I’ll go a step further and say that it seems like liberals actually hate the idea of someone getting elected by promising to do what the people want and then actually doing it. Deep down liberals really don’t even actually like democracy
Which is why he is able to do the things he does. Elections in Africa are too easy for the West with its vast financial resources, its global media apparatus, and its NGOs to manipulate and control, especially in countries where compradors are deeply embedded in the institutions. It may not seem ideal to us but the reality is that only a leader who comes to power with popular support while circumventing the colonized electoral and political systems that exist in these countries can bring a real change in direction. In practice this usually means a military coup since the military is best positioned in these countries to do this: they are the only ones with the organization, the manpower and the material resources to achieve a revolutionary takeover. There are plenty historical examples: Nasser, Gaddafi, Sankara, and now Traoré.
For liberals, democracy means “they have general elections”.
Leftists use a more general definition: a government working for the rights and material interests of the people.
That can be accomplished through general elections, but it’s by no means limited to that. It’s usually not the best method near the beginning of a revolution.
Ya know, its something I think about a lot. Not sure I could give my own answer right at the moment. Definitely isnt the idealist liberal version though. I think its interesting to think about where “democracy” fits in the base/superstructure “spectrum”. Is it a characteristic that creates a freer more socialist society, or is it an outcome of one?
Makes it interesting to see what traore is gonna be able to do, I’m watching it closely because it’ll probably offer answers to some of these questions. Traore and the Burkinabe people have been keen on a Sankara 2.0 and they’ve learned their fucking lesson. They believe in themselves and if Traore can fucking survive, West Africa is going to be one of the first places to thoroughly shed their Western brainworms and do it fast (10 years if they develop rapidly). I think Russia and China both see it worthwhile to work with AES for mutual benefit.
Is this not pretty much the MTW take?
“We aren’t going to see a revolution and implementation of socialism in the imperial core/most industrialized areas. It is much more likely tohappen at the edges of the empire, where capitalism is present but weak. We have seen this in Russia, China, and pretty much everywhere people succeeded boverthrowing capitalism (regardless of whether you agree with the decisions that were made after/since.”
So yeah China is the most important country right now “we are entering a Chinese century” yes sure, but AES is getting very important to socialism, very quickly.
I think the definition you wrote doesn’t resonate with me is that it doesn’t seem to value consultation with the people. Not really a definition but a theme that I’d try and encapsulate.
I’d say that Traore didn’t come to power democratically, but i would say that everything I’ve seen so far has democratic support, which is more important. It wouod be great to see that support confirmed in an election, but I understand that there some things more important to focus on than increasing the level of democracy right at this exact moment.
It’s pretty clear that if the elections were held next month, you could have thousands of election monitors and they would still see no irregularities as he won >80% of the vote.
They really don’t. At the heart of liberalism is a deep elitism which is necessary because their society is inherently stratified. I still remember when they blamed “stupid poor people” for the election of Trump and argued for restricting the franchise (in 2016, when Trump lost the popular vote and only became president based on a ruling by 9 unelected bureaucrats).
Liberals are unable to grasp “leader does good things and is beloved for it” because none of their leaders ever get around to the first part.
Leaders “doing” things for their constituents? Sorry, but that’s too much politics in my politics for my taste.
I’ll go a step further and say that it seems like liberals actually hate the idea of someone getting elected by promising to do what the people want and then actually doing it. Deep down liberals really don’t even actually like democracy
Yes but Traore wasn’t elected
Which is why he is able to do the things he does. Elections in Africa are too easy for the West with its vast financial resources, its global media apparatus, and its NGOs to manipulate and control, especially in countries where compradors are deeply embedded in the institutions. It may not seem ideal to us but the reality is that only a leader who comes to power with popular support while circumventing the colonized electoral and political systems that exist in these countries can bring a real change in direction. In practice this usually means a military coup since the military is best positioned in these countries to do this: they are the only ones with the organization, the manpower and the material resources to achieve a revolutionary takeover. There are plenty historical examples: Nasser, Gaddafi, Sankara, and now Traoré.
Yep
For liberals, democracy means “they have general elections”.
Leftists use a more general definition: a government working for the rights and material interests of the people.
That can be accomplished through general elections, but it’s by no means limited to that. It’s usually not the best method near the beginning of a revolution.
Personally, i dont agree with either of those definitions, but im still a major Traore stan.
Not that it makes a difference, but I’m kind of curious for your preferred definition.
Ya know, its something I think about a lot. Not sure I could give my own answer right at the moment. Definitely isnt the idealist liberal version though. I think its interesting to think about where “democracy” fits in the base/superstructure “spectrum”. Is it a characteristic that creates a freer more socialist society, or is it an outcome of one?
Makes it interesting to see what traore is gonna be able to do, I’m watching it closely because it’ll probably offer answers to some of these questions. Traore and the Burkinabe people have been keen on a Sankara 2.0 and they’ve learned their fucking lesson. They believe in themselves and if Traore can fucking survive, West Africa is going to be one of the first places to thoroughly shed their Western brainworms and do it fast (10 years if they develop rapidly). I think Russia and China both see it worthwhile to work with AES for mutual benefit.
Is this not pretty much the MTW take?
So yeah China is the most important country right now “we are entering a Chinese century” yes sure, but AES is getting very important to socialism, very quickly.
Anyway, got a bit off topic…
Crystallizing thoughts into words is a good exercise—I find it forces me to fully mature my ideas.
It’s okay, expected even, to create an imperfect definition on your first try; we can workshop it! Would you add or change something to mine?
Alternatively, in practical rather than theoretical terms, what could Traore do to make his state democratic?
Edit: Sorry, not trying to grill you, comrade. You can consider this a question posed to the community at large.
Nah I don’t feel grilled dw
I think the definition you wrote doesn’t resonate with me is that it doesn’t seem to value consultation with the people. Not really a definition but a theme that I’d try and encapsulate.
I’d say that Traore didn’t come to power democratically, but i would say that everything I’ve seen so far has democratic support, which is more important. It wouod be great to see that support confirmed in an election, but I understand that there some things more important to focus on than increasing the level of democracy right at this exact moment.
another L for voooooters
Another W for political-power-grows-out-of-the-barrel-of-the-gun enthusiasts
It’s pretty clear that if the elections were held next month, you could have thousands of election monitors and they would still see no irregularities as he won >80% of the vote.
I don’t disagree
They really don’t. At the heart of liberalism is a deep elitism which is necessary because their society is inherently stratified. I still remember when they blamed “stupid poor people” for the election of Trump and argued for restricting the franchise (in 2016, when Trump lost the popular vote and only became president based on a ruling by 9 unelected bureaucrats).
Having net-positive favorability is authoritarian. Having any chance of being reelected after taking office demonstrates a dangerous thirst for power.