07-03-2017, 10:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2017, 01:15 AM by FireIceTalon.)
You clearly didn't read (or maybe didn't understand or skimmed through it) the article. Tensions, conflicts, and overall living conditions worsened AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union due to US, British, and French imperialism.
You trying to blame Sudan and sub-Saharan African countries problems on communism is red-herring nonsense. You would have a better argument if you claimed Stalinism, but even then, this doesn't hold much water because Sudan was not colonized by the SU. It was colonized by the British and the country was never able to recover since due to conflicts, internal as well as external, left in the wake of British Colonialism. British imperialism both created and compounded these problems.
You trying to turn this around is nothing but historical revisionism and cold-war propaganda. As for the sources not being cited, not everything need be so. A simple observation of historical events and the corresponding material conditions can be enough in some situations, and this is one of those situations. Do I need to provide citation that the grass outside my apartment is indeed green, or is it something that is easily observable?
For all of Stalinisms faults, and as much as I don't like it, the SU did at least provide some degree of stability in the region, relatively speaking, to counter western-imperialism, and some of the nations there were able to gain a degree of development under it even if under a corrupted and coercive regime. Stalinism does have some blame here, but not to nearly the same degree as British or American imperialism.
Western Imperialism is the cause for overwhelming majority of sub-Sahara Africa's troubles. We don't live in a communist world, we live in a capitalist one and therefore all responsibility for the many and most of the worlds evils falls on it, and it first and foremost. Not communism, not socialism, not religion, not even the dreaded fascism. It starts with capitalism, and try as you may, there is no tenable way to absolve it of its atrocities and crimes against humanity. Period.
British occupation ended in 1956? Irrelevant. Because A). The problems of years/decades or more of colonialism do not go away over night after the occupation ends. The problems often remain for decades, and they compound the conflicts which come afterward. When slavery ended, as law, in 1865, do you think the problems it manifested just suddenly came to an end?
B).
Anything to look good.
You trying to blame Sudan and sub-Saharan African countries problems on communism is red-herring nonsense. You would have a better argument if you claimed Stalinism, but even then, this doesn't hold much water because Sudan was not colonized by the SU. It was colonized by the British and the country was never able to recover since due to conflicts, internal as well as external, left in the wake of British Colonialism. British imperialism both created and compounded these problems.
You trying to turn this around is nothing but historical revisionism and cold-war propaganda. As for the sources not being cited, not everything need be so. A simple observation of historical events and the corresponding material conditions can be enough in some situations, and this is one of those situations. Do I need to provide citation that the grass outside my apartment is indeed green, or is it something that is easily observable?
Quote:The collapse of the Soviet Union brought the full force of neo-liberal policies to sub-Saharan Africa, including Sudan. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank forced governments to implement vicious Structural Adjustment Programmes as a condition for continuing loans. In Sudan these policies mean that over half the population is illiterate, with only one out of 50 children finishing primary education, while one woman in nine dies in childbirth.
In conditions of crushing poverty, without a strong movement based on the working class and peasantry and able to fight for a socialist alternative to the devastation that capitalism and imperialism brings, conflicts based on religious and ethnic differences were bound to develop. Reactionary elements within many ethnic groupings have intervened into the vacuum and exacerbated divisions, creating an ideological basis for increasing division in order to underpin their hold on power amongst the masses.
For all of Stalinisms faults, and as much as I don't like it, the SU did at least provide some degree of stability in the region, relatively speaking, to counter western-imperialism, and some of the nations there were able to gain a degree of development under it even if under a corrupted and coercive regime. Stalinism does have some blame here, but not to nearly the same degree as British or American imperialism.
Western Imperialism is the cause for overwhelming majority of sub-Sahara Africa's troubles. We don't live in a communist world, we live in a capitalist one and therefore all responsibility for the many and most of the worlds evils falls on it, and it first and foremost. Not communism, not socialism, not religion, not even the dreaded fascism. It starts with capitalism, and try as you may, there is no tenable way to absolve it of its atrocities and crimes against humanity. Period.
British occupation ended in 1956? Irrelevant. Because A). The problems of years/decades or more of colonialism do not go away over night after the occupation ends. The problems often remain for decades, and they compound the conflicts which come afterward. When slavery ended, as law, in 1865, do you think the problems it manifested just suddenly came to an end?
B).
Quote: In fact the Bush administration’s main intervention in Sudan was to attempt to force a conclusion to the negotiations for a peace settlement between Al-Bashir’s regime and the SPLA. Bush was pressured into this intervention by the Republican Christian fundamentalist right who saw Khartoum’s campaign as an attempt to obliterate Christian believers in the south. The more ‘enlightened hawks’ of the State Department – among them Colin Powell – also wanted an agreement, seeing it as an opportunity to bring ‘on board’ an Islamic regime which had rejected support for Al-Qa’ida and other reactionary Islamic groups since the later 90s. By doing this they hoped to undermine the perception, particularly in the Arab world, that US imperialism was conducting a crusade against Muslims internationally.
Anything to look good.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)