Kayak.com Cofounder Paul English Plans to Blanket Africa in Free Wireless Internet

[Blackscare]

What do you guys think? Is this a well meaning effort that unfortunately misses the more important issues facing Africa today, or is this a project with massive potential for intellectual liberation and inclusion for millions of marginalized Africans?

Methinks somewhere in the middle. Certainly it's a good idea, but on a continent with some many problems, I wonder where it falls on the list of priorities.

Being a geek I tend to view anything that propagates the internet as positive, still I think the resources needed for this could be put towards more immediately important uses, such as the great green wall (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/africa-great-green-wall-stop-spreading-sahara-if-its-planted.php) or industrialization/self sufficiency.


http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/join-africa-graphic.jpg


http://www.fastcompany.com/1645485/kayak-co-founder-starting-initative-to-blanket-africa-in-free-wireless-internet

[Blackscare]

Thinking about this more, I figure that there really is no point in criticizing this, as this isn't even a government initiative, it's just a philanthropic project. Not like that money was necessarily going to be used for something else anyway.

[Raúl Duke]

The question become a matter of the availability of cheap wi-fi computers...

Although, they say that it's possible for a $15 PC to exist today (http://itgrunts.com/2010/06/28/cheapest-ever-a-15-android-computer/)

[pranabjyoti]

Moreover, there is another question. How much control original African people will have on this net? Can they express their thoughts freely on net and their responses will be constantly monitored and censored by "international authority"? If so, then this is of no use.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was reading somewhere that Africa actually has somewhat of an advantage over more developed nations as far as creating new computer networks go, in that there would be no transition from copper to fiber-optic cables, or something.

[MarxSchmarx]

As best I can see it, there is no serious downside to this plan. The real advantage of such a network lies in being able to use already existing social institutions and hardware infrastructure.

For example, in urban areas many africans already have cellphones. This is esp. true in the capitals. Granted they are prepaid, cheap Chinese knockoffs, many can be used to hookup to this network and double as a source of information. And this doesn't yet address the issues in heavily rural countries like Mali. Still, such a network can have considerable advantages even without the wide scale availability of cheap PCs. Even in rural areas the community could pool its resources to buy a cheap laptop that will allow them to for example track agricultural prices and the weather and suchwhat. These kinds of efforts are already done when they pool their resources to buy a cow for example.

[this is an invasion]

He should give free wifi to America first.

[Blackscare]

He should give free wifi to America first.

Why?

[Raúl Duke]

He should give free wifi to America first.


Why?

It would be nice, that's why. Who doesn't want free wi-fi?

But it's more important for Africa since if you compare percentage of population with internet access it's obvious that Africa would benefit more from this.

[ComradeOm]

Hard to see a problem with this. Internet access isn't going to spark industrial take-off by itself (access to capital remains king) but it can't do any harm and may encourage some economic growth. Which would be good

[Rusty Shackleford]

internet in Africa would probably be one of the greatest things to happen. no matter who provided the initiative. i would prefer hard cable but oh well, im not doing this.

this will lead to the rest of the world, and especially eurocentrists pretty much being forced to have contact with africans. a great thing imo. chance to build solidarity.

intellectual liberaiton, potential intellectual self sufficiency, access to intellectual property. this is what this should come to.

there are oppressive governments but the internet cannot be fully stopped. especially if everyone is using wifi in a country where the internet hardly existed beforehand.

[ComradeOm]

intellectual liberaiton, potential intellectual self sufficiency, access to intellectual property. this is what this should come toReally? I would replace the word 'intellectual' with 'economic' in each of those cases for this project to be of such importance. Africa's problems are not due to intellectual property rights and nor is the continent in 'intellectual shackles' (or whatever the reverse of "intellectual liberation" is) because of a lack of internet access. Its imperialism, resulting in a lack of economic development, that is holding Africa back

[Hiratsuka]

I wish the best.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Really? I would replace the word 'intellectual' with 'economic' in each of those cases for this project to be of such importance. Africa's problems are not due to intellectual property rights and nor is the continent in 'intellectual shackles' (or whatever the reverse of "intellectual liberation" is) because of a lack of internet access. Its imperialism, resulting in a lack of economic development, that is holding Africa back

Do you think economic development in Africa would be designed for human need or for extracting resources and allowing even greater exploitation of workers?

This project might be an exception, eccentric millionaires come in all shapes and sizes but to place so much trust in a man is not such a good idea, the other 'exciting' project, to get cheap PCs around Africa with Ubuntu on them has been undermined and shelved. The man running it having significant ties to the American Republican party.

A simple wikipedia article on English reveals he is a bit less eccentric and in fact, quite a well organised entrepeneur and actually far more rich than most millionaires, which makes me wonder just what his real intentions in Africa are, because I'm sure they are not as genuine as he makes out. He talks about filtering "non-essential" services and you have to wonder what that means, you also have to wonder what the deals between "private and free" wifi will be, he appears to be saying that he wants free wifi throughout Africa, but whether that translates to reality might be a different story. Internet access might allow corporations to scope out individuals in a town and to get insiders in there more easily.

To blanketly say capitalist development is "just a good thing", on a scale like this, is most of the time simply untrue.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Really? I would replace the word 'intellectual' with 'economic' in each of those cases for this project to be of such importance. Africa's problems are not due to intellectual property rights and nor is the continent in 'intellectual shackles' (or whatever the reverse of "intellectual liberation" is) because of a lack of internet access. Its imperialism, resulting in a lack of economic development, that is holding Africa back


what i mean by intellectual liberation is that the chance for a huge increase in the sharing of data, words and all of that may lead to a distinct online culture in africa. the internet is not as easily to totally conquer. it is almost like life. it is on and not 100% secure, or it is off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What are the rates of literacy in african countries?

[Blackscare]

Really? I would replace the word 'intellectual' with 'economic' in each of those cases for this project to be of such importance. Africa's problems are not due to intellectual property rights and nor is the continent in 'intellectual shackles' (or whatever the reverse of "intellectual liberation" is) because of a lack of internet access. Its imperialism, resulting in a lack of economic development, that is holding Africa back


I hate this attitude that nothing is relevant outside of economics. It is a very good thing that people in Africa could potentially have greater access to the internet, it would almost certainly lead to greater dialogue and social cohesion within Africa. It could be a political rallying point for people otherwise prevented from such free speech. I mean, the benefits of having the internet are pretty obvious, man.

[ckaihatsu]

it is almost like life. it is on and not 100% secure, or it is off.


Whoa.


= )


x D

[ComradeOm]

Do you think economic development in Africa would be designed for human need or for extracting resources and allowing even greater exploitation of workers?I think its grossly simplistic to assume that the two are entirely mutually incompatible. That is, because economic development within a capitalist framework is based on exploitation, therefore economic development should never take place. This is to me a ridiculous and misanthropic attitude that would deny millions basic advances in living standards because of an ideological hang-up


To blanketly say capitalist development is "just a good thing", on a scale like this, is most of the time simply untrue.Why? Why would you deny Africans access to work, education, superior medical care, etc, and all the other material advances that are enjoyed in the West? Far from it being "simply untrue", the reality is that the world is divided into industrialised nations and unindustrialised nations, with living standards being vastly superior in the former. This is not a coincidence


I hate this attitude that nothing is relevant outside of economics. It is a very good thing that people in Africa could potentially have greater access to the internet, it would almost certainly lead to greater dialogue and social cohesion within Africa. It could be a political rallying point for people otherwise prevented from such free speech. I mean, the benefits of having the internet are pretty obvious, man. At what point did I deny that this project was a bad thing or irrelevant? I just made the very simple point that it is not going to transform the continent. That is something that would take an economic and social revolution - neither of which the internet alone can provide for. Its very easy to overplay the "benefits of the internet"


What are the rates of literacy in african countries? Pretty dire, if not as bad as pre-capitalist Europe. African nations comprise most of the worst nations in this regard on theWiki list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate)

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

I think its grossly simplistic to assume that the two are entirely mutually incompatible. That is, because economic development within a capitalist framework is based on exploitation, therefore economic development should never take place.

And you'll find that's not what I suggested. Unless you or I are in a place to control or stop it, that would be a pointless thread of discussion? Our class interests would be completely different if we were in that kind of a position?


Why? Why would you deny Africans access to work, education, superior medical care, etc, and all the other material advances that are enjoyed in the West? Far from it being "simply untrue", the reality is that the world is divided into industrialised nations and unindustrialised nations, with living standards being vastly superior in the former. This is not a coincidence

But by the same logic you could support capitalism and capitalist development as a whole. Would you fully support slum clearance in Africa too, what about finding oil and natural resources in Africa?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Whoa.


= )


x D
:laugh:

what i meant by that is the controlling of information is like in real life. not a single thing can completely control things like thought. and the internet will never be impervious to illicit behavior unless it were turned off.

[ComradeOm]

But by the same logic you could support capitalism and capitalist development as a wholeAnd I do support capitalist development in places and times where it is progressive. I do not oppose progress simply because it is carried out by the bourgeoisie and nor do I ignore the incredible achievements that this class has overseen in the past two centuries. Rather I criticise capitalism for a) not going far enough, and b) retarding, in the current epoch, economic development outside of the West

So no, I'm not someone to recoil at the mere thought of 'capitalist development'. I tend to prefer modern industrial society to working in the field

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

And I do support capitalist development in places and times where it is progressive. I do not oppose progress simply because it is carried out by the bourgeoisie and nor do I ignore the incredible achievements that this class has overseen in the past two centuries. Rather I criticise capitalism for a) not going far enough, and b) retarding, in the current epoch, economic development outside of the West

So no, I'm not someone to recoil at the mere thought of 'capitalist development'. I tend to prefer modern industrial society to working in the field

And how many more strawmen are you going to invent? I never said Capitalist development should be stopped, that isn't the point at all. Capitalist development "not going far enough" means what exactly? That every single natural resource the world has should be fully utilised, completely destroying the environment? That every farm should use pesticides and enhancing formulas? See I can use strawmen too, but I am pretty sure that isn't really what you're arguing for, so I'm not saying that.

Most people prefer modern industrialised society to an agricultural one and this still moves away from my point: Communists are not here to support or to oppose Capitalist development, but to affect revolutionary change in society, the consequence of which may be workers resisting certain types of Capitalist development because it erodes their day-to-day living conditions in an intolerable way, which given the right context, is something communists may have to support.

[ComradeOm]

Capitalist development "not going far enough" means what exactly? That every single natural resource the world has should be fully utilised, completely destroying the environment? That every farm should use pesticides and enhancing formulas? See I can use strawmen too, but I am pretty sure that isn't really what you're arguing for, so I'm not saying thatIts a pretty poor strawman given that I fully endorse the use of "pesticides and enhancing formulas" to increase crop yield. Feeding hungry people definitely being a 'good thing'

As for "not going far enough", that merely means that capitalism can only expand society's forces of production to a point; the socialisation of the economy is needed to create a society of abundance


Most people prefer modern industrialised society to an agricultural one and this still moves away from my point: Communists are not here to support or to oppose Capitalist development, but to affect revolutionary change in society, the consequence of which may be workers resisting certain types of Capitalist development because it erodes their day-to-day living conditions in an intolerable way, which given the right context, is something communists may have to support.Of course there are "certain types of capitalist development" that should be opposed. That much is blindly obvious and is something that I pointed out in my above post. It does not however excuse anyone from ignoring the reality that economic development, whether driven by capitalists or not, is what Africa needs more than anything

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Its a pretty poor strawman given that I fully endorse the use of "pesticides and enhancing formulas" to increase crop yield. Feeding hungry people definitely being a 'good thing'

Not if you get diarrhea, birth defects and a world of other nasty things, not to mention that a lot of places specifically in Africa don't have ready access to water for drinking, let alone washing pesticides off of produce.


As for "not going far enough", that merely means that capitalism can only expand society's forces of production to a point; the socialisation of the economy is needed to create a society of abundanceA society of abundance doesn't necessarily have to be overdeveloped, in fact you can already feed everyone in the world and there is far more than enough going around with the current inefficient and wrong ways of manufacturing, harvesting etc, it just isn't distributed at a fair ratio. You are of course right that collectivisation is a necessity in order to do it the most efficient way though.


Of course there are "certain types of capitalist development" that should be opposed. That much is blindly obvious and is something that I pointed out in my above post. It does not however excuse anyone from ignoring the reality that economic development, whether driven by capitalists or not, is what Africa needs more than anythingWhat does 'more than anything' really mean, just looks like posturing to me, posturing that to be honest is best left to capitalists to do; we don't really need to say things like that in order to have a 'concrete position' on an issue after all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Pretty dire, if not as bad as pre-capitalist Europe. African nations comprise most of the worst nations in this regard on theWiki list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate)

That would definately slows things down a bit, but widely available internet access may provide literate Africans with the means to teach their fellows to read and write.

This can only be a good thing.


:laugh:

what i meant by that is the controlling of information is like in real life. not a single thing can completely control things like thought. and the internet will never be impervious to illicit behavior unless it were turned off.

Nothing short of global saturation bombing with electromagnetic pulse weaponry would "turn off the internet". If I remember correctly it was originally designed as a communication system intended to withstand the ravages of nuclear warfare.

[ComradeOm]

A society of abundance doesn't necessarily have to be overdeveloped, in fact you can already feed everyone in the world and there is far more than enough going around with the current inefficient and wrong ways of manufacturing, harvesting etc, it just isn't distributed at a fair ratioNo you can't. Not without massively reducing the average living standard (in the West at least). A society of abundance is not a matter of simply providing everybody with an minimum living standard (which may be possible today) but ensuring that human want is a thing of the past. You cannot possibly achieve this when over 85% of world manufacturing is confined to a mere ten countries


What does 'more than anything' really mean, just looks like posturing to me, posturing that to be honest is best left to capitalists to do; we don't really need to say things like that in order to have a 'concrete position' on an issue after all."More than anything" means that you can throw all the aid, or wireless internet, or cheap goods, that you want at Africa. It might actually slightly improve life there. Unless this is accompanied by solid economic progress however it will not achieve anything of note. It will not lead to real change in the lives of Africans

So no, its not posturing to say that Africa needs a real programme for economic development much more than all the sympathetic but ultimately meaningless gestures that the West has been providing for decades now


That would definately slows things down a bit, but widely available internet access may provide literate Africans with the means to teach their fellows to read and write.

This can only be a good thing.I'm not convinced that the internet is going to help greatly in that regard. With regards literacy, there's really no substitute for a state-sponsored primary education system. Which avoids the need to provide everyone with a laptop or smart phone

But it might help. This project is not going to trigger the industrial take-off that Africa so desperately needs but I've always said that its still a good thing

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

No you can't. Not without massively reducing the average living standard (in the West at least). A society of abundance is not a matter of simply providing everybody with an minimum living standard (which may be possible today) but ensuring that human want is a thing of the past. You cannot possibly achieve this when over 85% of world manufacturing is confined to a mere ten countries

That's just not true, you wouldn't have to reduce living standards in the West at all if you equally distributed everything that's currently produced, the world round, around the world. I don't know what you base your idea on, but most of the Western working-class really do not have a great standard of living. Basic things are missing like clean drinking water in some 3rd world countries, yet there are vast expanses of clean water around the world that could easily improve the lives of people massively, water isn't even THAT clean in the first-world from my experience in this country, hell I know people who have gotten very ill from the fluoride and the 3% faeces this water on average contains (that's a little besides the point I know). My point is not that everyone should have a minimum standard of living anyway, but that even with a society of abundance you wouldn't need every country to be overdeveloped, you probably wouldn't even need every country to be industrialised (although every country will be industrialised obviously).


"More than anything" means that you can throw all the aid, or wireless internet, or cheap goods, that you want at Africa. It might actually slightly improve life there. Unless this is accompanied by solid economic progress however it will not achieve anything of note. It will not lead to real change in the lives of AfricansWhat economic development? Slum clearance?


So no, its not posturing to say that Africa needs a real programme for economic development much more than all the sympathetic but ultimately meaningless gestures that the West has been providing for decades nowEvery member of the African Union pays for their own living, which is often more than a hundred percent better than middle-class africans, let alone the working ones. In most cases, they don't see any reason to go for troublesome economic development because they stand to gain from keeping African workers in the dirt, profiting from corporations' use of them for some of the world's cheapest labour.

[dearest chuck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAeHZC9Opqw

[ComradeOm]

That's just not true, you wouldn't have to reduce living standards in the West at all if you equally distributed everything that's currently produced, the world round, around the worldAnd you of course have stats and studies to back this assertion up? Don't worry, I've done it for you

If we assume, for the sake of simplification, that all manufactured goods currently produced globally (P) are consumed (C). Thus P=C and Pw+Pr = Cw+Cr, where w=West and r=ROTW. Very simple. Now its fairly clear, as I've noted in this post and above, that the vast amount of P (86%) originates in the West. So its merely a matter of breaking C down into its constituent parts. In the first place we can also say that the vast majority of consumption occurs in the West. This site (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/236) has a few nice graphs that illustrates what we already know. The data is slightly out of date but we'll use it anyway - 80% of consumption occurs in the 'High Income Countries'. So we can currently say that Pw(86)+Pr(14)=Cw(80)+Cr(20)

But that's obviously not enough and here's where it gets tricky. How can we break Cw down on a class basis in order to find out just how much the Western capitalist class is spending? That is how much 'slack' is there in the system for redistributing? Obviously it would be ideal to do the same with the ROTW, which also has capitalists, but we'll leave that aside for now. Unfortunately there are, for obvious reasons, no hard figures for this one

Luckily enough we don't need to find out, instead we can work in the other direction. If we assume that everyone in the world is to have the same level of consumption and that production does not rise – which results in no rise in overall consumption levels – then we would end up with a formula like P=Cw(15)+Cr(85). This assumes that the proportion of the global population in the West is 15% (EU+US+Russia+Japan = approx 1,080,401,137) and the ROTW is (85%), with a total global population of 6,858,400,000. The sums therefore become very easy. With production remaining standard, this produces a 65% reduction in the amount of consumption in the West and a 105% increase in the ROTW's allocation

Now how would this translate into living standards in the West? A percentage of current consumption is the preserve of the capitalist class and wealthier petit-bourgeoisie. We don't know exactly what that is but it is not 65%, certainly not when the need to 'raise up' those afflicted by poverty in the West is also considered. As for the ROTW, the benefits are not exactly stellar. The link above gives a total global consumption as 27,507 billion dollars. If 85% of this is to be divided amongst 5.77 billion people then it produces an annual yearly consumption of 4,046 USD (according to my calculations at least). This is obviously far, far below the average industrial wage in the US today

So, it can be seen from the above that if global consumption to be allocated equally around the world then it is necessary to reduce Western living standards. Not quite to the degree noted above (there is some 'slack' taken up by capitalist expenditure on luxury items, and the initial assumption never holds entirely true) but a drop is required and there is certainly to be no hope of further increasing living standards in the West. None of this should be surprising – consumption is limited by production and capitalism is not in the habit of producing enough for everyone

(Of course only now it occurs to be that I could have simply divided the figure of 27,507 billion dollars by 6,8 billion people to find the average rate of consumption if every country was to consume the same :rolleyes:)


I don't know what you base your idea on, but most of the Western working-class really do not have a great standard of livingVisit Africa some day and then tell me what you think of Western standards of living. There is no question that all but the most deprived areas of the West have significant material advantages over most of Africa. This does not excuse or condone the existence of persistent poverty in the West but it is important to put this in perspective


Basic things are missing like clean drinking water in some 3rd world countries, yet there are vast expanses of clean water around the world that could easily improve the lives of people massively, water isn't even THAT clean in the first-world from my experience in this country, hell I know people who have gotten very ill from the fluoride and the 3% faeces this water on average contains (that's a little besides the point I know)What the fuck are you on about?


My point is not that everyone should have a minimum standard of living anyway, but that even with a society of abundance you wouldn't need every country to be overdeveloped, you probably wouldn't even need every country to be industrialised (although every country will be industrialised obviously).Leaving aside this nonsense about "overdevelopment" - a) because I don't want to even legitimise such a ridiculous term, and b) because I'm fairly sure that even you aren't stupid enough to condone the existence of trade dependency loops - we've arrived at a scenario where not every country will have to be industrialised but every country will be industrialised. You know what, I don't particularly care about your inconsistencies because the obvious reality is that every country today is not industrialised. The vast majority of countries are nowhere near this ideal state

If every country (or almost every country - I've never claimed it should be entirely universal) is going to be industrialised then surely a situation where 86% of the world's manufacturing output is generated by the top ten nations is something to be corrected? Surely this cannot be achieved while Africa's only role is exporting agricultural produce and raw materials? No?


What economic development? Slum clearance?No, building factories and the like. You know, producing manufactured goods and moving away from subsistence agriculture and raw materials export. In a word: industrialisation

"Slum clearance"? Honestly I don't know what sort of mind equates 'economic development' with 'slum clearance'... :rolleyes:


Every member of the African Union pays for their own living, which is often more than a hundred percent better than middle-class africans, let alone the working ones. In most cases, they don't see any reason to go for troublesome economic development because they stand to gain from keeping African workers in the dirt, profiting from corporations' use of them for some of the world's cheapest labour.And that relates to my post how...?

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

And you of course have stats and studies to back this assertion up? Don't worry, I've done it for you

If we assume, for the sake of simplification, that all manufactured goods currently produced globally (P) are consumed (C). Thus P=C and Pw+Pr = Cw+Cr, where w=West and r=ROTW. Very simple. Now its fairly clear, as I've noted in this post and above, that the vast amount of P (86%) originates in the West. So its merely a matter of breaking C down into its constituent parts. In the first place we can also say that the vast majority of consumption occurs in the West. This site (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/236) has a few nice graphs that illustrates what we already know. The data is slightly out of date but we'll use it anyway - 80% of consumption occurs in the 'High Income Countries'. So we can currently say that Pw(86)+Pr(14)=Cw(80)+Cr(20)

But that's obviously not enough and here's where it gets tricky. How can we break Cw down on a class basis in order to find out just how much the Western capitalist class is spending? That is how much 'slack' is there in the system for redistributing? Obviously it would be ideal to do the same with the ROTW, which also has capitalists, but we'll leave that aside for now. Unfortunately there are, for obvious reasons, no hard figures for this one

Luckily enough we don't need to find out, instead we can work in the other direction. If we assume that everyone in the world is to have the same level of consumption and that production does not rise – which results in no rise in overall consumption levels – then we would end up with a formula like P=Cw(15)+Cr(85). This assumes that the proportion of the global population in the West is 15% (EU+US+Russia+Japan = approx 1,080,401,137) and the ROTW is (85%), with a total global population of 6,858,400,000. The sums therefore become very easy. With production remaining standard, this produces a 65% reduction in the amount of consumption in the West and a 105% increase in the ROTW's allocation

Now how would this translate into living standards in the West? A percentage of current consumption is the preserve of the capitalist class and wealthier petit-bourgeoisie. We don't know exactly what that is but it is not 65%, certainly not when the need to 'raise up' those afflicted by poverty in the West is also considered. As for the ROTW, the benefits are not exactly stellar. The link above gives a total global consumption as 27,507 billion dollars. If 85% of this is to be divided amongst 5.77 billion people then it produces an annual yearly consumption of 4,046 USD (according to my calculations at least). This is obviously far, far below the average industrial wage in the US today

So, it can be seen from the above that if global consumption to be allocated equally around the world then it is necessary to reduce Western living standards. Not quite to the degree noted above (there is some 'slack' taken up by capitalist expenditure on luxury items, and the initial assumption never holds entirely true) but a drop is required and there is certainly to be no hope of further increasing living standards in the West. None of this should be surprising – consumption is limited by production and capitalism is not in the habit of producing enough for everyone

(Of course only now it occurs to be that I could have simply divided the figure of 27,507 billion dollars by 6,8 billion people to find the average rate of consumption if every country was to consume the same :rolleyes:)

I said the same methods of manufacturing and producing goods, not valuing, branding or distributing them ie not capitalism but the first stage of running things after a revolution, which necessarily wouldn't have anything to do with USD at all, your work is still interesting it just doesn't apply in this context. Do you think that we can keep money, even in a primitive form of a socialist society?


Visit Africa some day and then tell me what you think of Western standards of living. There is no question that all but the most deprived areas of the West have significant material advantages over most of Africa. This does not excuse or condone the existence of persistent poverty in the West but it is important to put this in perspective

Never disputed any of that, not sure why you're mentioning it.


What the fuck are you on about?

Despite your unnecessary rudeness here: only 46% of people in Africa are estimated to have safe drinking water, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheets-htm/btw.htm 'For untreated water, the question is much more difficult. Untreated water sources almost always contain some faecal coliforms; the question is, does a particular source contain more than the alternative sources available? To apply the standard above for disinfected water would be to condemn the water supplies used by most rural people in developing countries. A further complication is that, although water-borne epidemics of disease (cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, giardia, etc.) are well-known, most of the endemic cases of these diseases in poor communities are caused by other transmission routes; contaminated food, hands, utensils, etc. A number of studies have found that when drinking water quality alone is improved, it has had little impact on people's health - even when the previous level of pollution has been as high as a thousand faecal coliforms per 100 ml. Many healthy farming families in the UK regularly drink water with tens if not hundreds of faecal coliforms per 100 ml.'



If every country (or almost every country - I've never claimed it should be entirely universal) is going to be industrialised then surely a situation where 86% of the world's manufacturing output is generated by the top ten nations is something to be corrected? Surely this cannot be achieved while Africa's only role is exporting agricultural produce and raw materials? No?

No, building factories and the like. You know, producing manufactured goods and moving away from subsistence agriculture and raw materials export. In a word: industrialisation

Obviously it needs to be corrected, didn't say otherwise, dunno what this is supposed to relate to really? I was just stating some points which were separate, which you've combined for some reason.


"Slum clearance"? Honestly I don't know what sort of mind equates 'economic development' with 'slum clearance'... :rolleyes:

Then you aren't in sync with the bourgeoisie's 'economic development' that is going on in Africa really http://www.google.com/search?q=african+slum+clearance.


And that relates to my post how...?

Because you have hope that the African bourgeoisie can economically develop Africa.

[ComradeOm]

I said the same methods of manufacturing and producing goods, not valuing, branding or distributing them ie not capitalism but the first stage of running things after a revolution, which necessarily wouldn't have anything to do with USD at all, your work is still interesting it just doesn't apply in this context. Do you think that we can keep money, even in a primitive form of a socialist society?There's a good point there in that the USD price would be a good's exchange value, as opposed to its use value, and I take that. However even if we accept that the average use value is five times less (a figure out of the air) than its monetary value then we're still left with a Third World consumption rate that is barely scraping 20K per annum in USD

However these calculations of mine were spur of the moment workings and I've not got great confidence in them. Going into greater detail (like breaking USD values down into physical units) is impossible given the data at hand and time available. It was you though you that made the original assertion - have you got any figures to back it up?


Despite your unnecessary rudeness here: only 46% of people in Africa are estimated to have safe drinking water, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheets-htm/btw.htm 'For untreated water, the question is much more difficult. Untreated water sources almost always contain some faecal coliforms; the question is, does a particular source contain more than the alternative sources available? To apply the standard above for disinfected water would be to condemn the water supplies used by most rural people in developing countries. A further complication is that, although water-borne epidemics of disease (cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, giardia, etc.) are well-known, most of the endemic cases of these diseases in poor communities are caused by other transmission routes; contaminated food, hands, utensils, etc. A number of studies have found that when drinking water quality alone is improved, it has had little impact on people's health - even when the previous level of pollution has been as high as a thousand faecal coliforms per 100 ml. Many healthy farming families in the UK regularly drink water with tens if not hundreds of faecal coliforms per 100 ml.'Again, I ask how this relates the topic? I'm aware of water-borne diseases and their deadly impact but I still don't know why are you talking about this? Are we just listing all the afflictions affecting Africa to emphasise the need for solid economic development in order to combat them?


Obviously it needs to be corrected, didn't say otherwise, dunno what this is supposed to relate to really? I was just stating some points which were separate, which you've combined for some reasonYou mean I was mistaken to assume that those sentences were supposed to be combined in a coherent argument?

Look, you can't say that its perfectly possible for Africa's needs for manufactured goods to be met from the outside and then in the very next sentence suggest that obviously "every country will be industrialised" in a post-revolution society. Which is it to be - should Africa industrialise (or "overdevelop" as you put it) or not?


Then you aren't in sync with the bourgeoisie's 'economic development' that is going on in Africa really http://www.google.com/search?q=african+slum+clearanceI'm aware of slum clearance and just what it is. What I don't see is how this relates to economic development in Africa (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=africa+economic+development). Are you confusing this with 'housing 'development' by any chance?


Because you have hope that the African bourgeoisie can economically develop Africa.And where exactly did I say that? I've made clear that Africa needs "a real programme for economic development". At no point have I pinned my hopes exclusively to the local bourgeoisie. If it comes from the latter then that's well and good. If not it may lie to other classes to undertake this task

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

There's a good point there in that the USD price would be a good's exchange value, as opposed to its use value, and I take that. However even if we accept that the average use value is five times less (a figure out of the air) than its monetary value then we're still left with a Third World consumption rate that is barely scraping 20K per annum in USD

However these calculations of mine were spur of the moment workings and I've not got great confidence in them. Going into greater detail (like breaking USD values down into physical units) is impossible given the data at hand and time available. It was you though you that made the original assertion - have you got any figures to back it up?

To be honest, I haven't encountered much opposition to the idea so it was a little alarming, you might technically be right because it is pretty hard to tell I guess.

There are some bourgeoisie sources but to be honest it is still very, very hard to break it down into accurate units of any kind. World hunger talks about food per person in kilocalories (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm), the institute for food policy/food first keeps getting cited (including by the socialist review here: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10671) Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and a half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs - enough to make most people fat! Even most 'hungry countries' have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products.

I know this is just food, but it's probably the most important thing after water (which I think, it's pretty much indisputable that there's enough to go around?). Other than that it gets a lot more complex, if you have more to add I'll listen.


Again, I ask how this relates the topic? I'm aware of water-borne diseases and their deadly impact but I still don't know why are you talking about this? Are we just listing all the afflictions affecting Africa to emphasise the need for solid economic development in order to combat them?

I'm just listing that because it affects so many people, there isn't much that can top that and so many countries could export water so easily, water can be filtered pretty easily as well (and like I said, it's not even that clean in the first-world on average, they just use crude chemicals to kill harmful organisms, most of which remain dead, but effectively still in it, they don't even boil it which kills and can remove on average 97% of harmful organisms IIRC).


You mean I was mistaken to assume that those sentences were supposed to be combined in a coherent argument?

Look, you can't say that its perfectly possible for Africa's needs for manufactured goods to be met from the outside and then in the very next sentence suggest that obviously "every country will be industrialised" in a post-revolution society. Which is it to be - should Africa industrialise (or "overdevelop" as you put it) or not?

I was suggesting that bourgeoisie economic development is usually overdevelopment.. and it is. That's why the arguments were separated. The reason I suggested the first thing was because mass industrialisation everywhere in the world might not be immediately possible (although I would push for it to be done asap) and the needs of African workers should be met immediately (and all I was saying is that they could be from outside).


I'm aware of slum clearance and just what it is. What I don't see is how this relates to economic development in Africa (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=africa+economic+development). Are you confusing this with 'housing 'development' by any chance?

No, that's what it is, it's slum clearance, housing development comes after slum clearance but not enough homes are built, ergo people go homeless, join another slum or just start another slum only for that to be cleared..


And where exactly did I say that? I've made clear that Africa needs "a real programme for economic development". At no point have I pinned my hopes exclusively to the local bourgeoisie. If it comes from the latter then that's well and good. If not it may lie to other classes to undertake this task

The key question is where you see African workers in this, the majority of local bourgeoisie development is probably going to be half bad and half good for African workers. It isn't even the local bourgeoisie in Africa these days anyway, what about China? A lot of people on this board, to my amazement, actually support China's expansion into the Congo and other countries..

[Adi Shankara]

What are the rates of literacy in african countries?

With internet comes cheap, affordable education.

you'll see the literacy rate explode when (or is it "if") this plan ever comes true. while it isn't a substitute for a school-based education, for many things like geography, literacy, and simple mathematics for school children, the internet will change Africa forever.

[Adi Shankara]

What are the rates of literacy in african countries?

With internet comes cheap, affordable education.

you'll see the literacy rate explode when (or is it "if") this plan ever comes true.

Also, I really liked Vacant's point that it will force contact of Africans (and thus an African perspective) into the Western world and mindset. thus it would spread African culture and knowledge, and truly create an international awareness of African ways of thinking and philosophical rumination.

It'll be hard to ignore genocide in Africa when Africans themselves can bring it to the world's attention without having to use a European intermediary to do it for them.

the internet is going to bring alot of walls down in Africa, from dictatorship to capitalism to educational barriers.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

With internet comes cheap, affordable education.

you'll see the literacy rate explode when (or is it "if") this plan ever comes true.

Also, I really liked Vacant's point that it will force contact of Africans (and thus an African perspective) into the Western world and mindset. thus it would spread African culture and knowledge, and truly create an international awareness of African ways of thinking and philosophical rumination.

It'll be hard to ignore genocide in Africa when Africans themselves can bring it to the world's attention without having to use a European intermediary to do it for them.

the internet is going to bring alot of walls down in Africa, from dictatorship to capitalism to educational barriers.

That stuff about spreading African ways of thinking is silly.

[ComradeOm]

I know this is just food, but it's probably the most important thing after water (which I think, it's pretty much indisputable that there's enough to go around?). Other than that it gets a lot more complex, if you have more to add I'll listenFood and water are okay (as I continually argue against those Malthusian fools) but its manufactured goods that we're primarily interested in here. It is the latter that require an industrial base to turn raw materials into finished goods. Its this that is currently monopolised by the West and a few industrialising nations


No, that's what it is, it's slum clearance, housing development comes after slum clearance but not enough homes are built, ergo people go homeless, join another slum or just start another slum only for that to be cleared.Are you suggesting that industrialisation inevitably goes hand in hand with slum clearance? Because that is not the case


The key question is where you see African workers in this, the majority of local bourgeoisie development is probably going to be half bad and half good for African workersWhich is where some nuance comes in. Obviously we must support the rights of the local workers and industrialisation is never pretty. However any group that resists capitalist development but fails to offer an alternative road to industrial society is doomed to merely perpetuating the misery of Africans. We are socialists, not luddites

[bricolage]

I think the slum clearance thing is how much of what is given the rhetoric of 'development' in Africa takes the form of razing slum communities to the ground, promising new housing but never building it, the most obvious recent example of this being the building of the new world cup stadiums in South Africa. If you check the documents of any shackdwellers or slumdwellers movement in Africa you will see what they think of what passes for 'development'.

[Adil3tr]

Wow, they can download some ifood to eat. What is the point of this?

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

its manufactured goods that we're primarily interested in here. It is the latter that require an industrial base to turn raw materials into finished goods. Its this that is currently monopolised by the West and a few industrialising nations

Sustainability is important here. Your average American consumes far more than Western European counterparts, who live in countries with a higher standard of living. This is an important point and one we can all benefit and learn from.


Are you suggesting that industrialisation inevitably goes hand in hand with slum clearance? Because that is not the case

No of course not. Slum clearance isn't ever necessary though, usually there is enough land free, where slums tend to be (out in rural areas or close to suburbs of cities) to not bother clearing the slums at all.


Which is where some nuance comes in. Obviously we must support the rights of the local workers and industrialisation is never pretty. However any group that resists capitalist development but fails to offer an alternative road to industrial society is doomed to merely perpetuating the misery of Africans. We are socialists, not luddites

It depends what groups you mean, the south African quasi-anarchist shackdwellers movement are certainly not luddites, yet they have resisted horrible, murderous treatment of their comrades and the demolition of their homes with inspiring courage. I have had the privilege of meeting a few comrades of theirs before.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wow, they can download some ifood to eat. What is the point of this?

Information can be as critical as food; ignorance can kill just surely as starvation.

Not to mention that the ability to communicate widely and at minimal cost would allow the possibility of much greater cohesion within Africa.