Cult of personality laundering deregulation and corporate tyranny as liberation from collectivism

What, generally, was the pre-revolutionary class composition of these dissidents?

20th century American exceptionalism whittled down by neoliberal reform and then the end of the petrodollar

“Now, in terms of turning the global south into resource colonies/export economies, socialism can eliminate the former and develop a healthier balance between exporting, importing, and domestic production.“
So your socialist government gets to dictate the economy of africa?
You literally confirmed my earlier post
Socialists just want to continue the same imperialist system and build their wealth and prosperity ,where even the working class in America get lavish lifestyles off the back of the working masses of africa and the middle east. This is why your ideology is dead

how did you get that a socialist west would control africa from that sentence? you arent making much sense mate.

worker’s states would dictate their own export/import/domestic prod. to eliminate the current parasitic nature of international western companies controlling their economies. yr hurting yrself in yr confusion. socialism is a post/anti-colonialist ideology.

Isn't the "socialism = no iphone" talking point, moreso that the "greed"/desire to be a trillion dollar company is the driving factor to come up with an innovative product that is designed by said engineers? And thus wouldn't exist without capitalism/maximizing profit incentive?

How would Africa adopt a western political system without control from the west? Especially one that isn’t popular?

do you agree that zohran mamdani is now a fake socialist? he's a crapitalist now.

yes, america would need to be socialist so that it wouldnt constantly actively destroy other states that attempt it. the reason for anti-leftism worldwide is the exact western imperialism you say you disdain. so its weird you are yapping in this direction.

no, socialism is a popular ideology globally and so much so that it has to be actively supressed with sanctions and militarism by america/the west.

its not necessarily a western ideology, it was coined as a term in the way we know it by a european dude, but its international in theory and application.

marx being european doesnt make africa automatically not want to have control over the means of production. even if that was true, theres obviously african socialist scholars. marx is just the most cited guy in the west. you putting him as the face of a globalist movement is yr problem.

do you want to answer my previous question now? where did op say africa would be controlled by socialist america?

the only "western" political system is capitalism-imperialism, with all that it brings with it.

like is this an elaborate troll? it's one thing to argue in favor of capitalism, that's not really new. but the entire third world was literally split into competing marxisms at one point (communism, social democracy, post-colonialism) and still largely is, the impetus is now on you to explain why that is. meanwhile the only first world country that completed their socialist revolution was East Germany. history hardly paints the picture you're trying to sell people.

a few points that come to mind on this topic for me:

• re the iphone point specifically, basically all foundational tech in telcommunications/computing came from US federally-funded research, not from any individual firms competing on the market. this is the case for most R&D where companies don't invest in this due to risk/lack of profitability, or at least need incentives/subsidies from the govt before they do so
• history already showed the USSR beat the US to space - a capitalist economy is not a requirement for innovation/being on the cutting edge of science/technology
• in a socialist economy that prioritizes need over profit, innovation means creating things that will enrich and benefit humanity. while smartphones are definitely an impressive feat of engineering, the overall impact they've had on society imo makes it debatable to call them a net positive, when you look at s*** like social media/attention economy engagement-maxing, collection of data toward the surveillance state, etc. cuba made a lung cancer vaccine while capitalism wastes our collective resources & potential coming up with unneeded stupid consumer goods like 1 billion different skincare products and then spends even more money on marketing to convince you you need them
• capitalism directly suppresses innovation wrt things like planned obsolescence where the need to continue selling s*** will always take priority. this lightbulb cartel s*** from the 20s is crazy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

dont do d**** kids

he was never a socialist because a socialist wouldnt run for american govt office

bro occupied the same niche the two other political losers are trying to stay in

bernie sanders and aoc too?

yeah, parenti god rest his soul talked about their split with bernie when the latter supported nato bombings of yugoslavia

aoc loves voting for israel and then crying crocodile tears over it

I’m not arguing for capitalism. Africa has been majority agrarian for its entire history and I want it to stay that way. With only certain cities having capitalism/socialism but irregardless Africa existed fine with its own native agrarian tribal system

Ill just have to straight up disagree with you here on marxism not being a western ideology considering it only makes sense as an ideology in the western context. Capitalism didnt exist outside of Europe and America so how would it make sense for the proletariat to rebel in other places in Asia/Africa. Also marxism requires capitalism to exist then socialism but i think both are negative for many societies

you don't know what you're talking about.

do you agree with vinnie paz? "Everybody a slave, only some are aware. That the government releasin' poison in the air."

you dodged my question twice now

capitalism exists everywhere. you could say its exported by europe, but that hardly matters at this point. its how the global economy runs. multinational corporations have influence in just about every single state. the west/america is just the nexus - its where the paper trail ends, as of now.

saying marxism only applies to the west just doesnt make sense mate. where there are workers and a means of production, there can be socialism. that applies literally everywhere.
i think you should just read more stuff. would you want some recs

you may as well be. slapping ‘agrarian’ on it doesnt change its still under the boot of capitalism. using africa to argue against socialism is a very strange strat.

despite the continent of africa having a quarter of the worlds viable crop producing land, and two thirds of their labour force working in agriculture, its still somehow rife with food insecurity.

this is because western nations rely heavily on exploiting their labour - its made cheap due to constant colonial destablisation destroying their market power (their currencies). so the labour is paid for dirt cheap and then its sold high in supermarkets using USD, GBP, AUD etc. to net huge profit for companies. none of that profit is enjoyed by the people who actually toiled and worked hard to create the products. that dissonance is where socialist thought comes in.

you can keep an agrarian tribal system on the state level with a global socialist economic system. in fact, it would work a lottt better like that. the workers would see the fruits of their labour instead of it being eaten whole by western corporations. thats obviously better for the working person.

socialist principles share a lot in common with post colonial strands of thought. its not an exclusively western ideology, its just that the most cited source is marx, a european. he didnt singlehandedly come up with workers sharing the profits, thats silly.

again, its an internationalist ideology in theory and practice. theres a lot of socialist african scholars i can show you if you do wanna read more

But that's an even worse argument than the incentive argument. The incentive argument holds water to an extent, the extent being that nobody is going to work for free if their survival depends on working for money, and not every form of labor produces exactly the same value for the market, thus a tiered wage system makes sense if everybody is being paid a living wage. The early stages of socialism, which could last decades, can/will/do have tiered wage systems for different forms of labor.

But to assume the capitalist mode of production is responsible for birthing these innovations simply doesn't make sense. The CEOs and boards that "run" these companies (loot the laborers at these firms) don't design s***. Other laborers, often with no kind of ownership stake over the company, create these innovations. Capitalists just decide to throw money behind it because they fundamentally believe, or have come to believe, that said investment can turn a profit. They provide no actual innovation themselves.

Even most companies in their inception aren't actually led by any true visionaries, just people with enough seed money to pay for the credit. Elon Musk's only contribution to PayPal was designing the logo and hasn't designed a f***ing thing at Tesla or SpaceX. He just paid his way to the top, and got that initially funding from his dad's apartheid South Africa emerald mine, to the tune of ~$100m. Twitter is just the latest and most obvious answer of the guy literally just putting money behind other people's ideas/concepts/businesses and taking credit for it.

Socialism empowers the producers, rather than subjugating them to the whims of greedy b******s like Elon Musk to curry their useless favors for the sake of survival.

But were they bourgeoisie (big capitalists who don't do any work), petit-bourgeoisie (small capitalists who still work but own the means of production they work on, may or may not have employees), or proletarian (people who work full-time for a living)? Are/were they landlords, which are arguably a class unto themselves (especially if they own commercial properties as opposed to rental properties)?

Socialism isn't an explicitly western system, and many African nations have historically constructed robust socialist societies on their own terms. Libya was a shining example of this and they weren't even Marxist. Only reason it even fell, as opposed to being built, was due to Western intervention.

Africa was also where most socialist revolutions were happening from the late 60s-early 80s. They had a hit or miss track record (much like most revolutions in general), but Africa has a rich revolutionary socialist history and does in fact have many notable successes to speak of, the vast majority of which didn't last due to out right western regime change operations or the loss of the Soviet Union as their only developed trade partner in the world.