...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Enrique Cardova says Nkrumah, Nyerere, Kaunda failures all, (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Enrique Cardova says Nkrumah, Nyerere, Kaunda failures all,
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Africa in Chaos: A Comparative History
George B.N. Ayittey

Enrique Cardova review:
Excellent book by Ayittey showing the yet again the failures of the liberal-left vision, and its cynical collaborators in business and government bureaucracies. Yet again and again Western taxpayers are called upon to prop up these vampire states- money down an endless rathole.
-
The "leaders" of many of these failed states have been feted and celebrated in the liberal West, none more so than Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Kaunda. Buit it is all hypocrisy and delusion. Some claim glowing accomplishments by these leaders, but in fact things like high literacy rates are carry-overs from the colonial administrations. In short, the literacy rate and educational opportunities were ALREADY rising rapidly when the colonialists pulled out, rendering claims of "improvement" in these areas suspect. The same pattern is repeated in economic development. Agriculture and industry were ALREADY expanding when the kleptocrats and dictators took over. Under them this progress not only declined but in many cases simply vanished.

As for Nkrumah's or Nyere's much touted educational "progress" and "free" medical care, it was neither progressive or free. What use is "free" when your "health" clinics are chronically short of medicine, and competent staff? Just how much "improvement" is there when you don't have enough money to staff or maintain your "free" institutions to even minimal standards? What use is "education" amid cruimbling schools and unpaid teachers, or when you are herding forcibly herding people into dirty, poverty mired "ujamma" villages to be harangued by party hacks about "African socialism"? When has "socialism" fed starving people?

Ayittey exposes the bogus claims, and nonsensical fantasies, and cynical self-serving by Western elites and their vampire-like African compradors. A great read, but of course- no one will lesson while even yet more millions of Africans are needlessly sacrificed to fulfill the greed, corruption and self-congratulatory fantasies of Western elites and their African lackeys.

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^Of course. Nothing I haven't said on ES as well.
See my long ES exchange with markelion where I
quite understand Nkruma's desire for development
and libeation. It's HOW he went about it is the
problem. Ayittey's book is spot on.

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IronLion
Member
Member # 16412

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for IronLion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zarahan

Why do you hold such opinion on Nkrumah? Please elaborate a bit more...

Lion!

--------------------
Lionz

Posts: 7418 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ayitteh? I mean the man is a complete jackass. Anytime you see the American media refer to some negro as an "important thinker" you know that person is some kind of fraud.

Ayittteh claims to be an economist but his ideas are incredibly naive--even to the point of stupidity.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Ayitteh? I mean the man is a complete jackass. Anytime you see the American media refer to some negro as an "important thinker" you know that person is some kind of fraud.

Ayittteh claims to be an economist but his ideas are incredibly naive--even to the point of stupidity.

what is naive about his ideas?


Video:

George Ayittey: Cheetahs vs. Hippos for Africa's future

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


.

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
European interest in Africa were began by Corporations. These corporations have different names today but there roots lie in these giant companies that carved up Africa into business monopolies.


Businessmen are usually crooks. The ideas of George Ayittey are naive because he assumes that Africans can have good government when the countries they rule were created to produce specific comodities for corporations headed by crooks.

To have a stable economy you must have diverse economy which provides the population with opportunities to support themselves and be fed. Since African governments were and are made to cater to the wishes of the multinational businesses there is no incentive for internal development if that development does not benefit Western business interest.

Given this realty it is naive to expect any real social and economic development for these contries when the means for production are external--and under foriegn control.

Posts: 12261 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn that's the first sensible post Ive ever seen from Winters!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Damn that's the first sensible post Ive ever seen from Winters!

for real, but Clyde is Newton when compared to Mike111..
Posts: 7970 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^The other night, I was watching a program updating the situation in Haiti. Seems there has been no change in the plight of the people. I was somewhat taken aback by the peoples demands: they angrily demanded "FOREIGN AID NOW!"

Seemingly, they view charity as a god given right. And see no responsibility for themselves or their government.

To the disinterested bystander, it would seem that all roads logically lead to socialism, for these hopeless nations, with no other hope in providing even the basics for their populations.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Addendum:

Last month I was reading an article about Cuba negotiating a sweetheart deal with Venezuela for oil.

Obviously Venezuela had to provide the oil;

What did Cuba provide?

DOCTORS!!!

Could have been scientists, teachers, whatever. Just so happens Venezuela needed Doctors.

It took them 50 years, to go from an island of ignorant peasants with nothing, to people who have something.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^As far as I know, there are NO Billionaires in Cuba, probably few millionaires.

There are also no starving people.
There are no homeless people.
there are no people without access to an education.
There are no people suffering from untreated disease.
(Education and health care are universal).

No one has everything, but everyone has something!

After 50 years in the incubator, Cubans will soon CHOOSE whether to join the Capitalist world, or to remain as they are for a while longer - Socialism can only last but for so long.

Which they choose is irrelevant, what is important, is that they gave themselves a CHANCE to CHOOSE!

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gigantic
Member
Member # 17311

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gigantic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^The Cuba experiment was a dismal failure. Ask Fidel...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/09/castro-admits-cubas-communism-doesnt-work/

--------------------
Will destroy all Black Lies

Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gigantic:
^The Cuba experiment was a dismal failure. Ask Fidel...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/09/castro-admits-cubas-communism-doesnt-work/

"A dismal failure?"

Don't you see, making stupid statements like that, only prove MKs point that Albinos are miswired and can't understand complicated issues? (Pure "Tea Bagger").

Going from a poor country with illiterate people and nothing: to a country which can export it's skilled and educated citizenry, is a dismal failure?

And then having the intelligence to understand that developing societies OUTGROW socialism, and must be changed when that time comes, is a dismal failure?

Only to the American mind, which has been programed to exalt, and offer even more, to those who prey upon them, does that make sense (Pure "Tea Bagger"). Those idiots proudly proclaim themselves "Tea Bagger" nation - not a brain between them - ya Gigantic, those are your people.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Oh ya, I forgot, you are too stupid to understand what I just said. I will explain.

You have been programed to measure national success in how many Billionaires and Millionaires you have produced. The plight of ordinary people is of no concern, because they are that way because of their own lack of ambition or laziness.

You refuse to tax the wealthy, because when you become wealthy, just like them, you don't want the government to take your money either.

Yes indeed, a nation of geniuses, "Tea Bagger" nation.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nkrumah's experiment was the most successful to date on the African continent. His empahasis on education still has its postive repercussions in that even today Ghana's teachers and technical skills in things like basic technology are the most respected in West Africa.

There was the great fear on the part of the West that Ghana was advancing too fast on the industrialisation route and hence the strangulation on the part of Britain and the U.S. The CIA coup against Nkrumah was hatched right there in the U.S. embassy at the time.

Attiyeh talks foolishly about going back to the African village economies. That's just wrong. What's needed are something along the blue-print lines of South Korea in terms of technological development and the Cuban model[maximal reults for minimal costs] in terms of health needs.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what countries in Africa are relatively more independent of Western economic influence?

also are Ujamaa and the Arusha Declaration good models for Africa?

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Strange questions: looks like you are reading them from an old book.

As I said something like the Korean or Taiwan model is the way to go. This entails massive investment in education and a serious-minded technocratic class in government.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IronLion:
Zarahan

Why do you hold such opinion on Nkrumah? Please elaborate a bit more...

Lion!

Lion, see the link below for details. Once again,
I quite understand Nkrumah's desire for independence
but is HOW he went about it that brought disaster.
He sunk money into huge industrial and building
projects that failed. He used corrupt government
marketing boards to strip, squeeze and impoverish
the small African farmer. And the dismal list goes on.
What he should have done is avoid those mistakes
which would have given him the economic base to make
Ghana a powerhouse on the continent and in the
non-aligned movement- a true Third Force.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=15;t=003134

----------------------------------------------
And Nkrumah is only one example. Take Nigeria
in this snippet from another thread:


1-- The oil industry set off a vicious scramble for political office and the weath that goes with. Unlike the West where wealth is connected with the private sector, in large parts of Africa government office is the key to wealth. Since politics is all, the struggle is deadly.

2-- Political office and the associated patronage allows lucrative money making opportunities- not chump change salaries but perks, bribes to be extracted, contracts to be skimmed, payments to be kicked back, and other assorted shakedowns. The shakedowns could be small. Need your mail delivered by the postman? Fork out a bribe, or your mail may not get there. Need a job? Fork over bribes to the foreman at such and such a shop or you will not get that job. Or they could be on a massive scale involving millions.

3-- Everybody has to pay to play, whether you are a western contractor on a project or a local company. The Shagari regime in the 1980s for example was termed "a government of contractors, for contractors, by contractors. According to Larry Diamond, an American expert on Nigeria cabinet meetings were a "grand bazaar" where the "resources of the state were put up for auction." The standard kickback on contracts was about 50% and the cost of gubment contracts, inflated by kickbacks was 200% higher than in Kenya. An audit inquiry found that the costs of construction in NIGERIA were THREE TImES HIGHER than in east Africa and North Africa and 4 times higher than in Asia.


4-- Along with standard corruption is the massive diversion of resources into the hands of the corrupt elites, a vast web of smuggling and fraud winked at, or directly controlled by them. In short, the elites have constructed elaborate siphoning and skimming machines, extracting the wealth of the country for their benefit. Shagari paled in comparison to other "big men" such as Gen Ibrahaim Babangida- whom Diamond calls one the most corrupt leaders in all of Nigerian history. The oil price increases in the early 1990s made Nigeria massive amounts of money- billions. Much of that money disappeared into the hands of the ruling elite, channeled via so called "dedication accounts" attached to particular projects and ministries. The WOrld bank estimated that 2.1 BILLION in petro receipts were diverted in 1990 and 1991 to "other" budgetary accounts. Between 1988 and 1993, 12.2 BILLION vanished into such accounts, controlled by the elite. More than 1 billion a year- equaling as much as 15% of recorded government revenues flowed into the web of greed and deceit. The "web of corruption" strategy involves getting a large number of elites and semi-elites on board, to make corruption pervasive and permeating society.

Yet for all this vast wealth flowing into Nigeria via oil money, in 1991 a World bank REPORT RANKED nIGERIA AS THE 13TH POOREST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.


5-- Another hindrance to Nigerian development is squandering of vast resources on "prestige" projects.A total of 8 BILLION has gone into constructing a steel industry complex at Ajaokuta that has YET to produce a single bar of steel as of 2000. After 20 years of construction, the steelworks STILL is not finished. Accordint ot BBC news report near 2000 below:
"Ajaokuta's technology is now outdated and it is more economical for Nigeria to import steel than to keep the plant going."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/515788.stm

Here is yet another reason why Africa needs to sometimes import so much, internal incompetence and corruption force imports as the only way to get vital goods into circulation. We have seen it time and time again - extravagant prestige projects rotting inthe bush or producing overpriced, shoddy goods when the same goods at better quality can be got on the world market for a much better price. As of 2010, the Nigeria regime was set to sink YET MORE money into the steel "production" morass. After 20 years of incompetence the ordinary masses are STILL being shafted by the elites.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201006280408.html


Billions more have been sunk into the ultra modern capital at Abuja, with glittering hotels and office towers, all of ittle benefit to the bulk of the people. Abacha's greed exceeded ALL of his successors. He stole 4 BILLION direct from the treasury or thru contract kickbacks, or scams like the PEtro Trust Fund he set up to channel extra cash brought about by increases in gas prices. The looting continued into General Abubakar's regime, meanwhile foreign exchange reserves shrank 2.7 billion between Dec 1998 and March 1999.

------------------------

The regimes of the brutal General Abacha and others continued this pattern of utter corruption. Meanwhile the ordinary black masses suffer terribly while the pigs at the top feast greedily. Ogioniland, one of the oil producing areas, has generated over 30 BILLION worth of oil, yet the 500,000 people of the region have seen only the barest trickle down. Abacha brutally suppressed dissent in the area.

Fittingly he died in the arms of two Indian prostitutes in 1998. His successor was better-easing political repression and making moves for democracy, but the pattern of greedy corruption still continues. Despite over a 280 Billion PLUS oil bonanza over the years, as the 2000s approached Nigeria remained a derelict state -- hospitals and schools decaying, inefficient public services, roads and infrastructure crumbling, higher education virtually collapsing. On the average Nigerians in 2000 were poorer than they were during the oil boom of the 1970s. Income at $310 per head was actually LESS than one-third what it had been in 1980. Half the population loved on l;ess than 30 cents a day, half had no access to safe drinking water, one fifth of the children in Nigeria died before their 5th birthday, and on and on the sad tale goes. The masses suffer at the bottom, while the pigs on top eat their fill greedily.


As novelist Chinua Achebe wrote in 1983
"The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to responsibility, to the challenge of personal example, which are the hallmarks of true leadership"

Writer Wole Soyinka describes Nigeria as the "open sore of a continent."


-----------------------------------------------------------


Some seem to have this mentality that you should
not criticize anything about African leaders or
countries cuz they are black. I don't agree with
that at all.

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Nkrumah's experiment was the most successful to date on the African continent. His empahasis on education still has its postive repercussions in that even today Ghana's teachers and technical skills in things like basic technology are the most respected in West Africa.

There was the great fear on the part of the West that Ghana was advancing too fast on the industrialisation route and hence the strangulation on the part of Britain and the U.S. The CIA coup against Nkrumah was hatched right there in the U.S. embassy at the time.

Attiyeh talks foolishly about going back to the African village economies. That's just wrong. What's needed are something along the blue-print lines of South Korea in terms of technological development and the Cuban model[maximal reults for minimal costs] in terms of health needs.

lamin, you are sorely misinformed. Nkrumah's
"experiment" was not only unsuccessful but led
to massive suffering and impoverishment for
ordinary Africans. The hostility of Western
imperialists is no justification for his blunders.
In fact, far from fear of Ghana's industrial
build-up, the imperialists laughed, because Nkrumah
had neither the technical expertise or the capital
to realize his ambitious plans. The result was
millions spent producing shoddy goods, followed
by rotting machinery in the bush, unable to be
maintained. If I was a Western imperialist that
wanted to discredit Nkrumah, I would rather URGE
him to keep making such blunders. The wasteful
spending on elaborate buildings and expensive,
far-flung diplomatic missions and establishents
is another example of the failure. If anything
Nkrumah's spending spree put desperately needed
African cash into white hands, not those of the
black masses suffering on the ground. I bet even
lioness could point out some of Nkrumah's
mistakes to you.

And where and how does Ayitteh talk about going
back to African village economies? Be specific,
give a concrete example where he says this. So
he wants Africans to ditch modern vehicles, electricity,
factories, etc and go back to simple bush farming?
You can't be serious. I challenge both you and
lioness to give a concrete example of this claim.

And when you say Africa needs something along the
" blue-print lines of South Korea in terms of technological development", what do you mean?


and Jari,

Surely you must see some good in Mike and Clyde.
Are they beyond redemption? what about some of
the information they have put forth on different
subjects?

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
far from fear of Ghana's industrial
build-up, the imperialists laughed,...If I was a Western imperialist that
wanted to discredit Nkrumah, I would rather URGE
him to keep making such blunders.

If his "blunders" were such a great service to them (impoverishing Ghanaians; weakening Africans) why did they not leave him alone? Based on your argument ousting him would be actually doing Ghanaians a favor. Why would the west do that (engineer a coup) if he was no threat to their power?
quote:
If anything
Nkrumah's spending spree put desperately needed
African cash into white hands,

So why did they overthrow him? It doesn't make sense. And what are your views of Rawlings? [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zarahan,
You are just being misinformed by a hack economist--one of the Wall Street Journal's favourite negroes.


In terms of what was needed to move Ghana forward during his time, Nkruhmah had the right ideas concerning education. At the time there was massive educatioanl training going on in Ghana--to the extent that Nigerians who are much more numerous in numbers than Ghanians were always asked "Are you from Ghana"--such was the worry and consternation in the West.

It is a fact that Ghana at the time wanted to go the heavy industry route of the Soviets and China, with a strong central government. But the greedy, ignorant new bourgeoisie caste that was springing found a willing partner in the British and the the U.S. So they comnspired to have him overthrown. There was also the usual confounded ethnic thing at play too--as in most African countries.

The Soviet model, the Chinese model and even the north Korean model worked for a number of years because it allowed the state to harness all resources for the purpose of industrialisation. Ghana was also pursuing a nuclear energy policy which really alarmed the West. [check the New African archives on this].

Re farming: Nkrumah did not collectivise African [cocoa]farming as was the norm in China and the USSSR.

Don't be bamboozeld by Ayitteh's nonsense.


Nkruhma's weakness was that unlike Castro or the North Koreans he still had some trust in Westerners. The first Vice Chancellor of the University of Ghana was Conor Cruise O'Brien from Ireland and his confidential secretary was an English woman.

And Nkrumah's Pan-Africanism was right on target--but the West's puppets in Africa--the Monrovia group, etc.--were all too willing to do the West's biddings.

Just as Wikileaks is doing today: confidential cables between the U.S. and British officials show that they were really very, very concerned of the repercussions of Nkrumah's understanding of their game and his willingness to do something about it.

Item: A book Nkrumah wrote titled "Imperialism--the Last Stage of Capitalism" so enraged U.S. President, Lyndon Johnson that he told his staff, "This man must go".

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If his "blunders" were such a great service to them (impoverishing Ghanaians; weakening Africans) why did they not leave him alone? Based on your argument ousting him would be actually doing Ghanaians a favor. Why would the west do that (engineer a coup) if he was no threat to their power?

I said if the imperialists wanted to discredit
Nkrumah, his blunders provided plenty of
ammunition. As for his threat - sure- his fierce
denunciation of colonialism, non aligned stance,
praise of the Soviets etc etc made him an enemy
in a number of Western capitals.

Would you say that all the poverty and chaos that
descended on Ghana during Nkrumah's reign is due
to the Western imperialists? It's all the fault of
the West? Would you say the ordinary Ghanians
that suffered under Nkrumah are deluded tools of
imperialism? That their suffering didn't really happen?
As for Rawlings haven't thought of him much. What
would you say about him? Is he a tool of Western
imperialism?


lamin-

In terms of what was needed to move Ghana forward during his time, Nkruhmah had the right ideas concerning education. At the time there was massive educatioanl training going on in Ghana--to the extent that Nigerians who are much more numerous in numbers than Ghanians were always asked "Are you from Ghana"--such was the worry and consternation in the West.

It is a fact that Ghana at the time wanted to go the heavy industry route of the Soviets and China, with a strong central government. But the greedy, ignorant new bourgeoisie caste that was springing found a willing partner in the British and the the U.S. So they comnspired to have him overthrown. There was also the usual confounded ethnic thing at play too--as in most African countries.

The Soviet model, the Chinese model and even the north Korean model worked for a number of years because it allowed the state to harness all resources for the purpose of industrialisation. Ghana was also pursuing a nuclear energy policy which really alarmed the West. [check the New African archives on this].

Re farming: Nkrumah did not collectivise African [cocoa]farming as was the norm in China and the USSSR.

Don't be bamboozeld by Ayitteh's nonsense.


Nkruhma's weakness was that unlike Castro or the North Koreans he still had some trust in Westerners. The first Vice Chancellor of the University of Ghana was Conor Cruise O'Brien from Ireland and his confidential secretary was an English woman.

And Nkrumah's Pan-Africanism was right on target--but the West's puppets in Africa--the Monrovia group, etc.--were all too willing to do the West's biddings.

Just as Wikileaks is doing today: confidential cables between the U.S. and British officials show that they were really very, very concerned of the repercussions of Nkrumah's understanding of their game and his willingness to do something about it.

Item: A book Nkrumah wrote titled "Imperialism--the Last Stage of Capitalism" so enraged U.S. President, Lyndon Johnson that he told his staff, "This man must go".


^^
Lamin:

How could it be the right idea in education when
the schools kept cranking out hundreds of graduates
with little realistic prospect of productive jobs
in a crumbling economy made worse by the very
policies of Nkrumah? How is this the "right"
approach? And are you saying that the heavy
industry Soviet model helped Ghana? How so, when
Nkrumah did not have the technical personnel to
maintain such industry? How so when said industry
produced substandard goods and was unable to be
maintained? Ghana was much more prosperous than
either Korea at the time of its independence. Why
would N. Korea's dismal model serve as an example for Ghana?


And you keep making all these claims about Aiyeteh
but still have produced nothing credible to
back them up.

1) You say Aiyeteh calls for a return to "African
village economies:" I again ask, where is concrete
proof of this? What did he mean by this? Still
waiting for you to back up your claims with a
concrete example.

2) You now refer to "Aiyeteh's nonsense claims"
re Nkrumah collectivised cocoa farming. Did
Aiyeteh really claim this or are you putting
words in his mouth? Where and when did Aiyeteh
claim Nkrumah collectivised cocoa farming like the
Soviets and Chinese?

3) Up above you say that Ghana would have
benefited from a -quote- "blue-print lines of
South Korea in terms of technological
development", but you still can't explain what
this means. What does that mean? Are you aware
that the policies that led to S. Korea's develop-
ment were much different from Nkrumah's approach?


4) Later on you switch from S. Korea to N. Korea
as a model for development. Which is it? South
or North? And how would N. Korea with over half-a-
million dead from famine serve as a model for
Ghana or any other African country? Please elucidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine


5) If as you say: "The Soviet model, the Chinese
model and even the north Korean model worked for
a number of years.." -- how does or did this
"work" for millions of impoverished Ghanians
under Nkrumah's policies? If they "worked" why
such bad results?

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lamin also please comment on Nyerere
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nyrere's economic/agricultural policies generally described as "ujaama" were just idealistic and wrong. Collectivisation village agricultural units were ineffective.

Zarahan,

I don't think understand economics or economic history at all. That's why you easily succumb to the nonsene written by Ayitteh.

The problem that places like the Soviet Union and China faced at the start of the 20th century was that they lacked the industrial base to compete with the West--i.e. Britain and the U.S especially. The local business classes were parctically non-existent--thereby making their countries vulnerable to Western capitalist penetration.

The solution was industrialise as quickly as possible and to prevent their states from being colonised as Africa and parts of Asia had experienced. That was the pratical function of the 1917 and 1949 revolutions in Russia and China.

After the revolutions the centralised states took over the job of economic and technological development. In Russia it was heavy industry under Lenin and in China it was heavy industry plus the collectivisation of the rural farms.

This served the Soviet well in WWII and China in eventually blocking penetration by the West. Russia eventually industrialised: heavy industries and an indienous war machinery: tanks, fighter jets, sputnik, nuclear weapons, etc.

Taiwan: the Chinese business classes fled to Formosa(Taiwan) and they developed their nation becausde the U.S. provided them with almost free capital. Same for South Korea. Seriousmindedeness plus free capital--to counteract China and North Korea--led to industrialisation and technological development. The North Korean famine thing was grossly exaggerated--all in the name of U.S. propaganda. It's all in the game.

Under Nkrumah Ghana was trying the same thing but the plan was stymied by the West--when the job was just 25% done.

Note that in both cases of China and Taiwan the state played a central role in harnessing capital in bulk for developmental purposes.

Here's how you do it:
1) You harness bulk capital which you use to establish basic industries. This cuts back on the import bill.

2)You block imports of same with tariffs while your infant industries develop.

3)Spend massively on technological education plus liberal arts such as history, economics, engineering, etc.

4) Stage 2: You invest in a machine tools industry--so that you can manufacture the tools and technology to produce the more advanced technological goods. This again cuts back on the import bill. You can then manufacture items such as bicycles, radios, refrigerators, etc. Recall that in Stage 1 you were just able to manufacture basic things like batteries, torches, lamps, etc.

5) You begin exporting Stage 2 products now. You undercut the West because your costs of production are much lower.

6) With the accumulated reserves--i.e. surplus capital you again develop you technological base so that you start producing things like computers, ships, automobiles, etc.


This was Nkrumah's blueprint but unfortunately it did not come to fruition In the meantime you use your surplus capital for universal health care and education for all. The goal is to keep the technological development going.


This has not happened in Africa because of a number of factors including an inability to implement Nkrumah's policies: regional integration, single currencies, regional High Commands, free movement labour and peoples across the artificial colonia borders, etc.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zarahan,
I know what you said, I can read. I am just asking you a question, because you seem to be contradicting yourself: if he was such an epic failure, impoverishing Ghanaians, why did the west overthrow him? How much of a threat could he be if he was creating poverty and chaos? If you are going to say they did it because he was "going communist" you will need to provide concrete evidence of this.

As for blaming everything on the west, this is the typical red-herring argument like the claim about not wanting to criticize African leaders because they are black, blah blah blah. In fact so far it is you who seem to be blaming everything on Nkrumah, his socialist policies, expensive (unnecessary?) diplomatic missions (Pan Africanism?), education programs, machinery etc etc. Where does the west come in here? What did *they* do to impoverish Ghana?

I asked you about Rawlings because he was the antithesis of Nkrumah, in terms of ideology and economics, and yet his "structural adjustment" of Ghana (capitalist ethic, belt tightening, no expensive buildings and heavy machinery here) was a dismal failure. It is amazing how you seem to know everything about Nkrumah's socialist failures (which are real) but haven't given much thought about other leaders and the merits of their approach. If Nkrumah was an example of a failed African leader, who got, or is getting it, right in your view?

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AnguishOB,
Zarahan is getting his views from Ayitteh--a real hack of a social theorist.

You talk of Nkrumah's "socialist failings". Well, if such, it's because he was allowed enough time to implement his policies. But even so, Ghana's educational infrastructure still reverberates in West Africa. Go to any so-called Anglophone country in West Africa and you hear people talk of the competence of Ghanians in technology, teaching, etc.

And again, regardless of Nkrumah's failings, his ideas expressed in his books and papers are still the way for Africa to go. It's just that the present-day leadership is abysmally low-grade.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correction above: "he was not allowed time to implement his policies.
Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Anguish

^^I already said his fierce denunciation of
colonialism, non aligned stance, praise of the
Soviets etc etc made him an enemy in a number of
Western capitals. And if he were creating poverty
and chaos, obviously he was impacting the profits
of some Western businesses. You seem however to
dispute the fact of his many mistakes, as if the
millions of Africans who suffered are all deluded
tools of imperialism. Do you agree that the
n.korean/soviet model was the best approach? Why
or why not? Do you agree with how he handled
agriculture? Do you agree with his dictatorial
policies? How do Nkrumah's mistakes come in
here? What did he do to impoverish Ghana?


As for Rawlings, what proof do you have that he
was darling of the West? After all he overthrew
an elected government long after Nkrumah was gone.
What proof do you offer that his "structural
adjustment" was a dismal failure? Compared to
what? Give examples.
And what were the merits of Nkrumah's policies,
compared to those of Rawlings? And you need to
answer your own question first- if Nkrumah was
such a great guy in your view, who else like him,
following such policies, is getting it right?

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never said he was a "great guy", that N.Korea or USSR were the best approach. Or that I agreed with all his policies (although we never know how it would turn out because of the coup). You are putting words in my mouth, the obvious straw-man tactic of those on the losing end of an argument.

As for dictatorship, that's another bullshit argument, has nothing to do with (material) success or failure of a country. Example China, Singapore, in fact all the Asian Tigers at the time of their economic "take off' were dictatorships, euphemistically referred to as "authoritarian" regimes informed by so-called "Asian values".

quote:
I already said his fierce denunciation of
colonialism, non aligned stance, praise of the
Soviets etc etc made him an enemy in a number of
Western capitals.

How the hell does rhetoric make one a threat to international finance capital? Again you make no sense here.
quote:
And if he were creating poverty and chaos,
Bingo. So you do blame him for all Ghana's problems at the time. I'm not saying he didn't have his faults but accusing him of "creating" poverty and chaos is straight out of the reactionary hand book. Your mask is coming off as we go on.

As for impacting profits of capitalists, yes I would agree his actions were a threat to them but it had nothing to do with him "creating poverty and chaos" which you have yet to prove: was it his "creation", western saboteurs had nothing to do with it?... which would be amazing given the cold war context.
quote:
As for Rawlings, what proof do you have that he was darling of the West? After all he overthrewn elected government long after Nkrumah was gone.
I believe Rawlings he was an obvious agent, planted to implement (America controlled) IMF SAPs. Why do you think he implemented the (failed) IMF policies when he came in? Obviously part of the deal. Don't be naive, if he wasnt given a green light by the west he could never think of overthrowing the government. Where would he get the support?
quote:
What proof do you offer that his "structural
adjustment" was a dismal failure? Compared to
what? Give examples.

The IMF SAPs he implemented were a complete failure as it failed to turn Ghana into other industrialized rich capitalist countries that are model for world, Singapore, S.Korea and even the NICs like Brazil.

I'm not going to go do a search and cut and paste job. Years ago I did a paper in college about SAPs in Africa (Ghana included) and the consensus was they were *all* dismal failures. Ghana today is still a "developing" (i.e. poor) country. After half a century of turning their backs on his anti-colonial legacy and his "communism", still no Japan or S.Korea in western Africa.

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lamin said:
Nyrere's economic/agricultural policies generally described as "ujaama" were just idealistic and wrong. Collectivisation village agricultural units were ineffective.

But lamin, Nkrumah helped accomplished the same
impoverishment of farmers Nyerere did using
confiscatory marketing boards, declining investment
in agriculture, etc etc.. If millions of ordinary
Africans suffered under their regimes, why
do you say Nkrumah was OK, while Nyeree was not?


Zarahan,
I don't think understand economics or economic history at all. That's why you easily succumb to the nonsene written by Ayitteh.


Alas lamin, it is painfully obvious that you have little
understanding of economics or economic history.


The problem that places like the Soviet Union and China faced at the start of the 20th century was that they lacked the industrial base to compete with the West--i.e. Britain and the U.S especially. The local business classes were parctically non-existent--thereby making their countries vulnerable to Western capitalist penetration. The solution was industrialise as quickly as possible and to prevent their states from being colonised as Africa and parts of Asia had experienced. That was the pratical function of the 1917 and 1949 revolutions in Russia and China.

You have a number of problems here. There was
actually a quite strong local businesss class in China and Russia
prior to communism. Indeed, communists spent a great
deal of time trying to eradicate such a class. Right off
the bat you are inaccurate in your claims..

And Russia was actually an imperial colonial power well
before Communism- from Siberia to the Balkans. It did
not have to "go communist" to prevent itself being colonized
by Britain or the United States. Your assumption here is
plainly wriong. China itself was an imperialist colonial
power prior to the coming of the "West."

When you say "the solution", "solution" according to
whom?


After the revolutions the centralised states took over the job of economic and technological development. In Russia it was heavy industry under Lenin and in China it was heavy industry plus the collectivisation of the rural farms.

Actually, economic and technological development
was underway in both Russia and China prior to
communist takeovers. Communism did not suddenly
introduce economic and technological development as you
are trying to imply. But aside from that, why do you so
conveniently skip over the human costs of the industrialization
drive? What about the millions of murdered or starved kulaks?
The millions that perished duing the 'Great Leap"? To them they
are nothing eh? Like the ordinary Africans who saw their
lives destroyed under the similar policies you urge for
Africa.


Taiwan: the Chinese business classes fled to Formosa(Taiwan) and they developed their nation becausde the U.S. provided them with almost free capital. Same for South Korea. Seriousmindedeness plus free capital--to counteract China and North Korea--led to industrialisation and technological development. The North Korean famine thing was grossly exaggerated--all in the name of U.S. propaganda. It's all in the game.

^^lol.. what utter nonsense. Do you realize you just
contradicted yourself lamin? First you said China had no local
business class. But here now you show "business classes"
fleeing to Taiwan. How exactly could said classes "flee"
when according to you earlier, they don't exist?
Think lamin! Think!

And the "fleeing" business classes, who are not supposed
to exist, did not get "almost free capital" from the US. lol.
What is "almost free capital?"

As for the N. Korean fammine, why do you say this is
grossly exagerrated? Plenty of UN references and other
documentation on said famine is right there int he ref section
of the fammine page. Why are they wrong, but you supposedly
right?


Under Nkrumah Ghana was trying the same thing but the plan was stymied by the West--when the job was just 25% done.
Thank heaven it was "only" 25% done, else it would have been
even more suffering for the African masses.


Note that in both cases of China and Taiwan the state played a central role in harnessing capital in bulk for developmental purposes.
Actually in Taiwan, while the state has vigorously promoted
economic development, said development is largely in the
hands of the private sector.


Here's how you do it:

^maybe this should be entitled, how NOT to do it.
It is clear your are ignorant of even basic economics.


1) You harness bulk capital which you use to establish basic industries. This cuts back on the import bill.

Dude.. do you realize that to "harness bulk capital" you
need to pay for it? Things like machinery, tools, spare parts,
fuel, construction material etc? Do you realize that most African
countries would have to IMPORT such things, and that this
is one of the reasons forced industrialization failed?
Sheesh.. If anything, this "solution" of yours shows you
lack even the most elementary understanding of how
economies work. Its like your "non existent" business
classes, who suddenly sprang into being to "flee".


2)You block imports of same with tariffs while your infant industries develop.

Sure you can do this, and most nations at one time have.
It s a valid strategy if you can cover the import substitution bills.
But what about the flip side that harmed Ghana and other
nations- namely the need to pay for said imports of machinery,
fuel, etc? And the flip side of other trade partners retaliating?


3)Spend massively on technological education plus liberal arts such as history, economics, engineering, etc.[/b]

Oh sure, anyone can write a check. But do you realize that
this "massive spending" has to come from somewhere? It will not
materialize like magic pixie dust. Duh,,, and you are a guy who
claims all this economics "understanding?"


4) Stage 2: You invest in a machine tools industry--so that you can manufacture the tools and technology to produce the more advanced technological goods. This again cuts back on the import bill. You can then manufacture items such as bicycles, radios, refrigerators, etc. Recall that in Stage 1 you were just able to manufacture basic things like batteries, torches, lamps, etc.

^^ lmao.. what naive nonsense..
Again, do you realize that to do what you advocate means
that you have to IMPORT machinery, fuel, and even skilled
personnel to cover both your magical Stage 1 and stage 2?
And even if you decide to not import anything, you
still have to PAY CURRENT BILLS while resources
are being shifted to machinery building or industry?
You seem to conceive of economies as magical places
where money just appears to cover the costs for all the
nice things and grand plans that we want. What naive planet
you live on?


5) You begin exporting Stage 2 products now. You undercut the West because your costs of production are much lower.

^^lol.. of course. And while you are at it, manna will rain
down from heaven, and the magic tooth fairy will cover all
the billz.


6) With the accumulated reserves--i.e. surplus capital you again develop you technological base so that you start producing things like computers, ships, automobiles, etc.

Uh huh...



This was Nkrumah's blueprint but unfortunately it did not come to fruition In the meantime you use your surplus capital for universal health care and education for all. The goal is to keep the technological development going.


^^And said "blueprint" it did not come to fruition because
of the problems noted above. Your "surplus capital" will not
materialize out of thin air- that's "voodoo" economics.
It has to be earned and paid for one way or another.


This has not happened in Africa because of a number of factors including an inability to implement Nkrumah's policies: regional integration, single currencies, regional High Commands, free movement labour and peoples across the artificial colonia borders, etc.

None of the above is needed to handle agriculture and
industry in a way that promotes prosperity for your people
versus impoverishing them.


Zarahan is getting his views from Ayitteh--a real hack of a social theorist.

Actually no, my views are from basic economics.


You talk of Nkrumah's "socialist failings". Well, if such, it's because he was allowed enough time to implement his policies. But even so, Ghana's educational infrastructure still reverberates in West Africa. Go to any so-called Anglophone country in West Africa and you hear people talk of the competence of Ghanians in technology, teaching, etc.

Oh sure, with enough time.. with enough time anything
could happen.. The tooth fairy could appear to pay
for importsof machinery, fuel, technicians etc to complete
the grand plan... Yah... With enough time space aliens
could appear- like some New Age theorists tell us happened
to build the pyramids of Egypt.


And again, regardless of Nkrumah's failings, his ideas expressed in his books and papers are still the way for Africa to go. It's just that the present-day leadership is abysmally low-grade.

If they are the way to go, why arent African
nations following them today? Or white nations
like Russia, or Asian nations like China?

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Conversations with History: Kenneth D. Kaunda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4RPr4rNCtw

^^^^^
I haven't watched the whole thing yet.

One interesting detail I read about KK was
that in the 1991 campaign there was a plan by Kaunda to turn over one quarter of the nation's land to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, an Indian guru who promised that he would use it for a network of utopian agricultural enclaves that proponents claimed would create "heaven of earth". Kaunda was forced in a television interview to deny practicing Transcendental Meditation. Kaunda left office with the inauguration of MMD leader Frederick Chiluba as president on November 2, 1991. He was the second mainland African head of state to allow free multiparty elections and to have relinquished power when he lost: the first, Mathieu Kérékou of Benin, had done so in March of that year.

_________________________________

That would have been interesting if a large transcendental meditation community had been established in Zambia. It might not have been right in terms of land rights but it may have added more religious diversity to Africa

 -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLgpbED-5yM

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I said:
quote:
It is amazing how you seem to know everything about Nkrumah's socialist failures (which are real)
Now after reading this Zarahan went ahead and wrote:
quote:
You seem however to dispute the fact of his many mistakes
LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Explorer
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Explorer   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A bit wordy, but here's how I put the basic outline of the trajectory of African colonies from nominal "independence":

Super-exploitation of Africans under colonial totalitarianism had the effect of converting the preexisting core African populations into a new working class under an industrial-capitalist framework. With this modern workforce in place, the ongoing super-exploitation had another effect: the radicalization of the African workforce, in protest against dehumanizing and oppressive conditions. Then came the World Wars, wherein Africans drawn from colonies were made participants, as supplementary military personnel to those drawn from the core European populations. In the aftermath of the 2nd World War, and as a consequence of the wars, the economies of many of the participating European nations weakened. At the same time, African workforces became more militant in their protests against colonial totalitarianism, and the use of Africans as personnel in the World Wars could only have served a supplementary role to this increasing militancy. Aspirant would-be bourgeois personalities saw opportunity in this increased militancy against colonial totalitarianism, as a platform to make way for the African bourgeoisie [since pretty much all layers of the African societies were denied the fruits of local natural resources], and hence, got on-board [the struggles]. In their usually self-appointed roles as mouth-pieces of social militancy, the said personalities would act as liaisons of some sort between the local totalitarian colonial administrations and protesting African workforces. With weakened economies and rising local militancy in colonies, few totalitarian colonial regimes had the stomach to live with the expenses of putting down social militancy and the unstable environment of exploiting resources of the colonies. The development of the USSR as a superpower only compounded these difficulties for many of western European imperialists. Hence, begrudging negotiation with the said mouth-pieces of African militancy was entertained, and with it, the willingness to "compromise", which in many of these cases, was the preparation to concede nominal independence from colonial totalitarianism. Thereon, many of said mouth-pieces assumed the role of leadership of the newly "independent" African societies, and inheriting the socio-economic devastations left by colonial totalitarianism. Many of these leaders of the newly independent countries therefore had to borrow money, and where did they generally turn to? The same totalitarian regimes they supposedly just regained independence from. The latter would only loan money with strings attached, usually done via IMF "structuring" policies, World Bank and WTO dictates. Many of the leaders of the newly independent nations were bent on accelerating conditions ripe for the African bourgeoisie and with it, an effective middle class, spurring them to considerable spending of borrowed dough. Social spending that does not directly generate profit for the donor regimes, does not go well with the likes of the IMF. Therefore, pressure to adhere to stringent "restructuring" policies is meted out, which as a general rule of thumb, results in fairly reduced social spending. Said African leading personalities are then generally enticed to find ways to save face locally, when economies take a dip...partaking in anti-colonial rhetoric is usually seen as a convenient way of achieving this, while embarking on totalitarianism as a means to put down social dissent. Trying to stifle local social dissent can at times lead to said African leading figures to become at odds with former totalitarian colonial players, when the turn towards their own totalitarian responses to social disquiet leads to increasing social instability, which is generally bad for the exploitation business of former colonies. When this happens, it is enticing to replace them [said African leaders], possibly with a new figure that is reputed to be on better terms with the core local populations, but still pliant [to imperialist dictates].

Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zarahan,
I doubt you have ever been to Ghana or read books on economic development or discussed these matters with actual Ghanians. In serious African intellectual circles Ayitteh are seen as buffoons for the capitalist West.

Your comments to my post are so off-mark that it seems as if you didn't follow what I wrote.

But here are some points for you to ponder:

1) Development comes with capital spending: Private international banks in Africa will not make capital available for such. The solution is for the state through its Central Bank to create capital. Banks in the West do it all the time. Have you ever heard of "creating money out of thin air".

2) In Africa, the business classes are very reduced in number--and most are into import business--so to harness enough capital for real developmet the STATE has to do it--often in partnership with enterprising business groups. This is what happened in South Korea and Taiwan.

3) In Russia and China ate the times of their revolutions the business classes were very reduced in numbers. Don't forget that Russia was essentially a feudal state and China was very rural and peasant at the time. The STATE again had to create and harness capital to move both nations into the industrial era.

4) Nkrumah was what you would call a socialist and a Pan Africanist. As a socialist his goal was the industrialisation of Ghana. As a Pan Africanist he saw that regional cooperation in terms of capital and investments would be much better than the neocolonial arrangements than the colonial nations w ere pushing in Africa. Case in point: Ivory Coast. The French actually ran the place and had their people in the IC Treasury. Houphouet was just the "boy who sat in front window".

4) Your points about development are just totally wrong. If what you say is correct, explain how Germany industrialised from the 1850s onward. Or China or Korea? These 2 were rural hardly industrialised countries after WWII. The same for Russia. Japan defeated Russia in the 1905 war. Japan invaded China and took over a huge chunk of land and resources in Manchuria. The Japanese invaded Korea and colonised it just before WWII. The reason is that all 3 countries: Russia, China and Korea were underdeveloped agricultural/peasant nations at the time. So explain how these countries became industrialised.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leona,

quote:
That would have been interesting if a large transcendental meditation community had been established in Zambia. It might not have been right in terms of land rights but it may have added more religious diversity to Africa
.

You do have a great sense of humour. Wow! you made my day.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Leona,

quote:
That would have been interesting if a large transcendental meditation community had been established in Zambia. It might not have been right in terms of land rights but it may have added more religious diversity to Africa
.

You do have a great sense of humour. Wow! you made my day.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, now sit silently for 20 minutes


Buddhism for Africa

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Many of these leaders of the newly independent countries therefore had to borrow money, and where did they generally turn to? The same totalitarian regimes they supposedly just regained independence from.

please list four of these totalitarian regimes by name
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The map above on the distribution of religion in Africa is a bit inaccurate. There are pockest of Islam and Christianity all over Africa. There are Muslims in South Africa and Christians in Egypt, for example.

But the goal is economic and technological development. I don't see what religion can do regarding that. The nations that made the transition from being technologically undeveloped to developed/ing are China, Korea, Finland(noted for Nokia), etc. are just not hung up on religion.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
The map above on the distribution of religion in Africa is a bit inaccurate. There are pockest of Islam and Christianity all over Africa. There are Muslims in South Africa and Christians in Egypt, for example.

But the goal is economic and technological development. I don't see what religion can do regarding that. The nations that made the transition from being technologically undeveloped to developed/ing are China, Korea, Finland(noted for Nokia), etc. are just not hung up on religion.

You a re right the map is generalized.
Some people are surprised by amount of Christianity in Africa as well as the diminished indigenous religion.
The Buddhists seem relatively more peaceful and less dogmatic than Christianity and Islam.
I wonder if Buddhism spread into Africa it could make some conflicts less likely.

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Re Christianity in Africa: just that the missionaries did a good "bribing with goodies" job. But still, it is much less than you think. Most Christians are just nominally so. Main marker: French, English, Portugese, etc. first name.
Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1) Development comes with capital spending: Private international banks in Africa will not make capital available for such. The solution is for the state through its
Central Bank to create capital. Banks in the West do it all the time. Have you ever heard of "creating money out of thin air".


OK fair enough. We have plenty of "thin air money" in the West.
But development does not merely rely on capital spending.
Once again you seem to have this naive idea that resources
can just magically spring up out of nowhere by gubment decree.
There is also such a thing as productivity. There is savings, etc.
And you don't need a Central Bank to "create capital."
What do you mean by "create capital"?


2) In Africa, the business classes are very reduced in number--and most are into import business--so to harness enough capital for real developmet the STATE

has to do it--often in partnership with enterprising business groups. This is what happened in South Korea and Taiwan.


OK, fine, but this is not what Nkrumah did.
He rather undermined not only the independent business class,
(as opposed to favored cronies and party members),
but even more critical, the broad mass of ordinary
African peasant farmers that were the backbone of Ghana's
economy.


3) In Russia and China ate the times of their revolutions the business classes were very reduced in numbers. Don't forget that Russia was essentially a feudal state

and China was very rural and peasant at the time. The STATE again had to create and harness capital to move both nations into the industrial era.


On what basis do you claim said business classes were
very much reduced in number? Compared to what?
was it a 10% drop? 20%? What? You never say. You
just go on making these sweeping claims with little to
back them up. And can you explain what you mean by
"create capital"? How exactly is capital "created?"


4) Your points about development are just totally wrong. If what you say is correct, explain how Germany industrialised from the 1850s onward. Or China or

Korea? These 2 were rural hardly industrialised countries after WWII. The same for Russia. Japan defeated Russia in the 1905 war. Japan invaded China and took

over a huge chunk of land and resources in Manchuria. The Japanese invaded Korea and colonised it just before WWII. The reason is that all 3 countries: Russia,

China and Korea were underdeveloped agricultural/peasant nations at the time. So explain how these countries became industrialised.


You can't tell me how what I said about needing to PAY for
imports and such are totally wrong. How? You keep hopping
from claim to claim, ducking and weaving without delivering answers.
During its early industralization Germany actually had to import
substantial machinery and foreign expertise. It had to PAY for
these by providing other goods and services in return.
Agricultural productivity also had to be boosted as part of this
process. Your naive notion of governments simply decreeing
"capital" to do all these nice things is not how economics works.
Even Stalin had to pay for imported machinery, tools and foreign technicians.

As for Russia, Korea and China being largely rural- sure. No one
disputes that. No one disputes that the totalitarian regimes in these
countries pushed through industrialization. But all these regimes had
to PAY for those imports to get started. In the communist countries
it was achieved at tremenduous human cost. Even as millions of
kulaks starved or were murdered for example, Stalin ruthlessly
extracted their agricultural produce to pay for the imports he wanted,
and to cover various costs of shifting resources to other sectors.

China presents the same case- from reliance on the Soviets initially
to the post-Mao liberalization and huge imports of Western and Japanese
technology to accelerate moderinization, as it began to develop its
own internal technology base. And same outcome as well in massive
human costs. North Korea, no longer propped up for decades by Soviet aid,
now finds itself in a pickle- but the sample totalitarian policies and the
same huge body count there as well.

And no one disputes that the state will always be a player in econ
development. Of course. Simply by being the governing authority
it will have a role and an impact via taxes, judicial systems, regulation,
infrastructure building, security and so on- Econ 101. The state is
always a player at some level. The key question is what is the right
level? And how much suffering are you going to
inflict on the population?


Now once again explain: what you mean by "creating capital"?
Be specific.

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He rather undermined not only the independent business class,
(as opposed to favored cronies and party members),

Funny you mentioned this. Apart from authoritarianism, cronyism is one of the main characteristics of the Asian Tiger model. If you want "independent" business class you have the wonderful SAPs for that. There the goal was to eliminate government (seen as "inefficient") as much as possible in favor of your private sector led development. And how wonderful a model that turned out to be for Africa. [Roll Eyes]

How The IMF-World Bank and Structural Adjustment Program(SAP) Destroyed Africa

 -

^you talk about creating poverty and chaos. There you go.

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Africa's problems really about it's leaders "creating" poverty and chaos? Who has the real power?

 -

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zarahan,
So what is wrong with Nkrumah's model? His government could have gotten basic industrial infrastructure from both China and USSR while bartering tropical agricultural produce.

As I said, in the cases of China the embryonic business classes all fled to Taiwan and Hong Kong. So Mao had to start from scratch in terms of establishing and industrial infrastructure. The same with Russia, its embryonic business classes and the remnants of the feudals either fled or were executed. The rest were all sent to the big Siberian Gulag.

Nkrumah had instituted the Ghana Institute of Science and Technology which began to produce some very competent graduates. Ghana was on its way when the coup was mounted---Nkrumah was on visit to North Korea[which now has the bomb--proof of a certain level of technological competence. It also builds its ships and armaments--with no outside help].

This was the basis for Nkruhmah' socialism--whoce goal was industrialisation. His Pan-Africanism[ see his Africa Must Unite] had to do with the fact that the small monocultural agricultural nations of Africa just could not industrialise on their own. They had to pool their resources and form regional and continental units--in terms of currencies, trading blocs, etc.

Now all this is totally alien to the nonsense Ayitteh writes.

Re German development: After the unification of Germany under Bismarck, Germany eventually established the mercantilist principle of "autarky" which meant high tariffs to protect Germany's fledgling industries. The German state was central in all of this. Eventually, Germany surpassed Britain and France in terms of industrial capacity and output.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zarahan,

Re creation of capital: You[Central bank] just increase the money supply by bond sales--printing money. The received cash is then parceled out to the banks who then use their increased deposits to loan out.

The government is also in the mix to borrow from the CB and can use that money to build industrial infrastructure.

What happens in corrupt nations is that the money that flows to the government is stolen, banked abroad and consumed when necessary. Present case: Tunisia.

Posts: 5145 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Explorer
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Explorer   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:

please list four of these totalitarian regimes by name

How about you list four colonial regimes that are not totalitarian.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^left to lioness she will tell you Leopold's
Congo regime was paradise for Africans.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by lamin:

Zarahan,
So what is wrong with Nkrumah's model? His government could have gotten basic industrial infrastructure from both China and USSR while bartering tropical agricultural produce.


Plenty wrong with it as already detailed above- and see below. You also
say his government "could" have gotten basic industrial infrastruc
from China or USSR via some sort of barter arrangement. Sure.
Anything "could" have happened. Are you saying this is what
Nkrumah actually did? Or what he "should" have done?


As I said, in the cases of China the embryonic business classes all fled to Taiwan and Hong Kong. So Mao had to start from scratch in terms of establishing and industrial infrastructure. The same with Russia, its embryonic business classes and the remnants of the feudals either fled or were executed. The rest were all sent to the big Siberian Gulag.

OK, but you earlier said such bidniss classes did not exist.
But anyhow, Mao did not start from scratch to reestablish
infrastructure. Large segments of said infrastructure was left
in place after Chiang fled, and the infrastu left behind by the
Japanese in Manchuria after WW2 was also in place. Same with
Russia, which although still mostly a rural country was already
building machines, smelting steel, building railways and making
modern firearms BEFORE the Communist revolution.


Nkrumah had instituted the Ghana Institute of Science and Technology which began to produce some very competent graduates. Ghana was on its way when the coup was mounted---Nkrumah was on visit to North Korea[which now has the bomb--proof of a certain level of technological competence. It also builds its ships and armaments--with no outside help].

Fair enough. I agree Nkrumah should be credited for
expanding education. But what is the use of all those competent
graduates if they have no productive jobs in a declining, chaotic economy?
This is precisely the problem afflicting several African countries today-
churning out graduates with few prospects of productive employment.
Or churning out a large number of health clinics with few supplies,
little equipment and little money to pay skilled staff adequately?
It is all well and good to tout education and such, but are all those good
things being maintained long term? What is the bottom line return on investment?


This was the basis for Nkruhmah' socialism--whoce goal was industrialisation. His Pan-Africanism[ see his Africa Must Unite] had to do with the fact that the small monocultural agricultural nations of Africa just could not industrialise on their own. They had to pool their resources and form regional and continental units--in terms of currencies, trading blocs, etc. Now all this is totally alien to the nonsense Ayitteh writes.

Again, Nkrumah should be credited with his fierce condemnation
of colonialism and imperialism, and his forceful declaration of African
independence. I would also credit him with financing and providing a
platform for numerous liberation organization in Southern Africa and
elsewhere. But was his industrialization approach the right one for Ghana?
There are a lot of disastrous things he did by choice,
of his own volition, to fulfill his grand vision.

And it is a very open question whether African leaders at the time
wanted regional integration. Such integration even Europe has taken multiple
decades to even approach. And Africa, just out of colonialism was supposed
to magically pull it off? Furthermore in the individual territories various
African tribes and leaders were quite fierce in guarding their own fiefdoms
and were unwilling to submit to any regional overlord. Oh, there was plenty
of LIP SERVICE to Pan Africanism, but what counts is not the rhetoric
at OAU meetings, but the actual bottom line behavior on the ground.
Nkrumah's Panafrican integration notions were unrealistic at the time
he put them forward. They were never a priority for the vast majority of
African countries and leaders. It all made good rhetoric, but the bottom
line is not the political rhetoric but actual behavior on the ground.


Re German development: After the unification of Germany under Bismarck, Germany eventually established the mercantilist principle of "autarky" which meant high tariffs to protect Germany's fledgling industries. The German state was central in all of this. Eventually, Germany surpassed Britain and France in terms of industrial capacity and output.

True, but Germany first had to boost productivity to pay for
its industrial investments. Agricultural productivity had to be boosted FIRST,
so cash could be generated to cover mounting bills. One thing the Germans
did NOT do is to impoverish their farmers. Compare with Nkrumah where
farmers not only got poorer, but their output eventually dropped as
they were forced to shift to subsistence activity. And while the
German state vigorously promoted econ development, such development was
primarily a matter of a private sector marked by rising levels of productivity.


Re creation of capital: You[Central bank] just increase the money supply by bond sales--printing money. The received cash is then parceled out to the banks who then use their increased deposits to loan out. The government is also in the mix to borrow from the CB and can use that money to build industrial infrastructure.
What happens in corrupt nations is that the money that flows to the government is stolen, banked abroad and consumed when necessary. Present case: Tunisia.


Sure the gubment can always print more money, but printing more
money does not necessarily mean you will be able to cover bills due,
because the currency may become more and more worthless. Under Nkrumahism
this is precisely what happened- rampant inflation, gubment unable to
pay its bills or make its payroll, declining exports- chaos. See below.
So Nkrumah did indeed "create capital" as you say, by printing more'
money. The result was dismal. There you have it.

 -


As said before I credit Nkrumah with certain
things, but based on what you have seen above, do
you still hold Nkrumahism is a valid solution
or strategy for Africa's economic development
today? I am not gonna jump down on your answer -
just want to know how you would modify Nkrumah's
principles to fit the current day. And how
would you deal with African countries and leaders
who once again, want no part of any regional bloc
or regional integration?

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:

please list four of these totalitarian regimes by name

How about you list four colonial regimes that are not totalitarian.
I asked you first, you're not scared are you?
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Explorer
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Explorer   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Want an example of scared, all you have to do is take a look at your evasive reaction to my simple question. The burden is on you.

--------------------
Your best defense is FACTS!

Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Want an example of scared, all you have to do is take a look at your evasive reaction to my simple question. The burden is on you.

you will have to take this as a loss under the I asked you first rule, section A
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3