Thomas Sankara: a People's History Caesar of the 20th C?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

Positives:


Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara (December 21, 1949 – October 15, 1987) was a Burkinabé military captain, Marxist revolutionary, Pan-Africanist theorist, and communist President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987.[1][2] Viewed as a charismatic, and iconic figure of revolution, he is commonly referred to as "Africa's Che Guevara."

Sankara seized power in a 1983 popularly supported coup at the age of 33, with the goal of eliminating corruption and the dominance of the former French colonial power. He immediately launched "the most ambitious program for social and economic change ever attempted on the African continent." To symbolize this new autonomy and rebirth, he even renamed the country from the French colonial Upper Volta to Burkina Faso ("Land of Upright Men"). His foreign policies were centered around anti-imperialism, with his government eschewing all foreign aid, pushing for odious debt reduction, nationalizing all land and mineral wealth, and averting the power and influence of the IMF and World Bank. His domestic policies were focused on preventing famine with agrarian self-sufficiency and land reform, prioritizing education with a nation-wide literacy campaign, and promoting public health by vaccinating 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles. Other components of his national agenda included planting over ten million trees to halt the growing desertification of the Sahel, doubling wheat production by redistributing land from feudal landlords to peasants, suspending rural poll taxes and domestic rents, and establishing an ambitious road and rail construction program to "tie the nation together."[6] Moreover, his commitment to women's rights led him to outlaw female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy; while appointing females to high governmental positions and encouraging them to work outside the home and stay in school even if pregnant

Questionable:


In order to achieve this radical transformation of society, he increasingly exerted authoritarian control over the nation, eventually banning unions and a free press, which he believed could stand in the way of his plans and be manipulated by powerful outside influences. To counter his opposition in towns and workplaces around the country, he also tried corrupt officials, counter-revolutionaries (and) "lazy workers" in peoples revolutionary tribunals. Additionally, as an admirer of Fidel Castro's Cuban Revolution, Sankara set up Cuban-style Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR's).

[ComradeOm]

Thomas Sankara was not Africa's Guevara or Caesar. He was Africa's Thomas Sankara

[Volcanicity]

We really need to rehabilitate the reputation of Thomas Sankara I keep forgetting that he was an actual Revolutionary and not a troll on Revleft.

[graymouser]

This idea that military leaders in the third world are comparable to one of the greatest imperialist conquerors in human history has really got to stop. I mean, I love Roman history in the sense that I find it to be a fascinating period, but no one in that period was a role model for modern revolutionaries. Even the Gracchi - who were much more progressive in a sense - and Spartacus weren't people we can use as a basis. Much less Caesar.

As for Sankara, well, if you can't tell the difference between an imperialist conqueror and a revolutionary anti-imperialist fighter, well, that's a problem with your politics.

[Jose Gracchus]

This idea that military leaders in the third world are comparable to one of the greatest imperialist conquerors in human history has really got to stop. I mean, I love Roman history in the sense that I find it to be a fascinating period, but no one in that period was a role model for modern revolutionaries. Even the Gracchi - who were much more progressive in a sense - and Spartacus weren't people we can use as a basis. Much less Caesar.

As for Sankara, well, if you can't tell the difference between an imperialist conqueror and a revolutionary anti-imperialist fighter, well, that's a problem with your politics.

I don't know why he clings to this weird interpretation of Parenti's book.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Seriously, DMZ, you need to knock off "Caesarism."

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for Sankara, well, if you can't tell the difference between an imperialist conqueror and a revolutionary anti-imperialist fighter, well, that's a problem with your politics.


I don't know why he clings to this weird interpretation of Parenti's book.


Seriously, DMZ, you need to knock off "Caesarism."

Did Sankara establish a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?

[the last donut of the night]

We really need to rehabilitate the reputation of Thomas Sankara I keep forgetting that he was an actual Revolutionary and not a troll on Revleft.

when i clicked on this thread i was hoping it'd be something juicy about him

sadly not the case

[Jose Gracchus]

Did Sankara establish a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?

No. There was little to no proletariat, some considerable peasant elements, but there was little organic participation. This is just a paternalistic soldier-reformer who was killed when the logic of his regime ran to its limits, deprived of international solidarity and thorough, well-organized, democratic nizy class participation.

[graymouser]

Did Sankara establish a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?
Yes. But he did it on the moon, and you can't get there.

Seriously, how could Sankara have established this when he didn't even come to power in a popular revolution? And the idea of the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship" was one that was never tried out in practice by the Bolsheviks who had espoused it, and I'm not sure it could exist. The peasantry does not act as an independent revolutionary class.

[Jose Gracchus]

At the risk of starting a sectarian shit fit, since I do know the (as far as I see it) Engels down to Trotsky line on this subject; but Teodor Shanin has produced some scholarship that challenges the idea that Marx conceived of the peasantry in the manner in which one had become accustomed as a universal characteristic of the class, one true including outside Western and Central Europe.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No. There was little to no proletariat, some considerable peasant elements, but there was little organic participation. This is just a paternalistic soldier-reformer who was killed when the logic of his regime ran to its limits, deprived of international solidarity and thorough, well-organized, democratic nizy class participation.

That's the exact same criticism that I have of Alexander Lukashenko. ;)


Seriously, how could Sankara have established this when he didn't even come to power in a popular revolution? And the idea of the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship" was one that was never tried out in practice by the Bolsheviks who had espoused it, and I'm not sure it could exist. The peasantry does not act as an independent revolutionary class.

In actual fact they did, through Sankara's organization.

The tactics of Third World Caesarism are more flexible than those for outright proletarian revolution. As Mao proved, they can involve People's War. As Che proved, they can involve Focoism / guerrilla warfare. As the PDPA first proved in 1970s Afghanistan, they can also involve military coups d'etat (all the way down to Chavez's own coup attempt).

In fact, the original March on Rome which started a civil war on its own had elements from all three: recruitment from the countryside (People's War), insufficient road networks on the part of the Senate (guerrilla warfare), and political support resting upon the military (coup d'etat).

The bottom line is: the urban and rural elements of the "national" petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World are more likely to become politically conscious and even anti-bourgeois (although never socially revolutionary) ahead of the proletariat there. "In the final analysis," as Trots say, that is why Trotskyism isn't popular past Sri Lanka.

Because of this, if the Third World proletariat wants to popularize anti-bourgeois action and get radical social reform before it's ready to seize ruling-class power and then enact its own social revolution, it must enter into a Communitarian Populist Front with the other dispossessed classes and this "national" petit-bourgeoisie as personified by some El Presidente figure.

One programmatic example of this is could be in regards to small business labour costs: combine living wage laws with tax credits, tax simplifications, and direct labour cost subsidies ("wage subsidies" according to right-wing economists (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/salam)) for small businesses - and preferrably those becoming cooperatives. Let these businesses then lobby the state for more labour cost credits and subsidies instead of workers physically harassing small business managers.

Another programmatic example could take the form of the co-determination so derided as reformist in Germany (in the First World the denunciation is correct): in liquidating all elements of the bourgeoisie, the Third World society should strive to minimize bossnapping stunts and general economic conflict between the rank-and-file workers and the managerial/coordinator class (since the workers need to take political action without growing this from mere economic struggles).

[Oh, what the hell: In the Third World before proletarian revolution, Stakeholder Co-Management as the replacement for "workers control" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stakeholder-co-management-t145117/index.html) can have "populist" instead of "worker-" as a prefix to "stakeholder."]


At the risk of starting a sectarian shit fit, since I do know the (as far as I see it) Engels down to Trotsky line on this subject; but Teodor Shanin has produced some scholarship that challenges the idea that Marx conceived of the peasantry in the manner in which one had become accustomed as a universal characteristic of the class, one true including outside Western and Central Europe.

I started it ahead of you in the paragraph above. :p ;) :D

A few years ago, Teodor Shanin took his Late Marx paper offline. I did get the chance to read it, though. Too bad I never saved it. :cursing:

[Kléber]

first i was like :glare: ... but then i lol'd :lol:

[Dimentio]

No. There was little to no proletariat, some considerable peasant elements, but there was little organic participation. This is just a paternalistic soldier-reformer who was killed when the logic of his regime ran to its limits, deprived of international solidarity and thorough, well-organized, democratic nizy class participation.

He could. Had he not been so darn nice.

The reason why Mobutu and tons of other dictators in Africa, both left-wing and right-wing, managed to cling in power for three decades rather than three years, was because they were paranoid about their own security and power and with-took steps to kill or intimidate their subordinates.

Sankara seems to have been a good-hearted individual, and the problem with good-hearted individuals is that they often are naïve, since people in general are mentalising on the basis of themselves and thus have a hard time imagining the depths to which others could sink.

Sociopaths on the other hand, usually withtake rigorous efforts to secure their own power-base, which explains why they usually stay in power permanently (or at least for a very long time, as a too heavy hand of government could lead to popular irritation).

Some good-mooded individuals eventually turns into tyrants to survive, and Sankara would perhaps have had a worse legacy had he still been in power (the same with Che if Che had managed to succeed with his revolutions in Bolivia and Argentina).

[graymouser]

Third World Caesarism
Again, you cannot tell the difference between one of the great imperialist conquerors of all time and revolutionary anti-imperialist fighters of the 20th century. It's not even a case of a simple mistake, it's a pathological inability to understand revolutionary politics in any sense. There is no point in responding to the rest of your word salad, which continually abuses quasi-Marxian terminology beyond the point where it's meaningless, because your basic concepts are broken beyond any point of repair.

[Dimentio]

Again, you cannot tell the difference between one of the great imperialist conquerors of all time and revolutionary anti-imperialist fighters of the 20th century. It's not even a case of a simple mistake, it's a pathological inability to understand revolutionary politics in any sense. There is no point in responding to the rest of your word salad, which continually abuses quasi-Marxian terminology beyond the point where it's meaningless, because your basic concepts are broken beyond any point of repair.

Sadly, he does have a point.

Most revolutions, even in the modern era, seems to be initiated by some charismatic leader firgure, or at least ended with the people passively or actively acclaiming such an individual to leadership. The USA also had a semi-caesarian figure at the turn of the last century (Teddy Roosevelt), who was an imperialist abroad and a reformer at home.

A typical revolution seems to be having several phases.

Phase 1: The people overthrows the leader, without any other idea than that they in general are fed up with his government. (Somalia has got stuck in this phase)

Phase 2: A weak transitionary government is installed. (Ukraine, Kyrgyzistan, Tunisia(?))

Phase 3: The weak transitionary government is falling to intellectuals who want to see some kind of ideal society installed. Usually, massive civil violence occurs. (USSR, Iran, Cambodia)

Phase 4: The intellectuals are overthrown or rendered impotent by some authoritarian father figure who restores the semblance of order which people are yearning of. (France 1789, France 1848, USSR)

Phase 5: The authoritarian father figure becomes a totalitarian deity who is worshipped and beloved by the subjects. (USSR, China, North Korea)

In most revolutions, the phase 4-5 character is present from the beginning, either lurking in the background or being the focal point of the revolutionary movement.

Most revolutions lack at least one of the phases. Some even lacks phase 1 and 2 combined.

Most modern revolutions are ending up in phase 2.

At least one revolution has perpetually stopped in phase 1 (Somalia).

Usually, the people do not seem to want to rule. They seem to want to avoid being ruled over (and to have some better social rights). As long as the ruler is not being repressive, they seem perfectly content. What is repression though could vary between different ages, probably due to increased levels of education in general and the perceived wealth of the community, as well as other factors.

[graymouser]

Sadly, he does have a point.

Most revolutions, even in the modern era, seems to be initiated by some charismatic leader firgure, or at least ended with the people passively or actively acclaiming such an individual to leadership. The USA also had a semi-caesarian figure at the turn of the last century (Teddy Roosevelt), who was an imperialist abroad and a reformer at home.
Caesar is not the template for a "charismatic leader figure" though, that's based entirely on DNZ's misreading of Michael Parenti's apologia for Stalin (which people have mistaken for a book about Julius Caesar or worse, Roman history). The question of leadership is not the same as Caesarism or even (and this one is at least a Marxist category) Bonapartism, and it is somewhat monstrous to say that every revolution that has a leader is basically following the model of Caesar.


Usually, the people do not seem to want to rule. They seem to want to avoid being ruled over (and to have some better social rights). As long as the ruler is not being repressive, they seem perfectly content. What is repression though could vary between different ages, probably due to increased levels of education in general and the perceived wealth of the community, as well as other factors.
Again, I don't know if you understand it, but this is more or less a defense of Stalinism; the People don't want to rule, they want the all-knowing Party with its glorious Leader to rule for them. When in reality the organs through which the working class (the term "people" is not always demagogic but here it is) could rule do not exist. It is not any kind of revolutionary analysis, which actually looks at the dynamics of the society and why things wind up going as they do.

The above also treads a line very dangerously close to outright chauvinism, as you are saying that less educated and wealthy people will basically take more repression. I do think that the whole notion of "Third World Caesarism" is basically first world chauvinism on a scale that I consider to be almost wholly beyond the pale for a proclaimed leftist.

[Dimentio]

It is not a defense for anything. I too find it absolutely horrendous. But in general, people do not want to rule.

I am not using that as a normative statement, and find that voluntary self-disempowerment irritating, but to ignore reality and believe that reality is what you want it to be does you no good and would hamper your attempts to realise your visions since you are using a flawed interpretation model.

Do you have any actual examples that people in general seems to yearn to rule over society, or that the working class does it? Every time there has been a revolution, the people seems to have supplanted one elite for another (which generally has been somewhat less repressive, except for in the cases of the revolutions in China, USSR, DK and Iran).

I generally dislike the "glorious leader" model and the "all-knowing" parties model, and prefer division of power models which generally are more empowering to the people.

[graymouser]

To state that "the people" don't want to rule can only be true when we are talking about an undifferentiated "people." In all the failed revolutions that you could care to look at, there are classes - the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie - in very large numbers, who really don't want to rule. Peasants and petty-bourgeois both want very deeply to be left alone. Workers are different for the reason Marx said: their interests lie in controlling the means of production. This is why the working class alone is the revolutionary class.

Workers do want to rule; every time that life has come close to a genuine workers' revolution, in the Paris Commune or the Russian Revolution or the failed Hungarian and German revolutions after WWI or the Spanish Revolution in its early years, even I think in Mai '68, you see that the working class has the actual will to run society after its own interests. Hell, every time a general strike happens we get a glimpse of what that might be. The reasons why the revolutions fail differ; some involve isolation or inadequate preparation or outright betrayal.

But I have to ask: if you're saying this on a revolutionary leftist web site, why are you here? It's quite an anti-revolutionary point of view.

[Dimentio]

A revolutionary change is needed. No matter what class is most aware.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, you cannot tell the difference between one of the great imperialist conquerors of all time and revolutionary anti-imperialist fighters of the 20th century.

Weren't you the one who said that there's a difference between expansionism and imperialism, like as in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? :glare:

I'm referring to the Marxist definition of imperialism here.


Most revolutions, even in the modern era, seems to be initiated by some charismatic leader firgure, or at least ended with the people passively or actively acclaiming such an individual to leadership. The USA also had a semi-caesarian figure at the turn of the last century (Teddy Roosevelt), who was an imperialist abroad and a reformer at home.

Both Roosevelts were at best semi-Bonapartists. In the context of what I'm writing, Caesarism /= Bonapartism.


Phase 4: The intellectuals are overthrown or rendered impotent by some authoritarian father figure who restores the semblance of order which people are yearning of.

Phase 5: The authoritarian father figure becomes a totalitarian deity who is worshipped and beloved by the subjects.

In most revolutions, the phase 4-5 character is present from the beginning, either lurking in the background or being the focal point of the revolutionary movement.

As Mike Macnair commented in his critique of Permanent Revolution, the social basis for this cult of personality lies in the peasantry. They want to be left alone to their subsistence farming, but since there are the likes of shepherds and their flock who will intrude, they have to have someone at the top politically who will protect their arable land from the shepherds. The more visible the figure, the better. This can only be achieved through patrimonialism.

In another thread, I said that I have yet to see peasant political forms other than patrimonialism.


To state that "the people" don't want to rule can only be true when we are talking about an undifferentiated "people." In all the failed revolutions that you could care to look at, there are classes - the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie - in very large numbers, who really don't want to rule. Peasants and petty-bourgeois both want very deeply to be left alone. Workers are different for the reason Marx said: their interests lie in controlling the means of production. This is why the working class alone is the revolutionary class.

You are confusing the proper urban petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) with the likes of the actual self-employed, the cops, lawyers, judges, etc. Only the latter groups want to be left alone. In their own separate class, meanwhile, managers do like to participate in the political process.

The working class is the only socially revolutionary class. It is not, however, the only politically revolutionary class, as illustrated by both Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism (communal councils) and Peasant Patrimonialism, Autocracy/Absolutism, etc.


in the Paris Commune

The Paris Commune was the first Communitarian Populist Front. If Marx had mentioned the more extensive political role of the urban petit-bourgeoisie, it would have diluted his praise of the Paris Commune to a working-class audience. :)


I do think that the whole notion of "Third World Caesarism" is basically first world chauvinism on a scale that I consider to be almost wholly beyond the pale for a proclaimed leftist.

I think that Trotskyism's limited success to Sri Lanka is an indication of its own chauvinism towards the Third World urban and rural "national" petit-bourgeoisie.

[graymouser]

Weren't you the one who said that there's a difference between expansionism and imperialism, like as in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? :glare:
No, I've never said that. You must be confusing me with someone else.


I'm referring to the Marxist definition of imperialism here.
I doubt it.


You are confusing the proper urban petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) with the likes of the actual self-employed, the cops, lawyers, judges, etc. Only the latter groups want to be left alone. In their own separate class, meanwhile, managers do like to participate in the political process.
The urban petty-bourgeoisie are only involved inasmuch as capital is constantly pushing them downward, and they are either upwardly aspirational (trying - and usually failing - to make it into the ranks of the capitalist class) or siding with the proletariat. The latter do not have revolutionary potential on their own but can fight alongside the workers.


The working class is the only socially revolutionary class. It is not, however, the only politically revolutionary class, as illustrated by both Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism and Peasant Patrimonialism, Autocracy/Absolutism, etc.
Marxists should not sit around cheering for political revolutions by classes other than the proletariat. That's not our job. Proletarian revolution is. I am for proletarian political revolution in North Korea, but that's about it. Otherwise, I am for the revolutionary combination of political and social revolutions led by the working class.


I think that Trotskyism's limited success to Sri Lanka is an indication of its own chauvinism towards the Third World urban and rural "national" petit-bourgeoisie.
Tu quoque, DNZ?

Trotskyism's limited success in Sri Lanka is a testament to the opportunism of elements who entered the LSSP, the first socialist party formed in the country. This myth that Trotskyism has no third world impact is just that; some of the larger Trotskyist groups in the world have been in places like Bolivia and Argentina (not to mention Vietnam before the Stalinists physically repressed our comrades). The fact that the others have been in France, the UK and the US is immaterial. And in fact Trotskyists have organized with small producers, for instance many "self-employed" in Bolivia have been in the COB trade union federation that has been historically very strongly linked with Trotskyism. But there is no question for Trotskyists that the revolution will fail along the lines Dimentio describes unless it is led by the proletariat.

And it has to be noted, there is no such thing as a "national" petty-bourgeoisie. What would that even mean? Are you postulating a "comprador" petty-bourgeoisie against it? Or are you just throwing theoretical words around in lieu of an actual argument?

[Die Neue Zeit]

And it has to be noted, there is no such thing as a "national" petty-bourgeoisie. What would that even mean? Are you postulating a "comprador" petty-bourgeoisie against it? Or are you just throwing theoretical words around in lieu of an actual argument?

I'll respond to your post in reverse order here. Yeah, that's what I meant, to use Maoist terminology. The compradors can be identified by their emigration, for instance.


This myth that Trotskyism has no third world impact is just that; some of the larger Trotskyist groups in the world have been in places like Bolivia and Argentina (not to mention Vietnam before the Stalinists physically repressed our comrades). The fact that the others have been in France, the UK and the US is immaterial. And in fact Trotskyists have organized with small producers, for instance many "self-employed" in Bolivia have been in the COB trade union federation that has been historically very strongly linked with Trotskyism. But there is no question for Trotskyists that the revolution will fail along the lines Dimentio describes unless it is led by the proletariat.

It is no myth. Mike Macnair himself acknowledged this in his video. That small producers are allowed in trade unions is a bit class-collaborationist and against separate political and economic organizations, no?

I'd say that, if today's Maoists in the Third World dropped the "national" bourgeoisie and comprador petit-bourgeoisie en masse, their ranks would swell at the expense of the rest of the left there.


Marxists should not sit around cheering for political revolutions by classes other than the proletariat. That's not our job. Proletarian revolution is. I am for proletarian political revolution in North Korea, but that's about it. Otherwise, I am for the revolutionary combination of political and social revolutions led by the working class.

If it's led by the bourgeoisie somehow, you're absolutely right. However, proletarian revolution in the Third World can wait until demographically the proletariat is in the majority. Otherwise, it has led, is leading, and will continue to lead both advocates of Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism and advocates of Peasant Patrimonialism / Autocracy / Absolutism towards siding with the bourgeoisie.

[Dimentio]

You agree that Sankara was probably too nice for his own good?

[Die Neue Zeit]

As Inform said above, he wasn't "nice enough" re. allowing communal power a la Proudhon - in reference to my whole program re. Caesar, Proudhon's communal power, Lassalle's state-aided coops, Bismarck's Kulturkampf, Putin's managed democracy, and Chavez-Lukashenko's commanding heights statism.

Oh yeah, that's not to mention also his actions against unions and independent working-class political organization, which his legacy shares in common with Lukashenko.

:(

[graymouser]

I'll respond to your post in reverse order here. Yeah, that's what I meant, to use Maoist terminology. The compradors can be identified by their emigration, for instance.
Even if the Maoist terminology were accurate, it's ludicrous to attempt to apply it to the petty bourgeoisie. Emigrants, for instance, take money in the imperialist countries and send it by remittances to the periphery countries; how on earth is that "comprador" behavior? You give no other examples, so I have to assume that this differentiation exists only in your head.


It is no myth. Mike Macnair himself acknowledged this in his video.
Mike MacNair is not a Trotskyist, he is the leader of a tiny ex-Stalinist sect that makes its main preoccupation gossiping about Trotskyist groups. Even if he had a point, Morenoism - a variant of Trotskyism that has formed a number of internationals centered in Latin America - has disproven his point directly. A number of Trotskyist internationals have significant sections in Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere. McNair is wrong, and you are wrong.


That small producers are allowed in trade unions is a bit class-collaborationist and against separate political and economic organizations, no?
Not particularly. Third world independent producers are generally on the line of having been pushed down into the ranks of the proletariat. Just demonstrating how your picture of Trotskyism is totally and factually wrong.


If it's led by the bourgeoisie somehow, you're absolutely right. However, proletarian revolution in the Third World can wait until demographically the proletariat is in the majority. Otherwise, it has led, is leading, and will continue to lead both advocates of Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism and advocates of Peasant Patrimonialism / Autocracy / Absolutism towards siding with the bourgeoisie.
This is straight up first-world paternalism. Who the hell are you to tell third world workers that their revolution "can wait"? Given that capitalism needs to be overthrown worldwide for the sake of saving the human race from extinction, it's quite clear that you are dead wrong here.

[RED DAVE]

Did Sankara establish a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?No.

He established a capitalist military dictatorship.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

As Inform said above, he wasn't "nice enough" re. allowing communal power a la Proudhon - in reference to my whole program re. Caesar, Proudhon's communal power, Lassalle's state-aided coops, Bismarck's Kulturkampf, Putin's managed democracy, and Chavez-Lukashenko's commanding heights statism.

Oh yeah, that's not to mention also his actions against unions and independent working-class political organization, which his legacy shares in common with Lukashenko.

:(

Wasn't Burkina Faso the poorest country on the Earth, largely pre-industrial?

As for niceness, Mao managed to rule for 27 years, and I have yet to see anyone blame him for mild mannerisms.

[RED DAVE]

As Inform said above, he wasn't "nice enough" re. allowing communal power a la Proudhon - in reference to my whole program re. Caesar, Proudhon's communal power, Lassalle's state-aided coops, Bismarck's Kulturkampf, Putin's managed democracy, and Chavez-Lukashenko's commanding heights statism.

Oh yeah, that's not to mention also his actions against unions and independent working-class political organization, which his legacy shares in common with Lukashenko.

:(This is all capitalism. It has nothing to do with socialism. I serious question whether your belief system is any way revolutionary in the sense that Marxists understand it.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

In actual fact they did, through Sankara's organization.

Explain?


In fact, the original March on Rome which started a civil war on its own had elements from all three: recruitment from the countryside (People's War), insufficient road networks on the part of the Senate (guerrilla warfare), and political support resting upon the military (coup d'etat).

This is all completely wrong in the sense in which you describe it. Seriously. I think you need to consult serious histories of Caesar and the late republic before transposing (for what appears to me to be only shock or brand-name value) "Caesarism" as a means of Third World social empowerment.



Another programmatic example could take the form of the co-determination so derided as reformist in Germany (in the First World the denunciation is correct): in liquidating all elements of the bourgeoisie, the Third World society should strive to minimize bossnapping stunts and general economic conflict between the rank-and-file workers and the managerial/coordinator class (since the workers need to take political action without growing this from mere economic struggles).

What is this mean "mere economic struggles"? You shouldn't speak in code or neologism so often. Its pretty obscurantist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even if the Maoist terminology were accurate, it's ludicrous to attempt to apply it to the petty bourgeoisie. Emigrants, for instance, take money in the imperialist countries and send it by remittances to the periphery countries; how on earth is that "comprador" behavior? You give no other examples, so I have to assume that this differentiation exists only in your head.

Look at the comprador petit-bourgeoisie fleeing Venezuela right now. The class backgrounds of many of those fleeing Venezuela because of Chavez's rhetoric is mainly petit-bourgeois. Another term for this is "brain drain."


Mike MacNair is not a Trotskyist

He was a member of the USFI. Trotskyism is defined as all the documents from the first four congresses of the Comintern, the international Left Opposition, the international Communist League in the 1930s, and the Fourth International from its founding until the Pabloite split.


he is the leader of a tiny ex-Stalinist sect that makes its main preoccupation gossiping about Trotskyist groups.

Jack Conrad's the actual leader, and it's not gossip.


Even if he had a point, Morenoism - a variant of Trotskyism that has formed a number of internationals centered in Latin America - has disproven his point directly.

Morenoism has and had nowhere near the political support that Maoist or "anti-revisionist" groups had or have. It is merely a sectarian splinter from the main "Euro-centric" Trotskyism.


Third world independent producers are generally on the line of having been pushed down into the ranks of the proletariat. Just demonstrating how your picture of Trotskyism is totally and factually wrong.

Just because they are on the verge of being proletarians doesn't mean they are yet.



However, proletarian revolution in the Third World can wait until demographically the proletariat is in the majority. Otherwise, it has led, is leading, and will continue to lead both advocates of Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism and advocates of Peasant Patrimonialism / Autocracy / Absolutism towards siding with the bourgeoisie.

This is straight up first-world paternalism. Who the hell are you to tell third world workers that their revolution "can wait"? Given that capitalism needs to be overthrown worldwide for the sake of saving the human race from extinction, it's quite clear that you are dead wrong here.

Gee, I thought I was going to be accused of Third Worldist politics. :rolleyes:

See, the notion of allying with the Third World "national" petit-bourgeoisie may also have something to do with "prairie sparks setting the fire" (Mao) in the First World. Workers here need to be politically conscious, and within that class-conscious. They can't get there through mere labour struggles.

Something like a number of Third World charismatic figures agitating for pro-labour and democratic reform getting the ball rolling and pulling the pants down from the tred-iunionisty both here and there, like Chavez with the communal councils... something like that.


Explain?

Comrade, Third World militaries, by means of what Wikipedia calls "Breakthrough Coups D'Etat," can be a vehicle of social empowerment. If the new regime enacts universal military service, there are even more participants. Then if said social empowerment regime forms pro-government militias, that allows for deeper participation in national defense and public order matters than one-time conscription.


This is all completely wrong in the sense in which you describe it. Seriously. I think you need to consult serious histories of Caesar and the late republic before transposing (for what appears to me to be only shock or brand-name value) "Caesarism" as a means of Third World social empowerment.

The problem is that a lot of this Third World social empowerment employs authoritarianism during at least one point in the process. Consider FDR's pro-labour reform, even if it was in the US. It wasn't fully realized because he didn't have the guts to send in "goons" and "thugs" to intimidate the SCOTUS into not siding with "states rights."

On the other hand, El Presidente, El Comandante En Jefe Hugo Chavez Frias, has no qualms with confronting unfriendly judges:

I'm Hugo Chávez's prisoner, says jailed judge (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/14/chavez-prisoner-maria-lourdes-afiuni)

[Hence "Kulturkampferische" Bismarck, "Managed Democrat" Putin, and "Commanding Heights" Lukashenko in my album - and that last "bureaucratic" point of commentary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-venezuela-need-t141876/index.html?p=1878267#post1878267) towards the end of my People's Histories article :D ]



Another programmatic example could take the form of the co-determination so derided as reformist in Germany (in the First World the denunciation is correct): in liquidating all elements of the bourgeoisie, the Third World society should strive to minimize bossnapping stunts and general economic conflict between the rank-and-file workers and the managerial/coordinator class (since the workers need to take political action without growing this from mere economic struggles).

What is this mean "mere economic struggles"? You shouldn't speak in code or neologism so often. Its pretty obscurantist.

Sorry. :(

Mere economic struggles refer to company-wide or industry-wide strikes and such for wages, working conditions, vacations, etc. The bossnappings that occurred in France centered around "acceptable" layoff severance.

Some demands can have economistic interpretations but also more political interpretations. As I wrote, the 32-hour workweek demand supposedly addresses unemployment, definitely addresses leisure time, job sharing and "Green" issues (this latter one is not addressed by a five-day, 30-hour workweek :( ). However, time for political participation is rarely addressed, but was addressed by Marx in the First International.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

No.

He established a capitalist military dictatorship.

RED DAVE

'He established a capitalist military dictatorship.'
Thats a rather silly statement. As Sankara had vastly mobilized the Proletariat and had formed CDR's that allowed for direct representation in Burkina Faso. Prior to Sankara, Upper Volta was massively controlled by the Capitalist State and those within Upper Volta had faced massive poverty, starvation, abuse by the military and exploitation. (To say the least.)

Sankara's regime had corrected:

*Burkina Faso's Starvation and Birth Mortality Rates.
*Rural Feudalism existing in rural sectors of Burkina Faso.
*Exploitation through CDR's (Workers Councils)
*Sexism through the mobilization of women.
*Neo-Colonialism through denying the French the ability to enact debt on Burkina Faso. (Sankara intended to simply erase said debt and not regard as belonging to Burkina Faso as it was due to the previously existing Colonial Regime.)
*Military Abuse through Tribunals targeted at those within the Military that were abusing their positions and engaging in activity that was unacceptable.

Speaking of which however, prior to Sankara's gain of power... Burkina Faso was already in a state of Military Rule, as the Council of Popular Salvation was simply not Thomas Sankara, it had been the collective force of the Trade Unions within Burkina Faso and the Military. Sankara simply had used his own coup in order to get rid of the previous President that had gone against the terms of the Council of Popular Salvation's Revolution and had engaged in the abuse of power.

Sankara's leadership from 1984-1987 was in no form Capitalistic, it was attempting to phase former Upper Volta towards Socialism and in several sectors had succeeded in doing so. In which Sankara had allowed for a mixture of State Controlled Industry with Worker Self Management. As well, it had focused on the self-reliance of the Burkina Faso as opposed to the acceptance of Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Colonialism.


Speaking of which, Sankara's Rule was rather short, however judging by the Council of Popular Salvation's policies under Thomas Sankara-- It can be noted easily that Sankara was genuinely Socialist and a representative of Burkina Faso.


DAVE: If you're rather irritated about Sankara's stopping of certain Demonstrations and Trade Union Activities, this was done due to these activities being directly influenced by Neo-Colonialism. (Lenin had done similar in order to maintain the October Revolution)

As previously said though, the majority of your comments relating to Sankara are silly.

[Ermo Kruus]

Now that we're talking about Sankara here, what was the beef he had with anarcho-syndicalism? I remember seeing a clip where he denounced 'enemies of the revolution', and among them he mentioned anarcho-syndicalism.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Now that we're talking about Sankara here, what was the beef he had with anarcho-syndicalism? I remember seeing a clip where he denounced 'enemies of the revolution', and among them he mentioned anarcho-syndicalism.

1.) 'Now that we're talking about Sankara here, what was the beef he had with anarcho-syndicalism? '
Sankara had Leninist tendancies and had considered Anarcho-Syndicalism and other movements that were at the time pushing for 'Direct Proletarian Democratic Control' to be Ultra-Leftist and unable to meet practicality as opposed to the building of a Proletarian State that would be made out of the Working Class, in order to meet the needs of the Working Class.
2.) 'I remember seeing a clip where he denounced 'enemies of the revolution''
Indeed, he did denounce the enemies of the Burkina Revolution-- Which were mainly however, those within the Burkina Military that had abused their power and position Post-Revolution, Rural Social Backwardness, Ultra-Leftism and Neo-Colonialism.

[Theory&Action]

The only connection I see between Sankara and Caesar is the fact that they were both stabbed in the back by their friends. May Blaise Compaoré rot in hell.

If any of you can understand French, do yourself the favor of listening to some of his speeches on youtube. The man was a brilliant speaker, and was one of the few leftist orators to consistently use humor to get his points across.

[Ermo Kruus]

1.) 'Now that we're talking about Sankara here, what was the beef he had with anarcho-syndicalism? '
Sankara had Leninist tendancies and had considered Anarcho-Syndicalism and other movements that were at the time pushing for 'Direct Proletarian Democratic Control' to be Ultra-Leftist and unable to meet practicality as opposed to the building of a Proletarian State that would be made out of the Working Class, in order to meet the needs of the Working Class.
2.) 'I remember seeing a clip where he denounced 'enemies of the revolution''
Indeed, he did denounce the enemies of the Burkina Revolution-- Which were mainly however, those within the Burkina Military that had abused their power and position Post-Revolution, Rural Social Backwardness, Ultra-Leftism and Neo-Colonialism.
Yeah, I understand that he was a orthodox Leninist, but you would think that there were bigger "political threats" than anarcho-syndicalism in a society like Burkina Faso. Were there really any big anarchist movements in Burkina Faso at that time?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Yeah, I understand that he was a orthodox Leninist, but you would think that there were bigger "political threats" than anarcho-syndicalism in a society like Burkina Faso. Were there really any big anarchist movements in Burkina Faso at that time?

1.) 'there were bigger "political threats" than anarcho-syndicalism in a society like Burkina Faso'
As previously said, these 'Political Threats' were massively addressed by Sankara in order to ensure the success of the Burkina Revolution and ensure that Sankara's Coup would be the last Coup that Burkina Faso would have to endure in order to transition Burkina Faso towards Socialism.
2.) 'Were there really any big anarchist movements in Burkina Faso at that time?'
I'm all fairness, I'm unsure about the size. However, I'm quite certain that those ousted from potential Anarchist Trade Unions or Organizations similar, Anarchists would be capable of being rehabilitated and taking part in CDR Activities.

Speaking of which, Sankara having had illegalized certain Oppositional Parties had done so in order to quell the control that Neo-Colonialism had on certain Oppositional Parties in Burkina Faso; Those apart of said Organizations were to be allowed to take part in CDR Activities afterward.

A common misunderstanding of Sankara's stance on the Military as well is that Sankara was creating the Military to be a 'New Class'. Sankara simply attempted to reform the Military to have an 18 Month Mandatory Service Program for all of those within Burkina Faso that were applicable of serving in Burkina Faso's Military.

Within this:

*Burkina Faso's Military Troops were to be given Education, Work and Training.

More or less, the Military had simply been reformed to be a People's Army in the most sincere sense.