Burkina Faso military leader Traore says ‘forget democracy’
Posted by the-southern-snek@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 190 comments
Posted by the-southern-snek@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 190 comments
Makyr_Drone@reddit
A military dictator who reneged on the promised elections now declares them democracy to be an unfit system of governance? Color me shocked.
Wolfensniper@reddit
You see, it's definitely French fault /s
Aggravating-Fee1934@reddit
Well, if you go all the way back to killing Thomas Sankara, it totally is their fault
Kamfrenchie@reddit
I suppose it s our fault aswell for bot ousting this new dictator.
Because non westerners have no agency ever.
an-invisible-hand@reddit
Non westerners all have plenty of agency. That's why it's so interesting that of all the former colonies in the world, France's in particular all ended up such horrible places to live.
Efficient_Tap8770@reddit
The plans France had in store for Guinea Conakry look villainous on paper, and outright evil. Basically what Mr 0 (Crocodile) planned to do in Alabasta in One Piece. The even burnt records just to set the newly independent government back and burnt any usable stuff they couldn't move. The Independence movement inherited a country with no medication even in hospitals. And France counterfeited their currency in order to crash their economy but thanks to some Senegalese soldiers and Czech intelligence some of the most brutal parts of the plan involving training rebel soldiers to throw the country into chaos was unravelled and fail to start a full blown Civil War.
Lulonaro@reddit
Think about it. Why would you give up power if you can keep power? Specially if you suspect the next one in the seat might also not want to ever leave. If the system is already historically autorithanrian the best thing you can do is hold the power even if you think democracy is the best system
Kamfrenchie@reddit
Very convenient.
Lulonaro@reddit
Democracy is not about one person but about institutions. If the institutions are not there one person cannot establish democracy alone. And as ugly as it seems, it's better for the country to have a predictable and stable government than a constant dispute for power.
Kamfrenchie@reddit
But the institutions were there, and this new dictator hasnt proven he s any better.
Lulonaro@reddit
If they were there he wouldn't be able to become a dictator
__loss__@reddit
What's wrong with his view? Democracy isn't the one size fits all solution. Look what democracy achieved in the west. Epstein.
whistleridge@reddit
He says entirely without irony, as he expresses that view on a website that allows him to, without fear of reprisal, due to the protections that democracy creates and provides.
Yes. Let’s.
Basically, democracy strongly correlates with the highest-end outcome of all the positive HDI indicators, and the lowest-end outcome of all the negative ones.
That you have to cherry-pick one notorious outlier, from one country, to try to attack a system that has been phenomenally successful in dozens of countries just shows how weak your position is
With respect, friend, the people supporting democracy here aren’t the ones who have been indoctrinated in this conversation.
__loss__@reddit
Your feats of democracy have nothing to do with democracy. Are you pulling my leg? Are you saying the Masai people are living wrong because they don't live in a democratic society and don't strive for the same things you value the most in society? You're literally just projecting your own shit into people thinking you're Gaia.
ChristerMLB@reddit
I dunno, I had the impression that traditional societies are often relatively democratic :l
whistleridge@reddit
Translation: you don’t like what I said, and think taking a whole paragraph to say “nyuh uh” is somehow stronger than just saying “nyuh uh”.
As expected.
Kuhelikaa@reddit
Is his administration competent? If yes, the screw liberal "democracy". If not, then screw him
grand_historian@reddit
This. The idea that libtard "democracy" is an automatic improvement is bourgeois propaganda. Good governance exists in autocratic political systems as well.
Question is whether red hat man can provide that. Maybe, idk.
Tough_Substance7074@reddit
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones.
Kuhelikaa@reddit
Democracy is, in fact, the best form of government. But the issue is that "liberal democracy" isn't democracy at all
Full_Distribution874@reddit
How so? Without liberty the elections can't be free and fair. A democracy with a police state isn't going to stay a democracy for very long
Kuhelikaa@reddit
A liberal "democratic" system is not the same as liberty. Liberalism, in teh context of state , is defined by the state apparatus's unconditional support of capitalism.But capitalism is inherently antithetical to democracy and liberty.
For example, it would be absurd and disingenuous of me to think that the son of a truck driver has the same degree of liberty as a me, a fairly privileged person, or that I possess even remotely the same amount of freedom as a billionaire.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
That's not at all what that means. A liberal democracy protects individual rights, which are part of the basis of capitalism, but it also means universal suffrage, separation of powers and rule of law.
You could run a socialist republic as a liberal democracy. With independent co-ops and other worker-owned businesses supported by the government and given preferential legal treatment, perhaps by mandating a certain number of board members be elected by those employed in the organisation.
Kuhelikaa@reddit
I'm hoping you were making a good faith argument here even if you don't agree with me at the end, otherwise my effort to write the following paragraphs will be utterly wasted.
Universal suffrage within a liberal framework onlyallows the oppressed people to chose which members/side of the ruling class will represent them in a system designed to protect capital.The separation of powers acts as a safety valve for the ruling class, preventing any single party/faction from disrupting the stability required for continuous labor exploitation. These mechanisms provide a "democratic" mask for the brutal economic dictatorship of the market, where the average worker remains subordinated regardless of their voting preferences. In short, political rights are granted insofar they do not interfere with the private appropriation of surplus value. Try establishing a somewhat socialist republic by popular opinion, you'll end up like Salvador Allendebl, Mosaddegh or Thomas Sankara via the might of international capital.
Liberal "rule of law" and "individual rights" are fundamentally designed to protect private property and the enforcement of contracts(often involuntary,made by desperate people ) . Since the state apparatus is founded to maintain the conditions for capital accumulation by exploitation,it cannot simply be "repurposed'' to favor worker ownership or workers co-op as you said,not without dissolving its own foundation at least.
Liberalism and socialism cannot coexist within the same state framework because their goals are diametrically opposed. Liberalism want to stabilize the rights of the individual to accumulate wealth. Socialism requires the abolition of the commodity fetish and the private appropriation of surplus labor.
TheConfusedOne12@reddit
The arguments you are using have been used throughout history to discredit reform movements that actually meaningfully better the lives of the working classes.
Of course it comes from a place of truth, without the economic ability to actually make use of your liberty, it is not worth much.
But in liberal democratic states, we have been shown time and time again that we can elect leaders that can meaningfully improve the working classes material position. As proof, just look at the development of workers rights throughout countries with a strong social democratic tradition. To ignore this as just a safety valve of capital would simply be disingenuous.
It is of course not perfect, but that is not the point, socialism can not be made through authoritarian means, as it only results in the creation of a new elite and state capitalism.
There is a reason the us is a more economically equal country than China. Liberal democracy might suck balls, but it almost always ends up better in the end.
(Also slight nitpick, sankara did not establish anything by popular opinion, he was apart of the military establishment and implemented his reforms from the top down, him being popular does not change that.)
Kuhelikaa@reddit
Is that why income inequality has been rising throughout the world rapidly for decades after decades after decades?
Categorically wrong.
China is more equal, even by liberal standards like Gini Coefficient.
The first and last sentences are contradictory.
Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo@reddit
The primary individual right it protects, above all else, is the right to own property. Hence why slave economies could be governed just fine by liberal democracies.
PriorNest4616@reddit
Most people just want a government that delivers results. I know people who'd throw away our "democracy" and emulate the likes of China if it means that their lives will be a bit better.
2-2Distracted@reddit
So... you know people who are idiots? I'm not sure how that's a good thing. People in America literally have to deal with their own little wannabe dictator all because they wanted affordable eggs lol
loggy_sci@reddit
Those people are fools. People should he in charge of their governments, and once you trade that right in, you’ll never get it back.
Scientific_Socialist@reddit
A quote from a man whose death count rivals Hitler
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
Bait.
Ruby2312@reddit
Meh, democracy is not automatically the best in everything, every time. Trump is a pretty shining example of how good it is
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
The American people have chosen to abandon the most fundamental parts of a democratic state: an informed and active voterbase willing to engage with the issues of their country, let a third of the country vote for a moron, and now accuse democracy of being flawed because of their stupidity.
Hachimain@reddit
I mean that is quite literally the flaw with democracy
Ruby2312@reddit
So not the best at everything and evertime?
Full_Distribution874@reddit
Do you think a country that struggles to elect people with brains will find a competent dictator? I don't.
Ruby2312@reddit
I'm not even telling you the dictator is automaticly good, i'm telling you it's not automaticlly the casus belli western countries make it out to be. If the govern system is flawed, it's for the country itself to decide. "Democracy " bring enough fking bombs around
Full_Distribution874@reddit
When was the last time a Western country invaded someone because of democracy? Democracy is just something you say before going in for the real reason. No one's looking at Singapore even if they're effectively a one party state. You need to have serious human rights abuses and/or have attacked or threatened something to get an intervention.
Oppopity@reddit
Correct.
False.
No one's invading countries because they care about freedom or democracy.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
Serbia? They were bombed because they were trying to do ethnic cleansing in Europe, and Clinton didn't like that. Apart from that it is usually attacking or threatening something. Iraq invading Kuwait, Afghanistan harbouring Al Qaeda, etc...
Oppopity@reddit
The UN charter was circumvented to bring NATO into Serbia. And an ex-nato chief said the bombings worsened the genocide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/431279.stm The US was also fine helping Saddam invade Iran. And Afghanistan offered to hand over Bin Laden if they provided evidence he was behind 9/11
PriorNest4616@reddit
You've proven their point.
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
That enough Americans are stupid and easily mislead to damage their democracy does not mean democracy itself is flawed. It means that Americans have a culture that rejects expert opinion in favour of the loudly ignorant. That loves the prosperity gospel and worships the ownership class as a result, even as that ownership class bends them over and fucks them up the ass. That sees the intentional efforts to degrade their institutions and shrugs because caring is woke and woke is weak.
Thotty_with_the_tism@reddit
Eh, more like there's a class warfare revolving around the dismantling of public education. This isn't a culture issue by choice of the American people.
DankMemesNQuickNuts@reddit
No it literally does mean that it is flawed in that way
Every single style of governance people choose in any way, shape or form will have some sort of drawback. Democracy has the drawback that if your population is poorly informed then you will get bad governance. We've known this since the time of Greek Poleis.
This doesn't mean that it's "bad". I think its the best thing we've thought of so far (not liberal democracy but democracy in general). But human beings are imperfect and any system we create will reflect that
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
If you do not engage with the government at all, as millions of Ameridcans who can't even be bothered to vote in the presidential elections do, you cannot complain that it's democracy itself which is flawed.
Ruby2312@reddit
So it cannot operate when the population dont trust the process/ disinterest/ poorly educated/.... Aka dont work everytime, everywhere
mendenlol@reddit
No, the poster you are replying to is correct. Most people in USA opt out of 99% of the democratic process and then gripe and moan about the results.
Sargento_Porciuncula@reddit
The "democracy" of the USA is built to be it so.
genasugelan@reddit
The USA is barely a democracy, lol.
catcatcatcatcat1234@reddit
The US is considered a flawed democracy, not really the best example
chaosgazer@reddit
lotta NGOs use 'Democracy' as bait for Western intervention, that's correct
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
What has that got to do with a military dictator sending dissidents away, cutting back people’s rights and denying them freedoms?
Kuhelikaa@reddit
Hardly a bait
apophis-pegasus@reddit
He's not immortal or invulnerable, part of the main benefit of liberal democracy is that you're not hoping that every leader, or their administration is capable.
EtaTilanhaSafaida@reddit
I mean,
onespiker@reddit
Recommend you to look at the Increase of terrorism, death and economic development. Especially before his regime change.
Online left love him for what he says but is rule is absolute shit
Also no person who is actually popular would need to do it this way.
kitti-kin@reddit
You know, it wasn't a long article.
He has steadily lost territory to jihadist groups, who now control up to 60% of the country.
tinguily@reddit
Yeah I mean people ITT are acting like this is just something out of the blue. Like there hasn’t been a long history of exploitation and destruction in Burkina Faso to cause not just this, but the military coup that brought him to power. Maybe if we hadn’t messed with these countries so much they’d be in a better place
ShootmansNC@reddit
And for the last 3 years we have seen the "civilized" western "democracies" materialy and morally support history's most televised genocide, which is being carried out by another so-called democracy.
While in much of the world, from the first world to third, we see democracies fail their citizens year after year and march steadily towards fascism in the defense of capital.
killercock197@reddit
the country is still being exploited by russia and china him coming to power just changed who he answers to
tinguily@reddit
They probably offered a better deal…you can call them exploited but if Russia and China don’t threaten your sovereignty then it’s a better deal than the west
Kamfrenchie@reddit
They litterally have russian wagner thugs loot the country.
HammurabiWithoutEye@reddit
They may or may not be threatening sovereignty I don't know, but they aren't providing the security levels that the French did.
All around the world we're seeing the Security vs freedom debate play out, but in the Sahel they're getting neither. All the former French colonies who have had Russian backed coups lately are losing ground to islamist terror groups.
Riley_@reddit
The West created and funds the "Islamist" militias that do nothing but destabilize countries. Any violence by them should be counted against the West.
onespiker@reddit
There is no western funding from them. Most of the funding is more from Middle East.
killercock197@reddit
exactly everybody wants to exploit africa instead of helping it the french were there to protect their interests, now russia simply took their place and they cant even send troops cuz putin is getting his ass handed to him in ukraine
Riley_@reddit
Switching allegiances rewards the comprador bourgeoisie aligned with the new masters. It does nothing good for the working people.
andr386@reddit
France has brought them institutional stability during colonization and after. But they never really cared developing the country outside of making the resources exploitable.
Those countries didn't decide to invest in their human capital through education nor in creating new infrastructure for growth and foreign investment.
They simply replaced the French elite with their own Elite and kept milking the system. And France found that to be fine if they could still buy the resources without having to build up the country themselves.
cursedbones@reddit
LMAO.
So a country under colonial rules, a practice known for being focused on only extraction is focusing on only extracting resources. Wow.
Colonial apologists man... never their fault, they only bring joy, development and hundreds of thousands of deaths by famines, violence and exploitation.
tinguily@reddit
Pretty sure Thomas sankara would like a word. But he was killed for someone who sucked up to the French
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
ITT, people so thoroughly anti-western that they advocate in favour of a military dictatorship because democracy is too fru-fru or something. All of you need to touch some grass and get out of your echo chambers.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
They are shitting on democracy and yet won’t pack up and move to this military dictatorship.
Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo@reddit
Middle achool tier argument. It's a 4 year old regime taking over one of the world's poorest countries, even if it were the most capable and altruistic government in history, the country would still be way poorer than Western ones. Not to mention it has a totally different language and culture than what the average Anglo Redditor is used to.
Kamfrenchie@reddit
Okay, how many years until you move into them then ? Why not be the change you want to see ? Why not move to China, even ?
Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo@reddit
Re-read the comment you replied to.
ScaryShadowx@reddit
If that's your argument, people should be lining up to migrate to India, or Iceland, or Uruguay.
acupofcoffeeplease@reddit
Sure there must be a reason for people to be anti-western and not very fond of democracy being imposed, what could it be, so hard to know 🤔🤷♂️
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
"Democracy being imposed."
*Looks inside*
Military dictator stripping away the already existing democracy and denying rights to his people in order to shore up his own position.
acupofcoffeeplease@reddit
Yes, Burkina Faso now is the only place and time where westerns pressured a government for "democracy"
gregorydgraham@reddit
Burkina Faso has been independent for 58 years, when will they be responsible for their own actions?
Ambitious-Poet4992@reddit
France assassinated their first pm, the west destabilised Libya allowing jihardist safe passage to the Sahel what you on about. The west actively tries to screw over these countries
Dark1000@reddit
No one's buying that deflection.
illusivegentleman@reddit
Dictator doing dictator things.
I'm from a country which has experienced both single party dictatorship and democracy. For all its flaws, I much prefer democracy
kwonza@reddit
Trump did a major disservice to global democracy. Now every authoritarian leader would point at him saying: “Look, this is what democracy gives you, a deranged clown that ruins your country! We are much better with me, your dear and old leader!”
Master_Flash@reddit
This is very rich coming from Russia.
And they are correct. Democracy is a buzzword nowadays for autocracies. Democratic governments are heavily lobbies by the private sector. American politics are heavily lobbied by AIPAC.
I can also point examples in Europe too. Macron forcefully and unilaterally implemented the changes to retirement pensions and people took to the streets, people were willing to burn the country down in protest. What did it achieve? Absolutely nothing. Just like the "no more kings" protests of the last week.
Democracy means shit now, and Trump is not the only one responsible. Remember that Trump is only allowed to do what he is doing because there are people on both sides enabling it right now. American people will vote for those enablers in the next election thinking they are against the establishment when they are actually part of it.
Kamfrenchie@reddit
Maybe that russian is a pro democracy one, unlike the putin dicksuck that support a war of aggression.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
First of all, France abandoned those pension reforms because of the backlash. Second of all, their pensions are a disaster that will and are strangling their budget
Master_Flash@reddit
Nuh uh, wrong. Congress dropped it. He did it regardless unilaterally, people protested it and it didn't do shit. Check what Google says:
That's the point. Democracy was supposed to be about electing officials to enact the will of the people. Surprise, the will of the people doesn't mean shit. Even if it was going to bring financial disaster to the public balance, people made it clear they didn't care and that's what they wanted.
With this same argument Trump just declared they can't handle medicare, daycare and such things because they are a big country and need to wage war. And you may say: "this is absurd, it's not the same". It's exactly the same.
ChristerMLB@reddit
we need to remember that democracy is about more than electing representatives for government - it is also about unions, about civil society more broadly and about creating other good structures and institutions for giving people power and responsibility
onespiker@reddit
Macron has done multiple pension pushes (some reforms but the big things is increasing age requirements). He was directly elected to do them that was not something hidden.
The protesters are the same people who are always against them.
Monterenbas@reddit
The reform of the pension system was always part of Macron programs tho, he was elected on that.
The people demonstrating and the people that voted for him are not the same.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
They literally wound back the pension reforms. They are gone. That's what all the prime ministers got rolled for.
The will of the people does have weight. But on one issue it can be ignored for a short time if the politicians want to risk it. If you raise taxes, that's unpopular. But if you spend the money well you have a chance to save yourself. That's the system, and Macron couldn't save his party.
saracenraider@reddit
I don’t think it is private sector lobbying that pushed for these changes, especially as it’s the public sector that’s most lenient when it comes to retirement in France. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see that the retirement/pension situation as is in France is totally unsustainable - it’s a pyramid scheme that will very quickly unravel, especially with declining birth rates. The uk is similar, just a little bit behind.
cister532@reddit
But instead of reforming the entire system, a lot of those changes are made with privatisation in mind. I agree that the actual pensions are a ticking time bomb, but just adding two more minutes to the timer does nothing in the long run, and exploding it early is even worse. I don't think my opinion is actually educated in this matter so I would be wary of taking it face on, as I'm a historian and not an economist, but I don't think this massive push for neoliberalism and privatisation that we're having in Western Europe is in favour of the people.
onespiker@reddit
Macron has done some reforms aswell to make them better but the basis of them are huge and the system simply isn’t sustainable.
Litterly the system today pays the average pensioner more than a average worker makes.
onespiker@reddit
1 the pension reforms are not exactly pushed by the private sector directly in this case they are pushed by the basis that the pension is to big and designed around a system that can not handel people aging.
They system was made when there were 10 people working for every pensioner and the avreage pensioner was like 5 years on it. Now its like below 3 workersfor every pensioner and every pensioner is expected to live like 20 years on it.
The state economically can't support it and also.
Macron push to increase the pensioner age was done years ago aswell and he was even elected on doing it. Still they protested against it.
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
Every U.S. President starting with ~~Regan~~ Dubya has been a deraigned clown.
Bupod@reddit
I forget who said the quote, but it went something like
“Democracy is the worst form of governance in the world except that all the others have already been tried.”
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
Winston Churchill in ‘47.
sarcasmusex@reddit
Ah. Winston Churchill, the super racist leader of the British empire. Definitely lets quote someone that was massacring people
Aggravating-Fee1934@reddit
It's sort of a "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" moment
sarcasmusex@reddit
Churchill crimes lets not forget, he was representing an empire. And so is the USA, France. "Democracy" at home while sloughtering millions over sea.
Cavalleria-rusticana@reddit
This is the thing. Democracy, is better, but what we have doesn't have to be its final form.
lufan132@reddit
Is it? The only system of government to have successfully created Hitler, trump, Reagan, thatcher, etc?
Like idk. I'm done with democracy at this point, if my people are too stupid to know good from bad how am I supposed to help them? How can I trust them? Why should I continue to love my country when they continue to vote for my death? Why should I love a world that sees that and closes their hearts and celebrates that I'll have to die?
Like yeah, I get the virtue. I approve in theory. In practice, it only works if you've also got a way to ensure your people are capable of a single thought at least once in their lives. Unfortunately, my fellow countrymen are too dumb to live.
apophis-pegasus@reddit
And the alternative is what?
lufan132@reddit
Whatever results in a government where we can turn off the propaganda machines. I don't think democracy is able to fix something that's irreparably broken at this point, and while I'm not opposed to it coming back eventually, I don't want a government where "yeah the majority of people voted for your death and because of that the whole world is gonna be laughing their ass off as they assist in marching you to the camps all because a few really rich men and women have a hate boner for trans people because it destroys their beliefs that everyone is their property"
But that's the end state of liberal democracy, capitalists buying votes to bring in fascism because they're incapable of thinking of anything but hatred and property.
IDK, I've watched it take a whopping ten years from discrimination against people like me to be enough to PNG a whole state to somehow being something the normal people froth at the mouth over and will high five as they cum on my corpse.
apophis-pegasus@reddit
I dont think theres any. Liberal Democracy is literally the closest you get.
How so?
Not to mention there are scant few, it any undemocratic nations where trans people have any semblance rights.
Cavalleria-rusticana@reddit
Generations of conservatives defunding education in the name of enrichment will do that. The First Amendment is also an abomination to the most basic of civil orders; if everyone is free, no one is.
We can have democracy without mindlessly including hateful repressive elements (voir paradox of intolerance); all we need is to have a basic intellectual expectation of a citizenry. If an opinion is not supported by science, it is inadmissible to the political-public sphere ('scientism').
lufan132@reddit
I'm inclined to agree if I didn't believe the system itself was making us dumber by necessity of having to listen to said voices.
Like I'd love to see a democracy where my rights matter in any way, shape, or form. Or a world that sees "hey the government is building death camps for trans people, immigrants, etc" and is capable of lifting a single fucking finger or even shudders opening their doors in order to save lives.
My issue is way more I cannot look at the world I'm currently living in and say that democracy is a good thing. Why would a system that's probably going to end with me in a death camp before the year ends and the world laughing their ass off about it be appealing to someone who knows that's bad?
I'm not necessarily opposed to democracy in theory, I'm very much opposed to it in practice given the natural conclusion unless you first purge the conservative elements seems to always be fascism. That has to come first, before the democracy can.
Bartimeo666@reddit
You are an idiot, a privileged idiot.
You think Trump is bad? He is above the median dictator. Giving up democracy because it is eroding in your country is like giving up sewerage because sewers smell bad: how do you think streets would smell without it dumbass?
dontcallmewinter@reddit
Mate you just need mandatory and preferential voting so that people make voting a normal part of life, not this weird cult thing. So does the UK. It quells extremism and makes political parties speak to the majority.
saracenraider@reddit
That’s a very odd argument - each of the leaders you mentioned can only have been created by one system, not multiple, and you can point to evil leaders who have originated from every system of government
abhmazumder133@reddit
Brother did you genuinely group Thatcher with Hitler? The only genuine opponents of Democracy I see are people who think they are superior to the rest of their country.
cmrd_msr@reddit
I always thought that democracy was the rule of the people, but then Comrade Roosevelt explained to me so clearly that democracy is the rule of the American people. (C)
The quote is attributed to Joseph Stalin.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Ah yes Stalin, a much better leader than Roosevelt.
cmrd_msr@reddit
People remember and love him to this day. And the tons of dirt that have been poured on him since 1956 have not stuck.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Yes, it would be impressive were it not for the millions of his own citizens he killed out of a combination or carelessness and paranoia.
The only place the historical facts "didn't stick' is in your propaganda bubble
cmrd_msr@reddit
Billions.)).
I'd rather believe population statistics than someone's words about good or bad.
Under Stalin, the population grew by tens of millions.
Under Putin, it hasn't grown. That's all.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
That is an argument so stupid I will leave you to it.
cmrd_msr@reddit
In that case, I wish Israel good, peaceful leadership that will lead to a reduction in population, up to the disappearance of the Jewish nation))
Nihilamealienum@reddit
The argument that's stupid is not that higher population is good, it's that it somehow balances out the terror, the gulag, the Black Maria, the cult of personality and so on.
I'm no fan of Bibi either but he's not quite as good at destroying even the veneer of human dignity the way Stalin was. At that, Uncle Joe was a master.
cmrd_msr@reddit
That's literally all that matters.
Did you leave the country stronger than you found it?
If so, the end justifies the means. And you will be remembered by the people as the leader who made the country a better place.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Stalin imposed a culture of vicious backbiting, and occasional elite liquidation carried out casually that led to 80 years of decay you guys still haven't escaped from.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Cultural impacts are also impact.
And by your standards the only problem with Hitler is he lost the war.
cmrd_msr@reddit
If Hitler had not lost the war, his monuments would have stood all the way to the Urals, and Europeans would have considered him the greatest man of the 20th century.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Well they would have to, wouldn't they, or they'd be shot.
cmrd_msr@reddit
Definitely not. Hitler's plans would have solved many problems for Europe one way or another. He would have been loved quite sincerely. I'm sure of that.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Well we are discussing things from vastly different moral frameworks apparently. To say the least.
The problem is you as an individual never know if you'll enjoy the ends or end up as one of the means...
cmrd_msr@reddit
Yeah. The Russians definitely liked the results of Stalin's actions.
For some reason, people from other countries are surprised by this.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
I don't doubt he industrialized the country. I know my history. Again the problem is the long term cultural rot that set in because of his methods. There are times when the cure is worse than the fiseasd
cmrd_msr@reddit
There was no time to continue it.
The NEP would not have allowed the country to prepare for war. And, most likely, it would have led to a history where monuments to the Führer would have stood as far as the Urals. And beautiful Aryan people would have joyfully greeted them, raising their hands from their hearts to the sun.
cmrd_msr@reddit
Is this the 80 years of decline that the West called the "Russian miracle"?
Give us more of this decline, and more of it, please.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
The Brezhnev Era was the Russian Miracle?
cmrd_msr@reddit
Under Brezhnev, Russians lived better than they did after him.
Unfortunately, Khrushchev changed course, which led to stagnation.
Incidentally, that's why the people love him much less than Stalin. Although it was under him that most of Stalin's plans were implemented.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
The course had to be changed.
Brezhnev follows Stalin like Night Follows Day as man has known since Aristotle.
cmrd_msr@reddit
The night should have been delayed for about 100 years.
Then we would have lived in a better world.
Unfortunately, what's done can't be undone, but I wouldn't mind a repeat.
ChristerMLB@reddit
I personally don't care too much about whether my country is super stronk or populous, which is good I guess, given where I live.
I'm not sure why anyone would, really. Isn't it more important to have freedom and a decent standard of living?
Jakovit@reddit
And all of that was thanks to the exploitation of the rural populace, which remains poor to this day, no?
cmrd_msr@reddit
It's very naive to think that there was anything to gain from the rural population after the World War and the Civil War.
Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the entire people, yes. The workers worked like crazy. The peasants worked like crazy. The intelligentsia taught everyone (I was still alive during Stalin's generation; they were highly educated and capable of critical thinking).
And those who hindered development were repressed. Regardless of position or social status.
Jakovit@reddit
The rural populace was literally economically exploited. The leadership didn't hide this, they didn't view them as their "base" in the first place (which was the urban working class), so it was fine to exploit them for the sake of industry. Grain and produce were bought at artificially low prices while sold abroad at market price. When internal passports were introduced, the rural populace became de facto second-class citizens, barred from access altogether, as if they were serfs bound to land. Under the trudodni system, they were not even guaranteed a wage until Breznhev's reform.
That "superpower" status was only possible by the involuntary "sacrifice" of the rural populace ("peasantry"). The writings of the leadership confirm this. "Primitive socialist accumulation", as they termed it, in contrast to "primitive capitalist accumulation" (the most famous example being the Enclosure Movement in England, which devastated the rural English populace over the centuries and forced them into wage labor, the birth of capitalism as we know it).
cmrd_msr@reddit
I'll repeat the thesis. The entire country worked for food and for the idea. Not just the peasants.
Yes, entire factories were bought out for the grain needed by the states, employing hungry workers.
They worked so hard that within 10 years they were ready for a world war.
And then, in 10 years, they built the country up, and within 20 years, it had become the world's second-largest economy (with a population of less than 200 million).
saracenraider@reddit
Do you feel Russia is currently the rule of the people?
cmrd_msr@reddit
Unfortunately, no. The current leadership is increasingly being accused of not being like Stalin's. In my experience, the Russian people, on the whole, would welcome authoritarianism, but only if they see significant improvements in their lives.
The loudest voice of dissatisfaction with the government in recent weeks has been, "Look how you should fight for your country's interests, as in Iran."
saracenraider@reddit
Is there not a realisation that there is a big difference between being the instigator starting a war of choice versus the defender in a war forced on them? And of course it is a lot easier to fight an asymmetrical war as the latter? The relative situations of Iran and Russia are almost incomparable from an outsiders perspective like mine
cmrd_msr@reddit
From the perspective of the Russian population, Russia uses far less force than it could (and should), allowing Western countries to supply Ukraine with weapons with impunity, for example. There's a fairly vocal public debate about how the West can be coerced into peace, much like the US did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
saracenraider@reddit
Yea, while I am on completely the opposite side here, I do get that perspective from the Russian point of view, although I struggle to understand what Russia could do differently. Any direct escalation involving NATO would likely draw them closer into the war (excluding the USA of course, they wouldn’t lift a finger), and I struggle to believe a few ballistic missiles launched at European cities or an invasion of the Baltic countries (the only realistic options from what I could see) would result in Europe wanting to come to the table, rather it would result in an expanded war.
It sounds like there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to why Iran has been able to so effectively fight back, and it comes down to two simple things: the strait of Hormuz and the very high concentration of critical infrastructure around the gulf. Without these Iran would be in a very different position right now. Russia does not have the ability to leverage anything like this, especially given Europe has already broadly weaned itself off Russian gas and oil.
cmrd_msr@reddit
The world's entire infrastructure is vulnerable to Russian hypersonic weapons.
Proponents of a military solution say that in the face of a serious world war, with potentially hundreds of millions of dead people in the West, the West will retreat.
onespiker@reddit
Hypersonic missiles especially Russian design version is extremely overstated. Compered to thier own propaganda on them.
Especially considering what missiles are to begin with many are then by definition Hypersonic.
cmrd_msr@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dALu2DQs6uY
These were blanks without warheads.
In my opinion, it’s quite impressive, without any words.
onespiker@reddit
So it doesn’t exactly change much.
Also the Mach10 part is incredibly short range and they have drastically overestimated the manuverability of them.
cmrd_msr@reddit
The missile flew more than 800 km, maneuvering in 9 minutes. This fact has also been confirmed by third-party observers.
If destroying the military factory doesn't change anything, then all the more reason it should be destroyed.
onespiker@reddit
Here are the main questions yes it destroyed to factory but was a hypersonic middle needed to get through?
No interceptors are a lot worse than what people thing and missles can easily overwhelm or go fast and maneverable to get around it.
Russian supersonic missles isn’t a change to that status quo in that regard.
saracenraider@reddit
Tbh I just do not believe any side will push the nuclear button, it’s all just sabre rattling. Especially as Russia has been threatening nuclear retaliation or other escalation for a while now with no results, those proponents of a military solution would have to actually carry through with their threats and I just do not believe there is any appetite for that (for all of our sakes I hope I’m not wrong).
And while of course there are hypersonic non-nuclear weapons there just aren’t enough of them to be able to cause critical lasting damage to infrastructure.
I also think the belief that the west will be cowed into submission by the threat or usage of such weapons is naive - history shows that when countries are attacked with overwhelming force they do not back down. The counter to that is that Japan surrendered after the atomic bombs in WW2 but that was very different - Japan didn’t have the means to strike back in a meaningful way themselves and their leadership surely saw the writing on the wall that the war was only going one direction. Neither of these things would apply with the west.
It is worrying hearing about this sort of rhetoric in Russia, and if the Iran war continues going tits up for the USA with Russia/China supporting Iran, it wouldn’t surprise me if the USA adopts a similar stance as Russia. But even then I just do not believe anybody would carry through with such threats. Really worrying times though.
cmrd_msr@reddit
No one wants to destroy the world.
The goal will be something completely different.
NATO, of course, won't start a nuclear war with Russia over a few dozen people.
But trust in NATO as a force will be undermined (Russia attacked, NATO didn't respond).
The likelihood that this will destroy the world is negligible. The likelihood that this will set modern Western politicians straight is quite high
saracenraider@reddit
I think NATO as a force is already severely undermined, and will soon change into a solely European alliance. I also think the chances of any such attack reducing support by European countries (not NATO) is misplaced - there absolutely is an appetite to not allow Russia to expand its influence any further into Europe. I think the Iran war is finally making Europe realise it needs its own voice independent of other powers (USA or Russia). Although I probably thought the same thing four years ago with Ukraine…
Anyways, thanks for the convo, it’s been interesting and very civil for Reddit!
cmrd_msr@reddit
I come here to read people's opinions and write my own.
Exchanging opinions is very interesting and, to some extent, useful.
I'm upset that people often prefer to throw shit at each other instead of engaging in dialogue.
I also enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Thank you.
the-southern-snek@reddit (OP)
Burkina Faso’s military leader, Ibrahim Traore, says that people need to “forget” about democracy, just three months after his government dissolved all political parties in the West African nation.
Speaking to journalists in a lengthy interview on state television on Thursday, Traore referenced Libya as an example of a country where he said outsiders attempted to “impose democracy” but failed.
“People need to forget about the issue of democracy,” he said. “We have to tell the truth: democracy isn’t for us.”
“Democracy kills”, Traore said, according to French broadcaster RFI.
“Look at Libya, it’s a prime example right next to us! Everywhere they try to establish democracy in the world, it’s done with bloodshed … Democracy is slavery…”
It’s the latest sign of Traore’s government distancing itself from the initial promises it made to set the country back on a democratic path.
Traore seized power in September 2022, eight months after an earlier military coup he was involved in overthrew the democratically elected government of President Roch Marc Kabore.
The military governments promised to battle al-Qaeda and ISIL-linked armed groups that have swarmed the country and now control large areas of territory. However, the country has continued to come under repeated attacks and hundreds of thousands of civilians are displaced.
Traore, who has gained widespread admiration from the African diaspora for his anti-Western rhetoric, initially promised to organise elections in 2024. A year later, the leader reneged and said elections would not be held until all parts of Burkina Faso are safe for voting.
Concerns from political opposition, journalists, lawyers
In January, Traore’s government scrapped more than 100 political parties in the country and seized their assets.
Parliament and all political activity had previously been suspended after Traore took power. The Independent National Electoral Commission was dissolved in July 2025 after Traore’s government claimed the agency was too expensive.
Analysts have also raised concerns about the government’s apparent targeting of other institutions, including the media and judiciary.
Journalists, political opposition leaders and prosecutors critical of the military government have been forcibly conscripted and sent to the front lines in recent months, with some later released.
Similar moves against political parties have been taken by neighbouring military governments in Niger and Mali, which are also battling armed group violence.
All three countries exited the regional Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) bloc to form their own Alliance of Sahel States (AES) last January after pressure to hold elections.
They have also turned to Russian paramilitary fighters after evicting former colonial power, France, which had deployed some 5,000 soldiers to help fight armed groups in the Sahel region.
Violence has continued to mar Burkina Faso. Fatalities tripled in the three years since Traore took power reaching 17,775 by last May. That’s compared with the three years prior, when combined recorded deaths were 6,630, according to analysis by the US-based Africa Center for Strategic Studies.
Most of those killed were civilians, many by government forces and allied militias.
ChristerMLB@reddit
"Democracy is slavery"
No, I'm pretty sure the quote goes "freedom is slavery"
GangsterMango@reddit
I want to preface this by saying that Democracy is non negotiable and its instrumental to a prospering and stable society PERIOD
but I have a question, for a country like Burkina Faso or similar countries in the region
how do you stop foreign intervention by Imperialist Countries from exploiting this ?
I think about this dilemma a lot since I live in a Country that have this issue, if you have democracy and sovereignty it gets exploited via staged protests and coups and suffocating sanctions by Western countries and it often ends up in massacres and coups and installation of puppet dictators at the end.
and if you have a dictator that doesn't allow exploitation of the resources by Western empires they decimate the region via proxy wars and sanctions too.
I feel like the only thing dictatorships does is delay the inevitable.
Riley_@reddit
Marxism Leninism is the science that studies these questions in depth.
A class conscious revolutionary mass, led by a good Marxist Leninist party, can outlast an invasion.
no_soy_livb@reddit
He's honest about himself being a dictator and he doesn't hold sham elections, spend millions in propaganda to make his country look like a democracy as other countries in the world do (pointing at Gulf). I appreciate the honesty.
Gilly8086@reddit
Only the people of Burkina Faso should have a say on what system or leader they want! All outsiders should keep quiet!! Traore has done far more for his people than my who claim democracy!!
angelolidae@reddit
Traores list of achievements: Banning gay people for no reason Losing half of his country to Islamist militias Building one tomato processing factory
Clearly Burkina Faso will be a superpower by 2035
Gilly8086@reddit
There is a reason why many of you put Traore under the microscope but keep quiet about real failures like Biya in Cameroon!
Again, if you are not a citizen of Burkina Faso, then your criticism is nothing more than a distraction!!
illusivegentleman@reddit
Paul Biya's Cameroon is also not a democracy.
The man has been in power since 1982, he violently suppresses any political opposition, and elections there are widely considered fraudulent.
Gilly8086@reddit
Show me criticisms of Biya that compare to the pushback we see against Traore! Biya is friends with France, Switzerland and all western countries! I wonder why, lol!!
onespiker@reddit
Because he seized power in the 1980s. Traore is new by comparison.
Also whenever he is talked about it’s mostly about him not being in his country to begin with.
illusivegentleman@reddit
You're delusional if you think Paul Biya doesn't get criticism. It's a meme that he spends more time in France and Switzerland than he does in his home country.
saracenraider@reddit
Can the same be said about you and your criticism of Trump?
angelolidae@reddit
They're both failures lmao, you're weirdly defensive of Traore, you're probably one of those that belives he's Sankara reincarnate and will save Africa from neocolonialism (spoiler alert: he won't)
Gilly8086@reddit
I’m sure you have more pressing issues to focus on in Portugal! Burkina Faso doesn’t need your distraction or lectures of doom!!
angelolidae@reddit
People can have more than one thing in their minds at the same time, if you can't you need to get that checked
Gilly8086@reddit
You are preoccupied by Burkina Faso and clearly it is not because you care about the country or people! I wonder why!! Traore must be doing something you dislike! Traore has taken a different approach and is clearly not a western puppet! He is simply putting his county and people FIRST!!
angelolidae@reddit
Yeah he's failing his country by opressing lgbt burkinans, letting his countrymen get overrun by islamists and undermining their democracy. If he put his nation first then why is he quite literally letting it get taken over? Traore is a hack running on an anti-western platform but being no better than them
illusivegentleman@reddit
Don't forget conscripting by force his political opposition into the paramilitary VDP.
ChillAhriman@reddit
Political scientists all through the world stand in awe in front of this galaxy brain move. His IQ is so high that some would dare to say it may even suffer a stack overflow.
Gilly8086@reddit
If the forceful conscription is seen in the streets of Kyiv then all of a sudden you guys are good with it, lol!
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
The way that the people of Burkino Faso have a say on what system and leader they want is through democracy.
Emotional-Buy1932@reddit
I got banned from a lot of leftist subs for calling out this guy for what he is when he did the coup. Got banned from others when he cancelled the election.
But no doubt, some of them will still defend him now. It's always the same stories with the dictators. Come into power and cry about fighting "imperialism", then stay as long as they can, slaughter all opposition and enrich their families.
Riley_@reddit
The communists in Burkina Faso denounce Traore. The newbie leftists on here are super vulnerable to the narratives that come out of Eastern imperialist countries. I wish they'd take their studies more seriously.
bighak@reddit
I kind of agree that democracy is hopeless in most of Africa. Now the problem is that most dictators are also corrupt idiots.
These countries would be better served by some kind of protectorate. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone is interested in doing this as they will be accused of being oppressive colonizers.
Maybe what Africa needs is china aligned communists. No democracy and serious pro business policies could create the order required for economic growth.
heckin_miraculous@reddit
The article mentions a "lengthy interview" Traore did on television. Does anyone know where that can be seen? I'd love to watch it.
While I'm way too uninformed to have an opinion on this, it's an incredibly interesting turn of events and I'm not at all surprised to see the word, if not the entire notion, of democracy called into question so publicly in a place struggling to secure a basic quality of life, and to do it independently.
The opening pages of David Graebers posthumous 2025 book, The Ultimate Hidden Truth Of The World..., asks if the concept of democracy can be salvaged from the abuses it's seen at the hands of corrupt powers.
It's an open question indeed, and men like Traore are asking it with violence and determination. In fact, he seems to have found his answer (his answer is no), but that's why I want to watch his full interview and hear more in his own words. Soundbites can't communicate a philosophy.
the-southern-snek@reddit (OP)
The whole interview can be found here and a translated excerpt here.
Oppopity@reddit
He's right. The ones who complain about freedom and democracy are the ones helping the terrorists, not the ones helping fight the terrortists so schools can stay open and children can get an education. The ones who complain about freedom and democracy are the ones that drop bombs on children and Libya is a great example. Traore is actually fighting to improve the lives of his people but because he isn't a vassal of Europeans he's targetted.
panopticon_aversion@reddit
Charismatic guy. There’s more to what he’s saying than just the democracy sound bite. Thanks for the source and excerpt.
True-Firefighter7489@reddit
If he ends up failing (which he currently is), tankies and the well regarded burkinabe citizens will blame "dA FrEnCh ImPeRiAlIsTs", but they won't say anything about the "brave" Russian mercenaries (not Imperialists, apparently) raping, torturing, and killing innocent Fulanis.
leviathan235@reddit
Broadly speaking (not commenting on Burkina Faso in particular), I don’t think underdeveloped countries should have democracy, especially before they have industrialized or become a full nation, ie unified the people into a single national identity. To the best of my knowledge, there are 0 examples of successful instances of industrialization when a nation has universal suffrage. And forget about any development if your nation is fractured into tribal or multi-religious identities instead of a unified national identity. The centrifugal forces are too overwhelming.
Additionally, if a nation is facing existential military threats, a democracy would be a terrible form of government to confront the problem. It simply cannot rally sufficient resources to give the problem the attention it deserves. The obvious example is Cincinnatus, but you get my point.
That being said, if the non-democratic ruling party is incompetent or compromised by foreign powers (eg Gulf monarchies, though it is pretty easy for foreign powers to compromise a democratic system), all bets are off either way. I do not know enough about Burkina Faso to comment, but a democracy has absolutely 0 chance to push through industrialization, break parochialism, or face an existential security threat, while a non-democratic system has a shot, provided the regime is competent. In the event a competent regime is brought to power democratically, there’s a 0% chance they will successfully execute their agenda before being impeded by special interests or voted out.
Did I basically just say “an enlightened dictatorship is better than a democracy”? Yes. But my real point is that the path to development is extremely hard, which is why so few countries have done it, especially when there are other countries that have already developed (eg flooding your country with cheap industrial products, killing your nascent industries). With a non-democratic government, you at least have a small chance to pull it off.
Ambitious-Poet4992@reddit
I’m not bothered by this as other countries have limited liberal democracy but have a competent leadership that can provide for them. I’m afraid I don’t think traore is competent as half the country is ruled by insurgents (obviously partly through little fault of his own but he should be smarter about geopolitics than just relying on Russia)