Sankara

[Enragé]

I watched a documentary on the guy a few days back, and he certainly did some good things. What creeped me out though at the beginning even was his undemocratic stance, even though things were going well in the country (Burkina Faso).
He, or well the people under his leadership, eliminated hunger in Burkina Faso, eliminated tribal customs which infringed on women's rights, generally emancipated the women in the country, and held a strong anti-imperialist stance. Certainly a great example for other african countries (he reminded me of Hugo Chavez except more authoritarian).

In the end, as i see it, the regime collapsed due to lack of democracy, due to a lack of spreading the revolution not only in words but also in action (i.e people actually ruling the country), this allowed for a former comrade in arms to play into growing discontent and overthrow the regime, taking a more pro-imperialist course and undo the revolution.
Basicly, it proves how even a good leader is in the end a bad leader, since he is after all a leader, has power, and thereby takes the initiative from the people.. not to mention everyone is bound to fuck up at least once.

anyway
what you all think of him?

[Prairie Fire]

"Lack of democracy" had nothing to do with it. Sankara was murdered in a bloody coup, not a peoples revolution.

Saying that it was "lack of democracy" that lead to this coup is like saying that it was "lack of democracy" that lead to the coups against Allende in Chile, or
Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran.

Most coups against third-world Presidents are CIA,spy games bullshit.
Perhaps this wasn't the case with Sankara, but I have no doubt in my mind that the US was never pleased with a Communist state in Burkina Faso (or any other country.).

Although it isn't mentioned on Wikipedia, I have no doubt that there was a CIA/US hand in the coup.

[Sankara1983]

It's late here and I'll have a more substantive reply tomorrow (you'll probably be able to guess what sort of opinions I'll have on the subject given my user name and avatar), but those who think the CNR government was undemocratic should consider Burkina Faso today, ruled by a dictator who has been in power for almost twenty years and is heavily involved in the civil wars and arms smuggling in neighboring states, not to mention assassinations of his political opponents.

If things were going so well in 1983, why was there a revolution?

[Enragé]

["Lack of democracy" had nothing to do with it. Sankara was murdered in a bloody coup, not a peoples revolution.

if you have a revolution based on the democratic control of an entire people, murdering one dude doesnt kill the revolution :rolleyes:

The point i was making that growing discontent (including a teachers' strike after which like over a thousand teachers got fired) paved the way for a smooth taking over of power.

Also, doesnt this all show that keeping a standing army is basicly very dangerous to the revolution?


Most coups against third-world Presidents are CIA,spy games bullshit.
Perhaps this wasn't the case with Sankara, but I have no doubt in my mind that the US was never pleased with a Communist state in Burkina Faso (or any other country.).

Although it isn't mentioned on Wikipedia, I have no doubt that there was a CIA/US hand in the coup.

Sure, but toppling a revolution by murdering a leader through means of the military is pretty much made impossible if you dont have one leader, but grassroots democracy, and you dont have a standing army, but militias.


but those who think the CNR government was undemocratic should consider Burkina Faso today, ruled by a dictator who has been in power for almost twenty years and is heavily involved in the civil wars and arms smuggling in neighboring states, not to mention assassinations of his political opponents.

If things were going so well in 1983, why was there a revolution?


Im not denying Sankara did many good things, he did, he came pretty close to the idea of the enlightened despot... but since such a thing is impossible in and of itself, he never quite got there.

Certainly, would Sankara have still been in power today, Burkina Faso would be better off, but his policies in my eyes paved the way for the end of his regime.

[Prairie Fire]

if you have a revolution based on the democratic control of an entire people, murdering one dude doesnt kill the revolution

Well, I'm sure the people still had revolutionary fervor. Shit, there's still revolutionary fervor in the former USSR, and all of the other ex-socialist states of Europe and elsewhere. The problem is, revolutionary fervor needs direction. A revolution needs direction. Sankara wasn't the only one who was murdered that day.

Fuck, I should have recognized the under-tones of this thread. This isn't about Sankara; It's just another Leninism vs Anarchism thread.


Also, doesnt this all show that keeping a standing army is basicly very dangerous to the revolution?


and you dont have a standing army, but militias.

<_< Peoples militias are useful during an occupation, or as an auxilery in times of war, but in a war against conventional armies, they are kind of in-effective. I mean, I have no doubt that many peoples militias in the past and present have revolutionary frevor to spare, but revolutionary fervor can&#39;t beat a nuclear war-head. to manufacture arms, especially large arms, can&#39;t be done from a grass roots level. Relying compleltely on grass roots miltias to defend your nation dooms your forces not only to weapon Obsolescence, but also divides your forces into parts rather than a whole. Pitting local militias one at a time against a conventional army, rather than unified as a whole, is insane.

A standing army is necesary, but indoctrination of the army into the theory of the new society is also necesary.


Sure, but toppling a revolution by murdering a leader through means of the military is pretty much made impossible if you dont have one leader, but grassroots democracy

Of course the Cadres would play an intregal part in the revolution, but it is naive to assume that a confederation of peoples and territories can function without some sort of federal organization.

[Enragé]

Well, I&#39;m sure the people still had revolutionary fervor. Shit, there&#39;s still revolutionary fervor in the former USSR, and all of the other ex-socialist states of Europe and elsewhere. The problem is, revolutionary fervor needs direction. A revolution needs direction. Sankara wasn&#39;t the only one who was murdered that day.


So they killed the leaders, well thats obvious. And if you kill the leaders in a revolutionary process which is focussed around those leaders directing that revolutionary process... you kill the revolutionary process
So, you shouldnt focus it around a group of leaders, i.e make them [institutionalised] leaders in the first place, but focus it around the political and economical power of the people as a whole, i.e put them in power. Now, new figures of inspiration, new "leaders" would then still arise from all those self-empowered people, because they have learned it is them who can shape the future, not just a group of ministers in a cabinet handing out the orders (however well meant).


Fuck, I should have recognized the under-tones of this thread. This isn&#39;t about Sankara; It&#39;s just another Leninism vs Anarchism thread.

In a way yes, this deals with the effects of an institutionalised leadership during a revolutionary process (or apparently revolutionary process) on the psyche of those involved in the revolutionary process.
What we can see is that the people are degraded to historical objects, rather than subjects, instead of a force shaping the future, they become the instrument in shaping the future, and the mentality of the people reflected that. When the leaders were wiped out, so was the revolution, the instrument was left without guidance, though it probably still had revolutionary fervor as you say. If the instrument becomes self-guiding, however, you&#39;d have to wipe everyone with revolutionary ideals to effectively kill the revolution.


I mean, I have no doubt that many peoples militias in the past and present have revolutionary frevor to spare, but revolutionary fervor can&#39;t beat a nuclear war-head. to manufacture arms, especially large arms, can&#39;t be done from a grass roots level. Relying compleltely on grass roots miltias to defend your nation dooms your forces not only to weapon Obsolescence, but also divides your forces into parts rather than a whole. Pitting local militias one at a time against a conventional army, rather than unified as a whole, is insane.


There is no reason why militias cannot act unified, yet still retain their democratic nature, especially when revolutionary fervor sweeps the ranks.


Of course the Cadres would play an intregal part in the revolution, but it is naive to assume that a confederation of peoples and territories can function without some sort of federal organization.

Ofcourse you&#39;ll have a "top" in the sense that there will be a small group presenting the wishes of the people to the world, the point however is that the shaping of the revolution, the carrying out of the revolutionary process can and should be under the direct guidance of the people, to ensure the longevity of the revolution and basicly to make a revolution succeed in the end (which is perfectly possible since the revolution is carried out locally first and foremost, by toppling local bosses, attacking hierarchies in the family, between sexes, races etc)