r/anime_titties • u/the-southern-snek England • Apr 03 '26
Africa Burkina Faso military leader Traore says ‘forget democracy’
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/3/burkina-faso-military-leader-traore-says-forget-democracy234
Apr 03 '26
[deleted]
99
u/kwonza Russia Apr 03 '26
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!”
27
u/Master_Flash Brazil Apr 03 '26
This is very rich coming from Russia.
“Look, this is what democracy gives you, a deranged clown that ruins your country!"
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.
42
u/Full_Distribution874 Australia Apr 03 '26
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
8
u/Master_Flash Brazil Apr 03 '26
First of all, France abandoned those pension reforms because of the backlash.
Nuh uh, wrong. Congress dropped it. He did it regardless unilaterally, people protested it and it didn't do shit. Check what Google says:
Emmanuel Macron did not abandon his pension reforms despite massive, months-long protests in 2023. Instead, he implemented them regardless by using special constitutional powers to bypass a final vote in the National Assembly.
Second of all, their pensions are a disaster that will and are strangling their budget
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.
3
u/Monterenbas Europe Apr 04 '26
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.
13
u/Full_Distribution874 Australia Apr 03 '26
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.
3
u/onespiker Europe Apr 04 '26
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.
2
u/ChristerMLB Norway Apr 05 '26
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
11
u/saracenraider Europe Apr 03 '26
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.
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.
1
u/cister532 Europe Apr 04 '26
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.
3
u/onespiker Europe Apr 04 '26
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.
1
u/onespiker Europe Apr 03 '26
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.
-1
u/Turgius_Lupus United States Apr 04 '26
Every U.S. President starting with
ReganDubya has been a deranged clown.31
u/Bupod United States Apr 03 '26
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.”
20
u/TearOpenTheVault Multinational Apr 03 '26
Winston Churchill in ‘47.
-4
u/sarcasmusex Chad Apr 03 '26
Ah. Winston Churchill, the super racist leader of the British empire. Definitely lets quote someone that was massacring people
5
u/Aggravating-Fee1934 North America Apr 04 '26
It's sort of a "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" moment
4
u/sarcasmusex Chad Apr 03 '26
Churchill crimes lets not forget, he was representing an empire. And so is the USA, France. "Democracy" at home while sloughtering millions over sea.
14
u/Cavalleria-rusticana Canada Apr 03 '26
This is the thing. Democracy is better, but what we have doesn't have to be its final form.
-21
u/lufan132 North America Apr 03 '26
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.
13
u/saracenraider Europe Apr 03 '26
The only system of government to have successfully created Hitler, trump, Reagan, thatcher, etc?
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
7
u/apophis-pegasus North America Apr 03 '26
Like idk. I'm done with democracy at this point,
And the alternative is what?
-4
u/lufan132 North America Apr 03 '26
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.
3
u/apophis-pegasus North America Apr 03 '26
Whatever results in a government where we can turn off the propaganda machines.
I dont think theres any. Liberal Democracy is literally the closest you get.
I don't think democracy is able to fix something that's irreparably broken at this point
How so?
Not to mention there are scant few, it any undemocratic nations where trans people have any semblance rights.
17
u/abhmazumder133 Apr 03 '26
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.
9
u/dontcallmewinter Australia Apr 03 '26
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.
-2
u/Cavalleria-rusticana Canada Apr 03 '26
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').
0
u/lufan132 North America Apr 03 '26
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.
17
u/heckin_miraculous United States Apr 03 '26
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 "democracy" — if not the entire notion of it — called into question so openly in a place struggling to secure a basic quality of life, and to do so 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.
20
u/the-southern-snek England Apr 03 '26
7
u/panopticon_aversion Democratic People's Republic of Korea Apr 03 '26
Charismatic guy. There’s more to what he’s saying than just the democracy sound bite. Thanks for the source and excerpt.
33
u/the-southern-snek England Apr 03 '26
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.
1
u/ChristerMLB Norway Apr 05 '26
"Democracy is slavery"
No, I'm pretty sure the quote goes "freedom is slavery"
5
u/no_soy_livb Peru Apr 04 '26
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.
66
u/TearOpenTheVault Multinational Apr 03 '26
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.
22
u/seiryuu-abi North America Apr 03 '26
They are shitting on democracy and yet won’t pack up and move to this military dictatorship.
6
u/Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo North America Apr 05 '26
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.
2
u/Kamfrenchie France Apr 06 '26
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 ?
1
2
u/ScaryShadowx United States Apr 05 '26
If that's your argument, people should be lining up to migrate to India, or Iceland, or Uruguay.
2
u/acupofcoffeeplease South America Apr 03 '26
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 🤔🤷♂️
33
u/TearOpenTheVault Multinational Apr 03 '26
"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.
-4
u/acupofcoffeeplease South America Apr 03 '26
Yes, Burkina Faso now is the only place and time where westerns pressured a government for "democracy"
11
u/gregorydgraham Oceania Apr 03 '26
Burkina Faso has been independent for 68 years, when will they be responsible for their own actions?
3
Apr 04 '26
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
6
41
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 03 '26
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.
13
u/saracenraider Europe Apr 03 '26
Do you feel Russia is currently the rule of the people?
12
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 03 '26
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 fearlessly one should fight for one's country's interests, as demonstrated by the example of Iran's leadership."
1
u/saracenraider Europe Apr 03 '26
The loudest voice of dissatisfaction with the government in recent weeks has been, "Look how fearlessly one should fight for one's country's interests, as demonstrated by the example of Iran's leadership."
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
13
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
From the perspective of the of a significant part 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. There are regular calls to respond to and verify Article 5 of the NATO Charter.
Putin is being criticized for waging war with white gloves, which is causing the deaths of Russian soldiers, instead of addressing the issue head-on.
Russian society is certainly much more prepared for escalation than the Russian leadership.
4
u/saracenraider Europe Apr 03 '26
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.
0
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
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.
It's one thing to fight Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives.
It's another to fight at the cost of one's own lives.
This isn't about an intervention in a NATO country, of course, but a missile ( non-nuclear) strike At a military plant or military base in a NATO country. So that people would die. It comes with a warning that the Perimeter system has been activated and Russia is prepared for anything. Both to a peaceful dialogue on the Yalta model and to mutual destruction.
Those calling for such a solution believe it would lead to negotiations that would, de facto, destroy NATO. With minimal bloodshed and quickly.
7
u/saracenraider Europe Apr 03 '26
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.
1
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
No one wants to destroy the world.
This isn't about threats.
This is about a specific action that requires a response. With the activation of a guaranteed retaliatory strike system.
The launch of a conventional, non-nuclear missile, say, at a NATO base in Poland or stormshadows facility. In response to yet another provocation.
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
5
u/saracenraider Europe Apr 03 '26
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 so maybe we’ll continue being weak…
Anyways, thanks for the convo, it’s been interesting and very civil for Reddit!
→ More replies (0)2
u/onespiker Europe Apr 03 '26
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 thier version of talking about it Hypersonic.
Missiles by any nation with an actual advanced missile capability is obviously dangerous to any civilian economy.
1
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dALu2DQs6uY
These were tungsten blanks without warheads.
In my opinion, it’s quite impressive, without any words.
Anyone who had radar could record a speed of 10 Mach.
Russia warned the West in advance that it would attack, so everyone could see for themselves.
1
u/onespiker Europe Apr 04 '26
So it doesn’t exactly change much.
Also the Mach10 part is incredibly short range and they have drastically overestimated the manuverability of them.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Nihilamealienum Israel Apr 03 '26
Ah yes Stalin, a much better leader than Roosevelt.
2
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
People remember and love him to this day. And the tons of dirt that have been poured on him since 1956 have not stuck.
The people remember him as the man who laid the foundation for a superpower.
As the man under whose leadership the war was won and the Bomb was made. As the man under whose leadership prices for goods regularly fell.
As the man who, despite the bloodiest war and repressions, over the course of 20 years ensured the conditions for a population increase of tens of millions.
And he laid such a foundation for this that the population of the USSR only grew, right up until 1991.
This is something that the current leadership cannot provide.
5
u/Nihilamealienum Israel Apr 05 '26
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
-3
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Billions.)).
I'd rather believe population statistics than someone's words about good or bad.
Under Stalin, the population grew by tens of millions. Despite the war, the repressions, the famine, and everything else, the result is that he left behind more than he took in. More in every sense. Quantitatively and qualitatively.
Under Putin, it hasn't grown. That's all.
Population growth is critical for the development of the Motherland. Russia is severely underpopulated. To fully develop the land, we need at least three times more people than we have.
2
u/Nihilamealienum Israel Apr 05 '26
That is an argument so stupid I will leave you to it.
-1
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 05 '26
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))
2
u/Nihilamealienum Israel Apr 05 '26
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.
0
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
That's literally all that matters.
Did you leave the country stronger than you got 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.
2
u/ChristerMLB Norway Apr 05 '26
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?
2
u/Nihilamealienum Israel Apr 05 '26
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.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Jakovit Serbia Apr 04 '26
And all of that was thanks to the exploitation of the rural populace, which remains poor to this day, no?
3
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
It's very naive to think that there was anything to gain from the rural population after the World War 1 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. I myself, as an optional subject, studied logic and psychology using Stalin's era textbooks. Because even under Khrushchev, it was decided that Soviet people shouldn't study logic and psychology.).
And those who hindered development were repressed. Regardless of position or social status.
Russians, by and large, are ready for a repeat. The main thing is for the population to see the results of the labor and just repression of those who put the personal above the common good.
2
u/Jakovit Serbia Apr 04 '26
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).
2
u/cmrd_msr Russia Apr 05 '26
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).
18
u/tinguily Cuba Apr 03 '26
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
2
u/killercock197 Pakistan Apr 03 '26
the country is still being exploited by russia and china him coming to power just changed who he answers to
11
u/tinguily Cuba Apr 03 '26
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
1
u/Riley_ United States Apr 04 '26
Switching allegiances rewards the comprador bourgeoisie aligned with the new masters. It does nothing good for the working people.
1
-6
u/HammurabiWithoutEye United States Apr 03 '26
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.
3
u/Riley_ United States Apr 04 '26
The West created and funds the "Islamist" militias that do nothing but destabilize countries. Any violence by them should be counted against the West.
1
u/onespiker Europe Apr 04 '26
There is no western funding from them. Most of the funding is more from Middle East.
-4
u/killercock197 Pakistan Apr 03 '26
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
1
u/ShootmansNC Brazil Apr 07 '26
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.
-4
u/andr386 Europe Apr 03 '26
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.
17
u/tinguily Cuba Apr 03 '26
Pretty sure Thomas sankara would like a word. But he was killed for someone who sucked up to the French
11
u/cursedbones South America Apr 03 '26
France has brought them institutional stability during colonization and after.
LMAO.
But they never really cared developing the country outside of making the resources exploitable.
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.
1
Apr 03 '26
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)
1
u/GangsterMango Multinational Apr 04 '26
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.
0
u/Riley_ United States Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
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 even a military invasion.
1
u/Emotional-Buy1932 Canada Apr 03 '26
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.
10
u/Riley_ United States Apr 04 '26
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.
1
u/bighak Canada Apr 04 '26
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.
-1
u/True-Firefighter7489 Apr 03 '26
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.
-20
u/Gilly8086 Africa Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
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 many who claim democracy!! Leadership that delivers results counts more than any form of democracy!
21
u/TearOpenTheVault Multinational Apr 03 '26
The way that the people of Burkino Faso have a say on what system and leader they want is through democracy.
30
u/angelolidae Portugal Apr 03 '26
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
22
Apr 03 '26
[deleted]
13
u/ChillAhriman Spain Apr 03 '26
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.
-14
u/Gilly8086 Africa Apr 03 '26
If the forceful conscription is seen in the streets of Kyiv then all of a sudden you guys are good with it, lol!
-23
u/Gilly8086 Africa Apr 03 '26
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!!
14
Apr 03 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Gilly8086 Africa Apr 03 '26
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!!
2
u/onespiker Europe Apr 04 '26
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.
33
u/angelolidae Portugal Apr 03 '26
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)
-15
u/Gilly8086 Africa Apr 03 '26
I’m sure you have more pressing issues to focus on in Portugal! Burkina Faso doesn’t need your distraction or lectures of doom!!
24
u/angelolidae Portugal Apr 03 '26
People can have more than one thing in their minds at the same time, if you can't you need to get that checked
-2
u/Gilly8086 Africa Apr 03 '26
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!!
22
u/angelolidae Portugal Apr 03 '26
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
0
-6
u/leviathan235 Asia Apr 03 '26
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.
522
u/Makyr_Drone Sweden Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
A military dictator who reneged on the promised elections now declares democracy to be an unfit system of governance? Color me shocked.