% of SSA adults are literate.

It isn't the 1960s.

>relying on the country that's shitty even by African standards
>ignoring the dozens of other post-colonial states

SSA cities are slums and I'd wager their literacy consists of being able to sign their name.

>rhodesia had great economy, army, food production etc.

>Gommunist Dictator backed by the west cause "Racism" takes over
>crashes state
>DUH, it isnt his fault he failed the state, cause the state failed

Oh look, it's a commie apologist...

>Soviet Union didn't materially exploit other countries
>redefining the word imperialusm on top of that

If Africa is so much better and in such a Upswing like this tard in this thread claims, why are there millions of economic migrants from Africa trying to get into Europe right now?

Shouldnt it be the other way around? Or shouldnt the failed african state igrants rather try to get into those awesome african nations instead of traveling all the way to Europe?

It's a failed state because of the terrible legacy of white racism, of course.

Vast majority of African migrants and refugees go to other African states.

Western media ignores this and tends to distort the news to ficus only in Europe. Just like how they demonize China, paint Libya as a success or ignore it or shift the Blane in Italy.

That doesn't work.
Why waste money on niggers. Colonies are to exploit not to assist and "uplifting" a massive ton of people out of poverty and draining the money if your metropolitan.

You ate really stupid and/or naive

The fact that there is sufficient infrastructure and technology for them to make that journey could be seen as a sign of improvement.

You are basically arguing that because the richest and most stable part of the world is still more attractive, all positive developments are null and void.

Many do have slums but the standard for literacy is the same worldwide but why resort to hyperbole?

Like in Africa the natives were pretty much barred from any degree of any real impact of governance or management and education was real low and barely/not even funded so the speed at which you can generate skilled civil servants or uni grads was low as fuck. In South Africa the moments the bits decided to be fair and throw blacks a bone they took it away because they were scared of being outnumbered politically. Congo had like 36 uni grads and no doctors,or engineers in 50 Years of Belgian rule and that's one of the more known examples.

Those things were worse everywhere on earth ~60 years ago.

The USSR and North Korea were themselves attempts at decolonization from the Russian and Japanese empires.

>USSR did not used slave labour to extract resources from occupied countries
>What is CЭB
>Imperialism means material exploitation, not just generally invasive foreing policy

Did someone bashed you over the head with Das Kapital?

Because that poster is probably a white supremacist.

yes, and there were less people around the world and US food wasn't subsidized.

>childhood malnutrition
which has more to do with India's antiquated supply side system not food production.

Most of Europe's agriculture is subsidized too. I New Zealand dropped them and are doing well.

>pretending the British didn't end slavery in Africa
>pretending the Africans didn't benefit from left over infrastructure
Ok

1. From the 70s on, hugely. Soviets and cubans backed anti-colonial guerrillas with tons of weapons and money. And then of course America and Western Europe helped the colonists even more with sanctions.
2. Speaking for America: Communism is still very unpopular. Also decolonization was mostly voluntary on the part of Europeans, the Soviets only helped topple a few colonial states.

I realize now it might sound contradictory to say that the Soviets hugely influenced decolonization and that decolonization was largely voluntary. What I meant was that the Soviets hugely influenced decolonization of the few colonial states that refused to do so voluntarily.

Thank God for predatory capitalism spearheaded by the IMF and World Bank, you mean.

7/10 bait

Uuhhhh

This, Sub Saharan Africa's population is exploding.

>Nigerians pay to travel through the sahara and over the mediterranean so they can get "jobs" (AKA handouts) in Sweden and Germany
>N-nigeria w-will b-be a w-w-world economy i-in 30 years

kek

Majority of fugees are still in Africa or the middle east. Ghana and Kenya both have refugee towns but Kenya's is substantially larger. Most of the people fleeing to Europe from sub-Saharan Africa in the current year are economic migrants anyways. Don't think there are many countries in Africa where the troublemakers in Europe can get away with their shit.

>implying you can encourage these people to change irrespective of banks

>implying leftists don't free you of slavery only to introduce their own brand of slavery

Thomas Sankara was so based, y'all can suck my nut

for the second question
because they are filthy commies that can't into liberty.

BOI FUCK EM UP

sli.mg/Do0KNL

SANKARA
THOMAS SANKARA
CAPTAIN SANKARA

Goodnight sweet prince

Sankara is love
Sankara is life

There's not much trouble really in Europe. Compared to the refuges crisis worldwide that poorer nations many much poorer then Europe with WAY more numbers it's literally nothing in severity.

Holy shit I think he's serious, guys

this