Good guys getting BTFO

>Within four years Burkina Faso reached food sufficiency due in large part to feudal land redistribution and series of irrigation and fertilization programs instituted by the government. During this time production of cotton and wheat increased dramatically. While the average wheat production for the Sahel region was 1,700 kilograms per hectare (1,500 lb/acre) in 1986, Burkina Faso was producing 3,900 kilograms per hectare (3,500 lb/acre) of wheat the same year.[19] This success meant Sankara had not only shifted his country into food self-sufficiency but had in turn created a food surplus.[5] Sankara also emphasized the production of cotton and the need to transform the cotton produced in Burkina Faso into clothing for the people.[20]

>Large-scale housing and infrastructure projects were also undertaken. Brick factories were created to help build houses in effort to end urban slums.[19] In an attempt to fight deforestation, The People’s Harvest of Forest Nurseries was created to supply 7,000 village nurseries, as well as organizing the planting of several million trees. All regions of the country were soon connected by a vast road- and rail-building program. Over 700 km (430 mi) of rail was laid by Burkinabé people to facilitate manganese extraction in "The Battle of the Rails" without any foreign aid or outside money.[5] These programs were an attempt to prove that African countries could be prosperous without foreign help or aid. These revolutionary developments and national economic programs shook the foundations of the traditional economic development models imposed on Africa.[22]

>Sankara also launched education programs to help combat the country's 90% illiteracy rate. These programs had some success in the first few years. However, wide-scale teacher strikes, coupled with Sankara's unwillingness to negotiate, led to the creation of "Revolutionary Teachers".

Some of them, although he had some problems with teachers not wanting to work.

Thousands ? Why not millions or hundreds or dozens ?

And does protecting property rights regardless of the starving landless rural workers make one a good guy ?

Only commie leader I find hard to critique. He did some wrong shit for sure but that was nothing in comparison to what his foreign colleagues got up to. Did a lot in a short time, most of it good.

>And does protecting property rights regardles-

Yes. It is quite literally a human right. It's even one of the most important rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. Anyone can just steal land from people and redistribute it, just look at fucking Zimbabwe, it never leads to long term improvements. What should be done is actual meaningful land reform.

Incredible. Where the strikes political or over pay issues?

Fuck France

Meaningful land reform such as? Imean, I get what you're saying, but it seems like it was well on its way to working. If a policy leaves your people objectively better off (food self sufficiency is undoubtedly a good thing) then it's a good policy. It's easy to stand on principle when you don't have any actual responsibility to fix a problem.

>Meaningful land reform such as?

Anything that doesn't involve straight up confiscating land. I'm not a agrarian theorist so I don't know what could be possible, but there are other methods. Dozens of countries have engaged in some level of it. Ones that confiscate land include Zimbabwe, Venezuela and currently South Africa.

>If a policy leaves your people objectively better off (food self sufficiency is undoubtedly a good thing) then it's a good policy.

Wrong. That's the logic that Stalin used in the 1930s and that Mao used in the 1960s. Sacrifice the interests of a minority for muh greater good. As soon as you've done that you've lost the moral high ground as a leader.

This thread is trying to argue he was a good guy, perhaps he was an effective leader, but he wasn't a good person.

>wanting to fuck with the French in Le Françafrique

Thats almost always a pretty bad idea

>it never leads to long term improvements
False. Both Taiwan and South Korea had an agrarian reform just prior to their economic miracle.
Even people like Rothbard wrote against land monopoly by the way, you don't need to be a communist to support agrarian reform. A couple of people owning all the land and having everybody else working for them is no different than feudalism, and they often explicitly oppose economic development.

Feels good watching their country get bent by muslamic desu

They deserved it

The land was literally owned by inbred tribal chieftains whom had squired their 'private land' by the plundering and warring of their ancestors, how is letting them retain it while thousands starve more justifiable than redistribution to small private land owners till the country becomes completely self sufficient?
Not to mention he reversed the desertification of the country which would have soon caused even the landlord to be unable to make food, is turning the country into a desert worth the defends of 'private property'

>human rights
>moral high ground
A human right that is favourable to the rich and disfavourable to the poor is not a human right, it's a rich people right. That capitalist states sacralize it is to be expected, but they do not define what is good and what is bad.

...

this tbqh, place became such a shitshow after the frogs fucked off it doesnt sound like there was anyone outside of urban centres who gave a shit about muh private property. Stealing the shit of the urbanites on top might have been "wrong" (and probably was) but then again it's africa-tier politics and I don't really give a shit. For a commie he doesn't sound like one of the bad ones, might have even genuinely believed the memes and it seems like anyone who was educated and willing to push through solid reforms was going to make a success of it, whether left wing or right wing. Applying 1st world standards to the 3rd world doesn't really work in practice.

His dated Soviet-aligned policies only made his humanitarian efforts more difficult, efforts that weren't particularly notable. If he is a hero so are the missionaries who vaccinated millions against smallpox and taught locals to read and write.

It's very hard to be a dictator and a good guy. Because your power doesn't come from the people.

Pedro II.

Quite literally dragged Brazil kicking and screaming into the first world, grew tired of dealing with dumb monkeys his whole life, was deposed and exiled at the height of his popularity and had his life's work squandered within 10 years.

what a reasonable arguement. I'm here to point out that you are not contributing to the discussion.

>live in a landlocked african country
>do something the ruling class doesn't like
>a polynesian and a terminally unemployed guy from lille in french uniform fuck up your life

what a time to be alive

>Steal
>Implying that land is a commodity that should be bought and sold

What about Napoleon? would you say he was a dictator who was wanted by the people?

not automatically the case.

it largely depends on the prevailing pattern of land ownership, if the land ownership is largely large or very large plots with tenant farmers or run as estates then the dispossessed are proportionately very small.

given the former colonial nature of the country the it seems likely that the death toll from land seizure was fairly low, with hundreds rather than thousands likely as the upper bound

...

This

>Sankara's régime was criticised by Amnesty International and other international humanitarian organisations for violations of human rights, including extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detentions and torture of political opponents.[29] The British development organisation Oxfam recorded the arrest and torture of trade union leaders in 1987.[30] In 1984, seven individuals associated with the previous régime were accused of treason and executed after a summary trial. A teachers' strike the same year resulted in the dismissal of 2,500 teachers; thereafter, non-governmental organisations and unions were harassed or placed under the authority of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, branches of which were established in each workplace and which functioned as "organs of political and social control."[31]

>be communist
>get shot

I'm not seeing a problem, frankly.

>wahhhh why can't I lord it over the peasants with an iron fist while they till the land

All landlords should be gassed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Revolution

A genuinely progressive and patriotic guy comes along, but oh no, America can't have that.

>tfw no Polish-Lithuanian-Bohemian-Hungarian Commonwealth

I guess you can say he got what he deserved for trying to use medieval tactics, against the Ottomans at the height of their power in an open-field battle
but we all benefit from a little less Habsburg

>Bohemian-Hungarian
>Lets just throw Germans in denial and Magyars in there for the hell of it

but the Jagiellonian dynasty controlled all four those in the early 16th century

PIASTS FOR THE POLISH THRONE
ARPADS FOR THE HUNGARIAN THRONE
GEDIMINIDS FOR THE LITHUANIAN THRONE
PREMSYLIDS FOR THE BOHEMIAN THRONE

It works really really well for poor countries. Entering the free market all in as a poor shithole = economic suicide.

Mao was a massive idiot. Stalin succeeded in industrializing, but he failed at providing for the people.

sounds like his country would've become a shithole whether he intended it or not

...

>communist
>good guy

...

>communist
>good guy

kill yourself

a lot of people grumbled under napoleon's rule. sure, the revolution ended, but the prospect of conscription into his armies was harrowing to any peasant family losing their farm labor. people would cut off a finger to escape conscription it was that bad.

really gets those synapses snapping

You need land reforms to actually make your farming and agriculture actually develop since odl systems are highly inefficient.

Lie if your farmers don't actual own the land they can't invest in it. In all cases whether it's one guy who owns all of it as the chief/whatever or some rent seeking class who do nothing but hustle for rent money vast majority they don't invest in their farmers or land at all.

>Anyone can just steal land from people and redistribute it, just look at fucking Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe did do willing seller willing buyer. Then Mugabe got pressured by a group of supporters to hasten land reforms despite the lack of funds to legally buy the land due to failed venture in the Congo War and Britain bailing on financial support for WSWB. It worked early on but due to my early sentence it faltered

South Africa doesn't do land confiscation though.

It's just funny how people argue about property rights were in this case and other that never existed in many parts of the world. How can you even go "muh property rights" when it doesn't even go both ways? Like India had a massive caste of people who do nothing but collect rent from the lower castes who work their land (and live on the edge of poverty /subsistence) and because of that use it to cement their position to shit on lower caste folk because it's not like said peasant can accrue the money to ever buy the land with the rate of money he gets.

A lot of Land reforms are needed because they take down or alter social structures that are harmful to growth in general.

Comassation, broadening and consolidation (take the land, shape it nicely, give everyone back an equal amount in a more logical shape, preferably nearer to them).
Or, hell, actually buy the land from the previous owner and give it to the landless. If it's going to be a one time land reform (hopefully it will), then the state can afford this re distributive cost once in order to shake off feudalism or such old systems.

>Stealing the shit of the urbanites on top might have been "wrong" (and probably was) but then again it's africa-tier politics and I don't really give a shit.

That's assuming the urbanites got the land fair and square which is a case by case basis but since it's Africa...most likely not to be quite honest but who knows.

Hope you're not a yank cause you've done the same with Latin America, fucking it up for your own interests

Happy April 14th!

>most likely not to be quite honest but who knows.

Veeky Forums, everyone

I like how every board of this fucken' shithole is infested with misanthropic lolbertarians or straight up edgy /pol/acks.

>lel property right more important than people
Fuck off.

...

...

>this fucking edgy

>Live his life the most hated man in Britain

had he not decided to be retarded and make clear his allegiance to the Allies and put his infrastructure at their disposal, he would have gone down in history even more famously, and would have ruled the country longer to implement his astounding tranformation of iran

>dat feel when the only Afican countries worth a shit are Arab or were ruled by European powers the longest
>muh coup
>muh freedom

>If a policy leaves your people objectively better off (food self sufficiency is undoubtedly a good thing) then it's a good policy.
and this has, from my reading, backfired HARD in countries where it was implemented. In Egypt and Mexico, the government implemented big land reforms. But guess what? When peasants owned the land and had more resources, they had more kids, meaning that within a generation equal inheritance divided the plots into smaller pieces, leading to the same problem all over again, PLUS overpopulation and the lack of incentive to mechanize/improve the land as the smaller parcels were easy to manage. This then snowballed into mass migration to the cities, as the land became saturated and the youth could no longer find work, leading to urban slums and poverty, which festers to this day (see: Cairo and Mexico City). So in conclusion, some kind of birth control policy is fundamental to land reform. Incidentally, in 19th century France (and even in the centuries before) you had historically low birthrates because of aggregate decisions of peasant families to practice coitus interruptus, which had its causes in peasant families realizing they could provide a consolidated inheritance with fewer children and in part because the Napoleonic code's stipulation for equal inheritance made it more important that peasants intensify this practice, as they could not leave their property all to one offspring now. As a result, you don't have nearly the same problem of rural overpopulation as the Third World countries of the 20th century which, despite the turbulent political context of the 19th century french politics, had a remarkably stable social order which the fast industrializing british (among others) envied at a time when their social orders were being radically transformed.

...

...

>Marxist
>Good guy

t. Schlomo

>Second Spanish Republic
>Good

Nice bait user

Bernie Sanders

>dat feel when the only Afican countries worth a shit are Arab or were ruled by European powers the longest

Not really.

Initially, Egyptian land reform essentially abolished the political influence of major land owners. However, land reform only resulted in the redistribution of about 15% of Egypt's land under cultivation, and by the early 1980s, the effects of land reform in Egypt drew to a halt as the population of Egypt moved away from agriculture. The Egyptian land reform laws were greatly curtailed under Anwar Sadat and eventually abolished. The Reforms were undone after the change in government Only 15% user. Rural to city migration is ALWAYS a thing in a developing nation.

Immediately after Sankara took office he suppressed most of the powers held by tribal chiefs in Burkina Faso. These feudal landlords were stripped of their rights to tribute payments and forced labour as well as having their land distributed amongst the peasantry.

...

Fuck off.

deserved it desu, wanted to make Upper Volta the next zimbabwe

Shame he lost the referendum but still managed to get a higher vote percentage than Allende ever did lel

>Every single African socialist politician failed
>Idi Amin? Failed
>Mengisu Haile Mariam? Failed
>Ahmed Sekou Touré? Failed
>Julius Nyerere? Failed
>Agostinho Neto? Failed

And yet commies believe the guy who was killed before he could fuck up was THE ONE that would make socialism work.

Want to know a genuinely good African leader that was BTFO?

Moise Tshombe was a politician from Katanga that after the independence of Congo, wanted to keep good relations with Western powers and develop the mineral wealth of his region through free trade and opposition to communism.

We know this method works quite well in Botswana under Seretse Khama, there is no reason why it couldn't have worked in Katanga. But the no foreign power supported him, they either supported Patrice Lumumba, who is another commie who has a good reputation because he never had time to fuck up like every other socialist leader, or Mobutu, who was a straight kleptocrat.

I actually roleplayed as this dude for a history class once, I feel bad for him especially with how shitty of a deal he got.

/thread

Omg nigger you have to be kidding me? Are you legit retarded?

China was literally Sub-Sahara Africa tier when they loosened up their socialist policies to join the free market.

Katanga was literally owned by a Beg lain Mining company in every sense of the word. Moise was never for "western" interests he was for Belgian mining interests and by extension Belgian interests. Katangans didn't even know that they were seceeding until it was actually declared. He was a complete pawn for Belgium

Botswana is literally owned by De Beers and it's going on fine. I'm sure Katanga under Tshombe's rule would have turned better than it did (or what it would be under Lumumba's socialist rule).

No one recognized Katanga because EVERYONE knew how much of a shit claim it's "secession" was and it showed blatantly

To be more precisely Botswana's colonial history is why it isn't fucked up because Botswana never was a colony. It was a protectorate and very poor and neglected British Procterate at that. So poor infact that unlike other African protectorates it wasn't turned into a colony because it offered NOTHING for the Britsh and it was the one of the worst colonies for the British. Due to it's uselessness letting the locals retain indigenous rule was not an issue because "what they fuck are they gonna do?". Botswana at Independence had a smooth progression because unlike every other African colony there was a continuum from local rule to democracy. On top of that diamonds their claim to fame only was post colonialism so it didn't have to deal with the bullshit having a valuable resource had on a colony or it's relative sovereignty shat on.

Also Lumumba is NOT a socialist/communist

No. He appealed to the Soviet Union for help, but it was his only option motivated through pragmatism in putting down a rebellion and not because of a desire to install a socialist/communist form of government.

The guy was a nationalist for Congo if you see his previous history and h honestly did not want to deal with Cold War bullshit and opted for the 3rd position which still got him fucked.

Allende ruled over a multi-party parliamentary system. Pinochet's referendum was one choice - yes or no. So no, of course he got a higher percentage of the vote. Dumbass.

Imagine being a black man in the French army paid to fuck up Africa

From the same wikipedia article
> Human rights violations[edit]
Sankara's régime was criticised by Amnesty International and other international humanitarian organisations for violations of human rights, including extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detentions and torture of political opponents.[29] The British development organisation Oxfam recorded the arrest and torture of trade union leaders in 1987.[30] In 1984, seven individuals associated with the previous régime were accused of treason and executed after a summary trial. A teachers' strike the same year resulted in the dismissal of 2,500 teachers; thereafter, non-governmental organisations and unions were harassed or placed under the authority of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, branches of which were established in each workplace and which functioned as "organs of political and social control."[31]

Popular Revolutionary Tribunals, set up by the government throughout the country, placed defendants on trial for corruption, tax evasion or "counter-revolutionary" activity. Procedures in these trials, especially legal protections for the accused, did not conform to international standards. According to Christian Morrisson and Jean-Paul Azam of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the "climate of urgency and drastic action, in which many punishments were carried out immediately against those who had the misfortune to be found guilty of unrevolutionary behaviour, bore some resemblance to what occurred in the worst days of the French Revolution, during the Terror. Although few people were killed, violence was widespread."[32] The following chart shows Burkina Faso's human rights ratings under Sankara from 1984–1987 presented in the Freedom in the World reports, published annually by Freedom House. A score of 1 is "most free" and 7 is "least free".[33]1

I wonder who's behind this

Qadaffi was highly successful.

...

i stand corrected then but
>Rural to city migration is ALWAYS a thing in a developing nation.
but as i explained in my post France avoided this. Accelerated urbanization and the persistence of slums isn't destiny, though maybe it is for post-wwiii developing nations.