[skinster]

[skinster]

Lol at Macron

[Skynet]

New Projects by military leadership in Burkina Faso:

[Skynet]

Burkina Faso signs agreement with Russia for nuclear power plant

Burkina Faso's government said Friday that it had signed an agreement with Russia for the construction of a nuclear power plant to "cover the energy needs of the population," less than a quarter of which has access to electricity.



https://www.france24.com/en/africa/2023 ... ower-plant

Russia has realy intentions to industrialize Africa. China invested in infrastructure whereas the West send just money to bribe the Cleptocrates.

[Skynet]

Russia is treating the blacks better then the West. Russia offers industrialisation:

[Rich]

And this is ultimately why Stalin launched his reign of terror - to overcome the millennial lethargy and backwardness of the Russian people. For a while, it worked.

To what end? What was its purpose?

So that we could have impressive parades in Red Square? So as Russians could cheer on a glorified, pacified V2 programme? Even assuming that the Stalinist economy was economically and environmentally stable, what was the social end point of this industrial development? Isn't it good to have a society where things are easy, where we can afford to be soft and decadent? Isn't it good to have a society where individuals have to find meaning themselves rather be given their meaning in sort of 20th century Pharoeism?

But then do-gooders like Khrushchev and then Gorbachev came to power, and it all went to shit again.

If the post Stalin leaders were poor that's Stalin's fault he chose them. Stalin's number one goal was to make sure another Stalin could never usurp him. Stalinist systems are inherently unsustainable, because of this. Stalinist systems can only survive in the long term by becoming hereditary monarchies like North Korea or Saddam's Iraq. Hereditary monarchies were the norm in pre modern complex societies for good reason.

[Potemkin]

To what end? What was its purpose?

So that we could have impressive parades in Red Square? So as Russians could cheer on a glorified, pacified V2 programme? Even assuming that the Stalinist economy was economically and environmentally stable, what was the social end point of this industrial development?

To build socialism, and to prepare the Soviet Union for the inevitable invasion from the West, which Stalin knew was coming within ten years.

Isn't it good to have a society where things are easy, where we can afford to be soft and decadent? Isn't it good to have a society where individuals have to find meaning themselves rather be given their meaning in sort of 20th century Pharoeism?

Marx looked forward to a communist society in which the flourishing of all will depend on the flourishing of each individual, a society governed by the principle ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’. Needless to say, such a society was not possible in Russia in the 1920s or 1930s, even if Marx himself had been in charge of that society. The material basis for it had not yet been built. That was Stalin’s job.

If the post Stalin leaders were poor that's Stalin's fault he chose them. Stalin's number one goal was to make sure another Stalin could never usurp him. Stalinist systems are inherently unsustainable, because of this. Stalinist systems can only survive in the long term by becoming hereditary monarchies like North Korea or Saddam's Iraq. Hereditary monarchies were the norm in pre modern complex societies for good reason.

Stalin didn’t choose his successors, which I think was your actual point. He once told his entire Politburo “You are all as blind as newborn kittens! What will happen without me? The country will perish because you do not know how to recognise enemies!” He knew that none of his colleagues was worthy to succeed him. In retrospect, after we have witnessed the antics of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, was he wrong?

[Rancid]

. In retrospect, after we have witnessed the antics of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, was he wrong?

What about Brezhnev?

[Potemkin]

What about Brezhnev?

Twenty years of stagnation.

[Deutschmania]

Twenty years of stagnation.

At least the Soviet Union hadn't experienced stagflation. This was why Gorbachev had said that the west needs its own perestroika . https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/4980262/America-is-in-urgent-need-of-its-own-peristrokia-says-Gorbachev.html

[Rich]

To build socialism, and to prepare the Soviet Union for the inevitable invasion from the West, which Stalin knew was coming within ten years.

An invasion from the West was not inevitable within 10 years and only happened because of Stalin's incompetent leadership. First off the Marxist predicted invasions never happened. There was no war by the West to restore "capitalism" in Russia. I know the lies Marxist repeat about 14 foreign armies invading the Russian Soviet Republic at the end of World War I. What a joke, I doubt some of these forces amounted to corps strength let alone an army. Forces that invaded the post revolutionary chaos with various agendas, but no coordinated plan to restore "capitalism".

Neither was there ever an imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union in the Marxist sense of the term. Germany didn't invade the Soviet union at the behest of finance capitalists, demanding new markets and resources to overcome the falling rate of profit. The Soviet Union was invaded by ultra nationalists. It was Stalin's job to contain German Nationalism. When he came to power he had considerable influence inside Germany trough the KDP. He chose to seek to bring down the Weimar Republic, rather than prop up the liberal democracy and it was his failure after the Nazis took power to contain Germany through diplomacy. It was his decisions to eliminate the Polish and Baltic buffer states and his decisions to alienate Finland and Romania.

Stalin didn’t choose his successors, which I think was your actual point. He once told his entire Politburo “You are all as blind as newborn kittens! What will happen without me? The country will perish because you do not know how to recognise enemies!” He knew that none of his colleagues was worthy to succeed him. In retrospect, after we have witnessed the antics of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, was he wrong?

Stalin chose who would not be his successor, by killing them. As I understand it, Stalin had a bit of a breakdown at the start of Barbarossa. He knew he had failed the Soviet Union. The leadership were lost without Stalin, incapable of replacing him. Whose fault was that? Stalin killed anyone who was a threat to his dominance. Stalin killed anyone who could have replaced him, most notably in the case of Comrade Kirov.

[QatzelOk]

Russia is treating the blacks better then the West. Russia offers industrialisation:

This colonial attitude will NOT be conducive to respectful international relations. The people of Africa require respect and the right to sovereignty, like any human society does. They don't need to be "treated nicely" by foreign pet owners who can be counted on to place leashes on their necks at some point in their investment scams.

Africans don't need fake messiahs from the West, Russia or China to organize their societies for them. They need these faux-messiah thugs to leave them alone to organize their societies themselves.

So if foreign entities want to "invest" in African countries, these African countries need a defense pact to repel "too much control by investors" and they need mutual development assistance to ensure cooperation between the various artificially-created countries that currently exist within Africa itself.

And the real leaders of these countries KNOW THIS. Western media builds incredibly fake narratives regarding Africa and most of the Global South. And when you realize who owns Western media, you understand why they have no time for the truth about these other societies and the many advantages that they have over ruined industrial societies that approach bankruptcy on many levels.

[Skynet]

@QatzelOk China was also industrialized by Russia, Mao got Factories and nuclear facilities by Russia... Africa could industrialize alone but this would take houndreds of years instead decades.

[QatzelOk]

@QatzelOk China was also industrialized by Russia, Mao got Factories and nuclear facilities by Russia... Africa could industrialize alone but this would take houndreds of years instead decades.

Africa has a lot of resources with which to finance their industrialization OR a different path to development if it so chooses.

I suppose one big advantage of being co-developed by other countries is that your own country doesn't have to "re-invent" processes and structures that have already been perfected elsewhere.

But a huge disadvantage of "foreign aid" or "foreign development assistance" is that these foreign nations can manipulate the original program ... as they give your nation free stuff. They can buy their way into altering programs in a way that debase national sovereignty.

[JohnRawls]

At least the Soviet Union hadn't experienced stagflation. This was why Gorbachev had said that the west needs its own perestroika . https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/4980262/America-is-in-urgent-need-of-its-own-peristrokia-says-Gorbachev.html

Then what exactly did the Soviet Union experience under Brezhnev? Inflation has two main causes very high demand or very low supply. What did Gorbachev try to deal with then?

Gorbachev is given too much crap for the shit he was handed which nobody probably could reform under the conditions and people he had. China had Hong Kong at least to help with reforms. Soviets didn't have anything.

[Deutschmania]

Then what exactly did the Soviet Union experience under Brezhnev? Inflation has two main causes very high demand or very low supply. What did Gorbachev try to deal with then?

Gorbachev is given too much crap for the shit he was handed which nobody probably could reform under the conditions and people he had. China had Hong Kong at least to help with reforms. Soviets didn't have anything.

Vietnam had to deal with similar issues , before the implementation of the Doi Moi reforms . And , unlike the People's Republic of China , they didn't have any special administrative region to do trade with . Instead they have had to trade with such countries as the United States .

[JohnRawls]

Vietnam had to deal with similar issues , before the implementation of the Doi Moi reforms . And , unlike the People's Republic of China , they didn't have any special administrative region to do trade with . Instead they have had to trade with such countries as the United States .

Sure but that is way harder to do when you are Soviet Union a global superpower in race with dominance against Europe and US having millions of forces on each ones borders. One would assume the treatment of Vietnam would be much lenier compared to the Soviet Union since Vietnam already had experience of capitalism under the French and US and didn't threaten the balance of power in the world. They didn't have a gap of 70 years before and after also. The Soviet Union did.

Totally incomparable examples.