Why is Africa so poor, and will it ever become developed?

Ok, again, why be so defensive. But I do agree with you with regards to "And often Westerners will stay in cities, and will have no clue about the situation in rural areas. Sometimes having been there, gives you larger blinds than staying at home reading books".

However, you have hit the issue on the head with the statement "how the fuck else would you form judgements but from an academic standpoint?" because I think a probelm with judgements made purely academically is that they can lead to well-intentioned but ineffective interventions or aid.

I am of the thinking that Never judge another man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins, and therefore will always be interested in how people make their judgement.

But this is diverging from the original topic.

I'm in agreement with Worldtraveller on the contents of this thread, and I can't see the need for the defensive reactions either.

Well, sorry if I interpreted in that way, but I read it as "you guys don't know what you're talking about, but I do since I am a 'world traveller' with experience in Sub-saharan Africa". It just comes off as being pretty self-serving IMO. But this is the internet, so your 'genuine' question came off as dickish.

Well, anarchists don't really sit of bags of money to fund interventions so the point is moot. The large devt. agencies do have people on the ground, so does the EU, the WB, the IMF and any other aid organization on this planet. The problem is that international aid is politicized, and is often run by bureaucrats who are more interested in 'logical framework analysis' and other such bs management crap than with anything else. Not to mention that aid has, and always will be, a form of imperialism (often in very subtle ways).

I can see why K got 'defensive' (pretty derogatory way of putting it IMO) and agree that he has the right to call you out on what you may (or may not [sic]) have been suggesting. Trying to tip-toe out of those suggestions saying it may or may not have been relevant is pretty cheap way of getting out of it.

I completely agree with what your saying here, but I think your kind of preaching to the converted on this point. Slip on some libcom moccasins for a second, I don't think anybody is suggesting aid or 'intervention' (especially the euphemistic 'humanitarian intervention') is the answer to anything.

I understand and agree, the internet can make comments come across as different to what was initially intended, so happy to have that cleared up.

The reason why there may be some tip-toeing going on is that because of the above issue with the internet and that the debate about Africa is a tough one and is marred the word "racism" which is often thrown around loosely by people who may not agree with some comments made and/or do not really understand how people have made up their opinions.

Two reasons not to get too involved in it.

Imperialism. No seriously

The African governmentsdo not have bad leadership or stupid governance. Elites of certain African nations are just as smart or dumb as any other elite. But here's the problem: whether or not they are "democracies" or extreme right dictatorships (which make up the most of African nations), there is still a local elite searching for self-aggrandizement and personal wealth.

Contrary to what the media goes on about Zimbabwe's are the minority (an idiotic leadership) and Ugandas, Central African Republics, Kenyas, and Chads are the majority (countries with elites just as intelligible as any other elites).

So let me ask YOU a question: what is in the IMMEDIATE interest of a third world elite? If you were a third world dictator, what would get you fancy cars and personal airplanes faster? Would engaging in a Marshall plan type development program - where the vast, vast amount of natural resources in your country can be used to build massive public works, factories, and the like can be used to bring prosperity to the people - be in your IMMEDIATE interests? Or would, say, de facto selling your country off to Western powers - privatization, neoliberalism, etc. - do the trick?

As a first worlder, you'll say the former. An economically developed nation means more wealth can be extracted via taxation to your elite buddies... as a radical first worlder, you'll say the neither, free market capitalism with some protectionism will redistibute wealth upwards (to your elite buddies).

But if you study neocolonialism,you realize that the two answers above are totally wrong. If you used the, say, trillions of tons of oil that exists under your feet to help working people AND your elite buddies no one will like you. What does that mean? Basically, every first world nation will shun your crazy lack of neoliiberalism and start organizing a coup to someone who'll get the rich white first world capitalist what they want. If not the first world, local elites will get super pissed at your bullshit of helping the people and not immediately the elite will organize a coup against you or agitate for your disapearence (a la Venezuela)

If you're like a South Korean dictator, extreme capitalism with the necessary protectionism, first world nations will be quite angry at your not bending over backwards to imperialism. You may be able to build a strong prosperous elite, but your position is still quite dangerous and untenable.

If you decide to get naked, grease up your anus, throw yourself on a bed, and start singing the American national anthem, you will usually get some money via first world "aid agencies" and the IMf. You'll get some fancy military hardware to shut down anyone who wants to fuck with you, foreign or domestic, and you get to be a vassel of some of the most powerful nations on earth.

And as a vassel, you can do pretty much anything you want. Want to conquera tiny neighboring nation like your Hitler, kill enemies of your regime and get some nobel peace prizes because of it? Enact the necessary neoliberal capitalist reforms and ALL THIS CAN BE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!

This is why almost every African nation boasts of insane growth rates as well as insane poverty. Because elites are self-interested,and policies that create such poverty are in some elites best interest.

Therefore, Africa, as well as all third worlpd continents have been recolonized. If you try to help the people of your hypthetical african nation, your nation's elites and the first world elites will despise you. You are in the same position Cuba or Iran is. Your government WILL capitulate eventually.

If your nation attempts to exclusively enrich the local elite and basically ignores first world nations, you'll probably see a coup of some sort.

If you decide to capitulate to this neo-imperialism, you can get it nall. Money, fame, mansions, fancy cars, fancy women, and a fancy military to oppress your people more efficiently.

Many people erroneously blame African poverty for ethnic strife (all african borders are artificial) or skmething like it. However, this is putting the cart before the horse. The only reason this gay faction is fighting that straight faction, or any other orientalist-like myth people make up to envision constant chaos in Africa ever happens is because of massive poverty amongat the people. How coincidental that the IRA became popular in North Ireland once again after the extreme capitalist reforms of Thatcher?

Whether or not its a democracy there is an elite, and selling out to first world powers is what third world elites want to do.