He Was NOT the Perfect Socialist Leader

Рет қаралды 4,797

Ай бұрын

It is very important to criticise people you greatly respect and admire. In this video I criticise Thomas Sankara (or really more just the way people portray him).
All my sources and notes on them can be found here:
docs.google.com/document/d/1U...

Пікірлер: 53

@yuvi3738 Ай бұрын

"Sankara used state oppression to implement his policies and maintai his regime" literally applies to every single nation, empire etc in history. Clearly he didnt need to use much state oppression to implement his polciies considering how popular they were

@amoussouericlaurel9762 14 күн бұрын

😅I am african. People have no idea what french imperialism is like in the continent. It is not a place where you can be idealist. If you are to soft you will loose power very quickly. And he was too soft. At least compare to his peer.

@aadhavanbalachandran7164 Ай бұрын

It's interesting that when it comes to socialist states they're always described as "regimes" whereas the US empire and the vassal states are described as mere "governments".

@tiberseptim8434 24 күн бұрын

Well, most „socialist“ states were ML-aligned, and thus not democratic in the slightest. If it has to keep itself in power by force alone, it‘s pretty normal to call it a regime. That’s why I‘ve never seen someone refer to the „Allende Regime“ nowadays.

@aadhavanbalachandran7164 24 күн бұрын

@@tiberseptim8434 Bourgeois liberal democracy was far more undemocratic than any ML government. Aesthetics of democracy mean nothing in reality.

@pivomanslovensko 13 күн бұрын

@@aadhavanbalachandran7164Least delusional red fash

@holdenennis 5 күн бұрын

The terms are synonyms.

@aadhavanbalachandran7164 5 күн бұрын

@@holdenennis Never heard any Western government being referred to as a regiment.

@andriaqardava3766 Ай бұрын

We need you to call upon the spirit of sankara at 3 am and ask him yourself

@Lily-ob9ix Ай бұрын

Love it, I used to think Sankara was the perfect guy - economically, socially, you name it, but now I realise he's just a regular guy Edit: Thanks for all the likes guys!

@JahNgomba-ir2zi Ай бұрын

“Regular guy” you could never achieve half of what he has achieved

@Lily-ob9ix Ай бұрын

@@JahNgomba-ir2zi too late

@kriche74 Ай бұрын

If you look at his sayings… this is exactly how he wanted to be perceived.

@James-sg3uh Ай бұрын

Fantastic. Top quality as usual - keep em coming

@BettyCooper-kr5qr Ай бұрын

Love the breakdown - so easy to follow!

@dossantoscardosoantonio3625 26 күн бұрын

Who is perfect?

@mambaman3632 Ай бұрын

And who amongst us is the “PERFECT” anything???

@Lily-ob9ix Ай бұрын

Thomas Sankara was the first and only perfect man we will and ever have had - this video is fake news

@arsha1434 Ай бұрын

The video itself is good and short. My real praise comes from the research notes While they could use better organization, the text you've added from them is rich in information while they are as a whole nuanced in their look of the Sankara regime, some praising it for it's positives and other's looking at it's negatives, with differing views on why these negatives came about (internal factors vs. external). Especially for a channel of small size like yours these notes are stellar and I do hope future research notes of yours will have the same richness as this video's notes. Subscribed.

@The_2012th_Night Ай бұрын

Thank you 🔥🔥🙏

@scarecrow533 Ай бұрын

Subscribed. We need more people like you in the world.

@The_2012th_Night Ай бұрын

Thank you 🙏🙏

@utqiagvik1991 Ай бұрын

Nice idea for a video, but do not refer to imperialist lies.

@The_2012th_Night Ай бұрын

True

@jzcahs Ай бұрын

great video, but can you please leave links in the description for the sources you showed on the screen it will be great for those who want to research much more about the topic

@The_2012th_Night Ай бұрын

I added my google doc to the description!

@jzcahs Ай бұрын

@@The_2012th_Night thanks

@jovanmandic1228 Ай бұрын

As a Marxist-Leninist id have to agree with you, very objective

@noahjohnson935 28 күн бұрын

I wouldnt really put Sankara on the same legel of Chaves. Chaves was pretty crappy as an individual and a leader. But i love your video and it is very well done

@The_2012th_Night 28 күн бұрын

Thank you Noah

@ikeu6433 13 күн бұрын

Taking on debt to build schools, pharmacies and water reservoirs is encouraged 3/5 years of growth sounds great. I believe he deserves every ounce of credit he gets. He also is beloved by the people of Burkina Faso and everyone in Africa who remembers him. Even Jeremy Rollings said how great he was. I would never compare him to Lenin or Trotsky. He was above all, an African.

@workingproleinc.676 Ай бұрын

When you pointed out IMF i did stop lisin

@christianbolisca1493 Ай бұрын

To be honest, I could see Sankara turning Burkina Faso into the Cuba of Africa. I’ll leave it up to your own judgement.

@avus-kw2f213 27 күн бұрын

2:41 isn’t Lower CO2 emissions a bad thing as it means less industry

@Frostchris4121 27 күн бұрын

This video had all the usual buzzwords like "international community", "regime", "state oppression" etc. It's not even worth taking with a pinch of salt.

@thefulltimer9946 Ай бұрын

Nice

@yuvi3738 Ай бұрын

I want to clarify that I dislike this video quite a bit. You fail to explore the actual benefits and negatives of his rule. You mention negative GDP growth during his rule due to IMF loans, but fail to mention that after blaise compaoré came to power after the French-backed coup of Sankara, Blaise immediately reversed the nationalisation under Sankara and rejoined the IMF. Google these specific words "IMF structural adjustment". The IMF is notorious for forcing nations that want loans to adopt neoliberal policies that consistently lead to foreign companies owning formerly state-owned industries and MoP. Mentioning Sankara not repaying the "IMF debt" is irrelevant without including WHY he didn't. These were loans taken out by the pro-French regime under Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo. Sankara never asked the IMF for a single loan, and repudated organisations like the IMF for their exploitative nature. n his own words" "Those who led us into debt were gambling, as if they were in a casino… there is talk of a crisis. No. They gambled. They lost… We cannot repay the debt because we have nothing to pay it with. If we do not pay, our creditors will not die. We can be sure of that. On the other hand, if we pay, it is we who will die. Of that we can be equally sure" Who cares about GDP growth? Literacy rate, quality of life, HDI, life expectancy, etc are far more pertinent metrics. Would you prefer he gloriously... repay the colonisers debt? Is that some amazing legacy to you? "Hey sorry we were going to build tonnes of schools and ramp up vaccinations, land reform, agricultural development, but we spent all our money on repaying predatory loans to neocolonisers even though these loans were taken by the previous pro-French regime". To clarify - Sankara REJECTED loans from the IMF because he knew how exploitative they were. Sankara was not Autarkic, he simply wanted self-sufficiency in FOOD production, not total self sufficieny/ aversion to trade. Why should he have to pay loans belonging to the French neocolonial regime under Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo? Does this look like someone who spurns all foreign trade and reliance to you? 🔻 "Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us. Those who really want to help us can give us ploughs, tractors, fertilizers, insecticides, watering cans, drills and dams. That is how we would define food aid." - Sankara It seems clear that he did not disavow or refuse food aid, but that he knew what food aid would actually benefit Burkina Faso and what food aid. That's how Burkina Faso was able to become self sufficient in food production in just four years. In fact, wikipedia itself shows this - "Hundreds of tractors were bought and imported for large-scale cooperative projects.". Overall a very surface level video. Essentially just "sure this guy was good but we shouldn't idolise someone just because the person after them was worse". Which is hilarious considering that Blaise reversed Sankara's policies and embraced neoliberalism, he wasn't "Sankara but more brutal". "The total cereal production rose by 75% between 1983 and 1986.[45] In four years, UN-analysts declared Burkinian agriculture as productive enough to be "food self-sufficent".[46]" Glory to Sankara!

@zaidanp7258 Ай бұрын

Based.

@obroncajasmejgory3387 Ай бұрын

Who cares about gdp? Brother in christ how do you want a state sponsored school without state having any money? The state was littelary losing money because of him and IMF forcing ,,neo-liberal policies" is true but thats because they fucking want to have their money back at some point, and how do you expect to make money without those policies? Sankara just showed you how great he was at gdp grotwh and nearly every commie leader also failed at making money and thats why they all failed. Its not like he didnt want IMF to meddle in so that his country would be better off, he was just corrupt

@The_2012th_Night Ай бұрын

2:42

@yuvi3738 Ай бұрын

"I understand certain accomplishments were commendable, but they arent perfect" Again, this statement applies to literally any leader, as you say yourself. It's just silly to STATE they weren't perfect, and try to prove such, list the massive benefits and accomplishments of Sankarist policy in a single slide that is quickly skipped over and not even read aloud, and spend a disproportionate amount of time focusing on "muh IMF loans". Gives it a deeply un-neutral tint. There's far better ACTUAL criticisms of Sankarist policies and actions, yet so much focus in this video on such a weak point of "debt". And despite this large focus on IMF debt and loans, there's no background or context given on the IMF, on these loans, on who taken out these loans, on why Sankara opposed such debt "obligations". Your research notes paint Sankara as someone obsessed with Autarky. This is simply untrue and conflates a postcolonial nation being skeptical of western aid and capital investment with total lack of trade and self sufficiency across all industries and sectors. The latter is not at all what Sankara wanted, and even he knew it was impossible. Hence why he imported hundreds of tractors. 4:38 the issue with Blaise Compraore wasn't just that he was more Brutal than Sankara and thus Sankara was idolised. The issue is that Blaise REVERSED the majority of the Sankarist policies to the detriment of the Burkinabe people Im not claiming Sankara is perfect. I'm just claiming the video itself fails to explain the reality of Sankara and the real criticisms of Sankara's policies and WHY he wasn't perfect. If your whole point was just "yeah some socialist leaders do good things but aren't perfect"... I don't see why that in itself is worth making a video on. I.e., your focus on economic growth and IMF loans as indicators that Sankara wasn't perfect are weak and unconvincing to socialists who know that GDP growth is not inherently the most important metric for assessing development and the material conditions of the average Burkinabe citizen. There are better criticisms to show Sankara wasn't perfect besides invoking neocolonial organisations, Stalin being more brutal than Lenin, etc. I'm not saying your core point is wrong - I also think for example Trotsky would launched an "authoritarian" collectivisation programme were he in power, and it would be just as callous to resistance, if not even more zealous. I'm saying you do a poor job in this video specifically of explaining why Sankara wasn't perfect. The comparison to Lenin-Stalin also falls short because Stalin positioned himself as the ideological successor of Lenin whereas Blaise did literally the opposite - murdering Sankara. Thus, its true that Lenin wrongfully seen by many, especially pro-Stalin people, as simply "Stalin but less brutal". This is also untrue. It ignores that Stalin significantly diverged from Lenins principles in 1928 and 1930s. Korenizatsiia, national self determination, was abandoned and reversed. Stalin was not at all "Lenin but more brutal". Stalin was uniquely brutal in ways Lenin was not and would never have been. Lenin would've never ordered the deportations of Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, etc. @@The_2012th_Night

@yuvi3738 Ай бұрын

This is too stupid to respond to@@obroncajasmejgory3387