There’s no useful analysis here, since the author hasn’t bothered to ask any protestors why they’re protesting, but here’s hoping these are more steps towards a Red Africa.
Countries with active or recent protest movements mentioned in the article include Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Eswatini, Namibia, Mozambique, and South Africa.
Personally I’d find any protest movements in Zimbabwe, Angola, South Africa, Mozambique or Namibia incredibly suspect to say the least. Those don’t sound like a path to a “Red Africa,” they sound like a path towards a revitalized colonization of Africa, tbh for all of Uganda and Nigeria’s (also mentioned in the article) serious issues it still could sound like a strategic targeting of BRICS member states and applicants in the continent.
Full support to the protesters in Kenya, though. Ruto can get fucked.
South Africa
Why so? I think there are other revolutionary leftist parties ready to fill in the gaps for those countries
As to the other countries, they strike me as countries of similar political arrangement to Venezuela: Global South socialist-leaning ruling parties, that survived the Cold War, but whose political ideology, policies and leadership has been partially hollowed out as a result of such war, and the resulting domination of neoliberalism… (At one point or another, I think one of em’s a comprador state)
I’m hoping, for God’s sake, these countries get a turn around
This is my understanding as well. However revolutionary these governments once were, many if not all have been undermined by neoliberalism. Granted, of course it’s plausible that the US would try to exploit any discontent in its favor. But whether or not that’s the case here is still unclear.
Eh. Arab Spring was US color revolution and pressure campaign. Their big success of course was Egypt, kicking out the Muslim Brotherhood who risked having a bit more solidarity with the Palestinian people and against occupied Palestine’s zionist colonization and being slightly more skeptical of the US, so in goes Generalisimo-strongman.
Any time you shuffle the deck where the US is still the reigning hegemon, still has had schools of the americas up and running for decades with people all over having attended (and black books full of blackmail, weak points, lists of bribes taken, etc), still controls the global media landscape, still sells an image of successful liberalism being a lackey for them, and so on you risk losing progress towards a more multi-polar world. You risk trading imperfect, deeply flawed, but old, somewhat entrenched and strong groups and movements with the potential to be friendly to China and Russia for their own interests and to see in some ways the flaws of the US-led order, of US-exported and espoused liberalism and capitalism and austerity and avoid it, be skeptical of it, take a middle road if not one straight to BRICS and trading that for western lapdogs with friends waiting in the wings, with networks waiting in the wings, a media apparatus waiting in the wings, a protest apparatus waiting in the wings, corrupt and indoctrinated military officers waiting in the wings who will sell their country out and devastate it, weaken multi-polarity and strengthen the US position for another 20 years or more.
We’ve seen it before in Asia, in the crushing of the pink tide in Latin America. Hell the only reason they didn’t need to do it Europe is because they had boots on the ground from invading and had set up Gladio and run it with the help of fascist government officials.
For the sake of the proletariat in Africa of course it would be nice if some of the more corrupt governments could be toppled, concessions won, etc. But the truth is those who most benefit from the collapse of governments are powers waiting to fill that space and right now the only one this describes is the US. Who have spent billions, decades, countless resources, NGOs, spying so they know all the dirts and secrets, bot armies to stir people up online, influencers who act in person knowingly or unknowingly to benefit and push for a western-friendly order. But I am skeptical and I am hardened by past experiences, failures, and sabotage of popular movements too countless to name. In other words we should be wary and skeptical of lending support and hope to any uprising that spouts vaguely populist messages like food prices, western capitalist lackeys too do that when there’s someone getting too close to the enemy in government.
Caution, caution in action, caution in optimism, skepticism. Dare to hope, but also dare to question being led astray by such hope. Traditionally successes against capitalism were followed by claw-backs, by retribution, by losses.
I know Libya and Syria were obvious color revolutions, but plenty of the uprising in the Arab Spring was legit, no? Tunisia, Bahrain, even the harshly suppressed and limited version in Saudi Arabia?
I also have trouble believing the US could have pulled off the scale of the uprising in Egypt. As much as 25% of the country was out protesting on Mubarak’s final day.
Not to mention that the State Department and even Obama himself were openly supporting Mubarak until it became clear it was untenable to continue. Only then, as Chomsky pointed out is the pattern of the US, did they flip the script and say they supported the demands of the democratic movement all along.
Dare to hope, but also dare to question being led astray by such hope.
True, but I prefer Mao’s version: dare to struggle, dare to win.
