Vietnam implementation of successful growing market socialism, and high cooperative levels.
Burkina Faso under Sankara slashing foreign aid dependence, and expanding healthcare and infrastructure.
Yugoslavia one of the highest growth rates surpassing South Korea, up until their economic collapse and shift away from socialism.

Not liking socialism is a fine opinion but there isn’t any factual right or wrong political opinion
 
I'm not trolling you. I'm from Poland and communists f***ed our economy. Now 30 years later we still have problems because of their "brilliant" ideas. I don't hate socialism. I lived few years in Denmark. Their socialism works, but no one would call it socialism in the 1950s.
 
I'm not trolling you. I'm from Poland and communists f***ed our economy. Now 30 years later we still have problems because of their "brilliant" ideas. I don't hate socialism. I lived few years in Denmark. Their socialism works, but no one would call it socialism in the 1950s.
and it’s still socialism, if you have an issue with this timeline then don’t read, I do not need negativity here or in my thread.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm not trolling you. I'm from Poland and communists f***ed our economy. Now 30 years later we still have problems because of their "brilliant" ideas. I don't hate socialism. I lived few years in Denmark. Their socialism works, but no one would call it socialism in the 1950s.
Wrong Forum for a debate regarding political systems.

Please confine this sort of thing to Chat.
 
I like the premise of a unified French West Africa, and a bungled response to the Thiaroye Massacre (an event that is far too little remembered) is a plausible flashpoint. But I'm skeptical of whether a successful armed revolt would have been possible at this time.

France recruited about 179,000 tirailleurs in WW2, not all of them from West Africa (for instance, 15,000 came from Chad) and not all of them demobilized by the end of 1944, so the West Africans would probably start with less than 100,000 men with military experience. These veterans would be scattered through the West African colonies and would be poorly armed and limited in mobility. The leaders of the revolution could recruit more manpower from the population, but would lack the funds to arm them or the fuel to move them. They could capture some arms and fuel from local garrisons but not enough.

You're betting that France would be too overextended to suppress an African revolt at the same time it was mopping up the Germans or, later, fighting the Vietminh, but in fact there was a revolt in Madagascar in 1947-49 IOTL, and the French army put it down with extreme brutality. They wouldn't hesitate to do the same to a West African revolt - these are, after all, the people who committed the Thiaroye massacre in the first place - and if the African revolt began while WW2 was still in progress, French public opinion would be heavily in favor of suppression and few questions would be asked about how it was done.

The revolution might well have early successes - as you suggest, the veterans might overrun local French garrisons and take control of cities and regions. But I don't think they could withstand the inevitable French counterattack. And in 1945-47, they won't be able to look to the Soviet bloc for material support.

I'm not sure about Senghor as a leader of the revolt either - IOTL, he considered himself French, and although he wrote a memorial poem about Thiaroye, the massacre didn't change his fundamental outlook. I suspect that in a situation like this, he would try and fail to mediate rather than joining the revolution outright.

I imagine you are familiar with Ousmane Sembène - have you read God's Bits of Wood? The 1947-48 railway strike has several potential PODs, and the politics of the Fourth Republic were fluid enough at that point that it might be a potential catalyst - maybe the right breaks (tripartisme with the PCF more prominent?) could result in an earlier loi cadre, the transition to autonomy spinning out of French control, and ultimate victory of a pan-African coalition that takes French West Africa into independence. This would be a subtler POD but, at least IMO, one that would play to West African strengths (including the political acumen of Senghor, Houphouet and their other representatives in the National Assembly) rather than their weaknesses, and a bad response to Thiaroye might also play a part in making the railway strike even more militant than it was. Obviously this is your story and I don't want to take it over, but I'm putting that possibility out there.
 
I like the premise of a unified French West Africa, and a bungled response to the Thiaroye Massacre (an event that is far too little remembered) is a plausible flashpoint. But I'm skeptical of whether a successful armed revolt would have been possible at this time.

France recruited about 179,000 tirailleurs in WW2, not all of them from West Africa (for instance, 15,000 came from Chad) and not all of them demobilized by the end of 1944, so the West Africans would probably start with less than 100,000 men with military experience. These veterans would be scattered through the West African colonies and would be poorly armed and limited in mobility. The leaders of the revolution could recruit more manpower from the population, but would lack the funds to arm them or the fuel to move them. They could capture some arms and fuel from local garrisons but not enough.

You're betting that France would be too overextended to suppress an African revolt at the same time it was mopping up the Germans or, later, fighting the Vietminh, but in fact there was a revolt in Madagascar in 1947-49 IOTL, and the French army put it down with extreme brutality. They wouldn't hesitate to do the same to a West African revolt - these are, after all, the people who committed the Thiaroye massacre in the first place - and if the African revolt began while WW2 was still in progress, French public opinion would be heavily in favor of suppression and few questions would be asked about how it was done.

The revolution might well have early successes - as you suggest, the veterans might overrun local French garrisons and take control of cities and regions. But I don't think they could withstand the inevitable French counterattack. And in 1945-47, they won't be able to look to the Soviet bloc for material support.

I'm not sure about Senghor as a leader of the revolt either - IOTL, he considered himself French, and although he wrote a memorial poem about Thiaroye, the massacre didn't change his fundamental outlook. I suspect that in a situation like this, he would try and fail to mediate rather than joining the revolution outright.

I imagine you are familiar with Ousmane Sembène - have you read God's Bits of Wood? The 1947-48 railway strike has several potential PODs, and the politics of the Fourth Republic were fluid enough at that point that it might be a potential catalyst - maybe the right breaks (tripartisme with the PCF more prominent?) could result in an earlier loi cadre, the transition to autonomy spinning out of French control, and ultimate victory of a pan-African coalition that takes French West Africa into independence. This would be a subtler POD but, at least IMO, one that would play to West African strengths (including the political acumen of Senghor, Houphouet and their other representatives in the National Assembly) rather than their weaknesses, and a bad response to Thiaroye might also play a part in making the railway strike even more militant than it was. Obviously this is your story and I don't want to take it over, but I'm putting that possibility out there.
Hello! Thank you I really do appreciate your response I never expected anyone to give such a long and detailed one. The reason I chose Senghor is a friendly face to the west. Between his time spent in a concentration prisoner camp, and then seeing fellow French African soldiers locked and executed for mutinying, plus a French response of putting down protests by even their more loyal middle class through acts of extreme violence, I had all of these events spiral his personality towards a more revolutionary idealist. While I didn’t have him become a full anti-french Mugabe-esque murdering whites, I still thought he’d be significantly different with these events. As you’ll see later Senghor will be very conciliatory and inviting whites into the ruling apparatus due to their familiarity with it.
Overall, yes I do agree this requires a bit more France dropping the ball, but with the French army already deep in the Indochinese crisis I made the decision that France would probably be more desperate to hold its rubber reserves in Indochina then the relatively unprofitable interior of West Africa. Thus, this allowed the rebels time to gather strength. France would also still be using Dakar and Abidjan as ports even post independence, I made their loss a less bitter pill for them to swallow.
I do consider and appreciate all your input thank you!
 
Part 3: 1951-1956
Part 3: The Start of the Senghor Chairmanship



Often the downfall of a man can be seen from the very beginning, the seeds of the his end are planter from his first actions. French officials had barely pulled out before the so-called Liberation Front began to fracture. Questions swirled around everyone, including up into the provisional leadership triumvirate. Would there be elections? What would the true ideology of this state be? What of the French elites who owned land and resources within this new nation? What of the churches? All of these questions would be quickly set upon by the Triumvirate.

January 17, 1951: The Malian Socialist Federal Republic would officially be declared, Senghor, Keïta, and Coulibaly would keep their roles as head of a provisional governing Triumvirate. Elections would be postponed until as the government claimed “A Safe, and Structured Socialist Nation Could be Created.” While declaring itself to be socialist, the triumvirate would capitulate to the more liberal members of the Liberation Front by allowing the continuation of markets, especially in the important port cities of Dakar and Abidjan.

1951-1956: The first 5 years of Mali’s existence would see the Triumvirate employ Senghor’s so called 4 arrow approach, Consolidation, Industrialization, Mechanization, and Education. The implementation of Senghor’s policy would see his power increase massively and this would begin a nearly 14 year period known as the Sénghor Chairmanship.


Consolidation mainly entailed strengthening the new governments legitimacy in the eyes of its people and the international community, it would also herald the beginning implementation of socialist policies in Mali.

Firstly, under the consolidation policy the Malian government would begin a diplomatic offensive to secure aid, and secure legitimacy for the Malians government control over Togo land. Senghor would ratify a declaration to sever the UN trustee status over Togo. This would cause minor protests from Britain, while the France would remain neutral, with only the USA showing support due to the new administrations desire to foster anti-Soviet aligned sentiment in the coming decolonization of Africa. By 1955 the UN would vote to remove the trusteeship officially and recognize Togo as apart of Mali. Aid would be secured between Mali and the Soviet Union first, mainly in the form of material aid like tractors, trucks, and other abundant materials within the Soviet Union after the war. This would upset the American administration who had seen this as potentially the first foothold in Africa. American diplomats and Senghor himself would draw up treaties providing US aid to Mali as long as they did not pursue any closer ties to the Soviet Union beyond the aid. This further strengthened on the Treaty of New York, and moved Mali closer to America.



Next, in the consolidation tactics would see the reining in of the Red Militia’s into a more standardized and Federal system. Many of these militia members would be integrated into the newly formed Malian Black Army[1]. Daniel Ouezzin Coulibaly whom had helped organized the Liberation Front into a more organized army, now would be tasked with garrisoning, securing control, and the various socialist reforms the government would undertake, this would begin to vastly increase the power of Coulibaly whom would also establish the Internal Security Bureau, or ISB. The ISB would be feared as the secret police of the Triumvirate era and would help begin the transition to socialism and undermining the influence of reactionaries and Europeans.



The implementation of socialist policies would be laid out in the Four Year Plan (1951-1955), agriculture and farmlands would be cooperativized as the government would refer to the program. Small farming plots would be politically, and economically grouped into Farmer Cooperatives, this was done to cut down on the costs of the mechanization campaign as farmers would share and mutually pay for operation costs. The villigization of villages into communally owned cooperative lands would also take place, enforced and carried out by the Black Army. The implementation and management of this socialization and initial “teaching” period would be carried out often when former white land owners, and even old tribal aristocracy who had been enticed into working for the party and state.



The integration of the old landowning whites, and tribal aristocracy, and the socialization of land often came at a price, the Malian government would be forced to put down numerous uprisings especially be more conservative and reactionary or separated tribals. In the first 5 years it’s expected due to uprising and ethnic tensions caused anywhere from 5-10,000 casualties.



Industrialization would come far more slowly than it had for other socialist states. Mali had neither the resources, manpower or money of the Soviets, thus a more measured and gradual policy of industrialization would take place. In cities like Dakar and Abidjan and Ouagadougou the Malian government would encourage surrounding people’s to help build or work in factories, with propaganda promising workers economic democracy, and workers councils handling factories, and a market to allow for goods never seen before by the average rural farmer. This propaganda in the future would return to bite the Malians.



This slow industrialization plan would also coincide with slow mechanization, small amounts of cars or trucks were available within Mali, and usually government owned, so the government would set to work distributing tractors, and trucks to the locations that were needed the most, and helping the slow mechanization of agriculture.



The Fourth point concerned education. By the time of the French exit, literacy rates in the new Federation ranged from 20-30% with most educated peoples being now party officials, or suppressed reactionaries. The government would set about a formal liquidation of illiteracy within the borders of the Federation. This would also become a useful propaganda tool. With the standardization of a new Mande Language, the Malian government could enshrine a new identity, based upon the old lineage of the Malian Empire of old. This education would also allow the Malians to sway people’s opinions and beliefs to becoming firm believers in not only African Socialism, but Malian Nationalism.



All of these rapid reforms would not come without cost, however; the Tuaregs remained wary of the new government, and few settled into the new SR Azawad or SR Aïr, and as time continued these tensions would continue to grow.


Notes: [1] Black Army or Black Legion is often a form of sometimes discriminatory, sometimes respectful behavior towards all black or all black moor regiments within North African armies. I thought it would be interesting to see the African socialists adopt this as a badge of honor.

Afterthought: Hello everyone it’s me, DeVante once again and I do appreciate all the new responses I’ve been getting lately. A little more about me originally my family originates from Mali, so I always wondered what an interesting world it would be to see a successful state based in that region. Anyways, my posts feel rambling to me I get lost in trains of thought because this stuff fascinates me. Also, note, does it seem like the governing system is vague? Well it’s supposed to be, the Triumvirate is this wishy washy market socialism/reactionary socialism etc etc, and this will later anger lots of people, leading to the man we love Sankara. Thanks, have a good day/night and be kind to each other.
 
With the standardization of a new Mande Language, the Malian government could enshrine a new identity, based upon the old lineage of the Malian Empire of old.
Hopefully N'ko was more restrained TTL, there was little point in altering Arabic Numerals and left to right direction.
But certainly with the entire Mande peoples in one country it's the Empire come again.
 
Hopefully N'ko was more restrained TTL, there was little point in altering Arabic Numerals and left to right direction.
But certainly with the entire Mande peoples in one country it's the Empire come again.
The Arabic numerals will be kept and it will be overall more restrained, just standardized across the entire federation. The new socialist government is weirdly nationalistic and nation rebirth-esque while also maintaining socialist practices.
 
¡Truly entertaining so far, I’ve been searching a interesting Pan-African TL for a while!

I’m curious about how would industry and trade develope ITTL or how the African Decolonization will go, personally I think the Lumbumba regime in Congo will have a greater chance of survival while Spain tightens its grip over Equatorial Guinea in response to socialism.
 
¡Truly entertaining so far, I’ve been searching a interesting Pan-African TL for a while!

I’m curious about how would industry and trade develope ITTL or how the African Decolonization will go, personally I think the Lumbumba regime in Congo will have a greater chance of survival while Spain tightens its grip over Equatorial Guinea in response to socialism.
Thank you for the kind comment!

Trade, Industry, and Production will definitely grow for West Africa, and the entire region will generally be a bit more stable. Mali will be economically more prosperous than Nigeria due to Mali not having the disastrous civil war. Spain will probably try to tighten its grip like Portugal, though it’ll be doubtful if this won’t just inspire rebellion sooner.
 
Does the Federation plan to make Standard Mande the language of the entire country? That could work in much of the country, but it's not going to make the Wolof and Fulfulde-speakers happy, among many others. Maybe each of the federation's republics could set its own language policy - there's precedent for this in the USSR, after all, and that seems to be a model the founders are drawing from. (BTW, have you thought about how the Fulani and Tuaregs are going to fit into all this?)

The land policy mirrors Nyerere's Ujamaa villages, although of course, ITTL, the Malian federation is doing rural collectivization well before Nyerere did. If you aren't already familiar with the Ujamaa villages, you might want to look at their history to see the potential pitfalls of this policy and consider how Mali might avoid them.

The industrial plan - now I can see why you're calling Mali the "African Yugoslavia." I'm assuming this starts at small scale and, at least at first, is mainly production with local materials for domestic use? Will Mali have its version of the Trabant?
 
Does the Federation plan to make Standard Mande the language of the entire country? That could work in much of the country, but it's not going to make the Wolof and Fulfulde-speakers happy, among many others. Maybe each of the federation's republics could set its own language policy - there's precedent for this in the USSR, after all, and that seems to be a model the founders are drawing from. (BTW, have you thought about how the Fulani and Tuaregs are going to fit into all this?)

The land policy mirrors Nyerere's Ujamaa villages, although of course, ITTL, the Malian federation is doing rural collectivization well before Nyerere did. If you aren't already familiar with the Ujamaa villages, you might want to look at their history to see the potential pitfalls of this policy and consider how Mali might avoid them.

The industrial plan - now I can see why you're calling Mali the "African Yugoslavia." I'm assuming this starts at small scale and, at least at first, is mainly production with local materials for domestic use? Will Mali have its version of the Trabant?
Howdy, and thanks for reading.

There will be ALOT of resistance to the process of language standardization, Casamance and the Tuaregs in particular will be hotspots for a rebellion and conflicts. In future reference Mali will be ruled by this triumvirate for almost 25 years by that point institutionalized Mande language will be entrenched. After the casting off the the Triumvirate a more soft version of creating a Malian identity will be taken up.

Villigization will be adopted for a lot of Mali it’s how Tanzania really adopted a strong national identity. I’ll avoid the pitfalls of forcing city dwellers especially to go to villages, and production and consumption will be left to individual communes as time goes on.

Industrialization will be slow, a strong domestic agriculture base, especially one that can avoid the famines of the future is the main goal.
 
I just found this and will be watching. I think the party would develop radios and mass communication systems as in air classrooms. Also what us the party's stance on women's rights? Are minorities in the West following Mali in the news?
 
I just found this and will be watching. I think the party would develop radios and mass communication systems as in air classrooms. Also what us the party's stance on women's rights? Are minorities in the West following Mali in the news?
Definitely the development of radios and communication would expand immensely as time goes on. The party just like Senghor himself is rather conservative towards women. Mali for until the later period will adopt a more “New Soviet Women” approach. Women will be pushed to be strong and caring homemakers while their literacy rates will be encouraged to increase. By the 70’s when the shift to democratization will happen you’ll really begin to see Women evolve in their roles.

Minorities will be attempted to be assimilated in Mali during the Senghorist period as I discussed above rebellions in the Tuareg and Casamance region will come up later.
 
The implementation of socialist policies would be laid out in the Four Year Plan (1951-1955), agriculture and farmlands would be cooperativized as the government would refer to the program. Small farming plots would be politically, and economically grouped into Farmer Cooperatives, this was done to cut down on the costs of the mechanization campaign as farmers would share and mutually pay for operation costs. The villigization of villages into communally owned cooperative lands would also take place, enforced and carried out by the Black Army. The implementation and management of this socialization and initial “teaching” period would be carried out often when former white land owners, and even old tribal aristocracy who had been enticed into working for the party and state.
The land policy mirrors Nyerere's Ujamaa villages, although of course, ITTL, the Malian federation is doing rural collectivization well before Nyerere did. If you aren't already familiar with the Ujamaa villages, you might want to look at their history to see the potential pitfalls of this policy and consider how Mali might avoid them.
Okay, I can understand why cooperativization is done, but, honestly, why would a newly independent nation in Africa whose mission was libertarian socialism would carry out precisely the opposite (authoritarian socialism). I mean, I can sorta get where they're coming from in their plans, but there should be a lot more expected resistance with this, from farm-workers/really formerly enslaved workers who want to be smallholders/land owners/small proprietors especially since smallholders have a lot more to lose than to gain when joining those "cooperatives", they are smallholders because they believe that whatever farming technique works for them can be enough to self-sustain themselves and their families. They have no reason to even joining the communally-owned, cooperatively-operated lands. There has to be a carrot and stick for this, since using compulsion and force is itself economically inefficient, chaotic, and will produce inefficient results as expected in the final product and organization of land and food production. You can't force cooperation to happen really. The methods and technology must be advanced, there's no markets in the countryside or division of labour to speak of. This is too early really and too much really even for my tastes as a socialist. They have less developed farming methods, tools, and capital inputs to really justify even socialization of land.

Firstly, what I would recommend is to reverse it, and ultimately probably wait decades for this before you can try collective ownership of farms even 100%. It's not like the Kibbutzim where it's pioneerish or actual need to confront obstacles to farming. You're already doing it on established land that people want and expect to obtain, this is not in new soil, with farming techniques that are not advanced.

Okay then what do I propose, well here's what I would recommend, land reform first: break up the former farmlands done owned by whites and landlords into smallholdings/property, and then establish agricultural academies, education (literacy and farm skills), new seeds, agricultural extension, and new farming techniques that does not require machinery, all to be carried out by agricultural marketing cooperatives and agricultural banks/agricultural credit unions. Farmers could be taught what cash crop and products existed under formerly owned white and landlord owned land and estates, it's really just obtaining the value of labour they should've had under the land in which products are sold, but the boss/master gets all of the surplus value. Yes, I get it, people are now part of the lamest and the weakest of cooperatives, there's individual private property, and there's exciting no socialization of land (nationalization to mention), or communal ownership of land to happen. Those export earnings will then be used to establish small workshops, farming implements, handicrafts, agricultural processors, creameries, products, light industrialization, tool making, an agricultural sector, this is division of labour and early manufacturing, done with some economic planning (not centralized economic planning). Establish and merge pre-existing consumer and agricultural cooperatives, with establishing some worker cooperatives for manufacturing to then unite them in cooperative societies, as Marx advocated for (to go for communism is to merge co-operative societies and organized enough in the economy). It gives the state money to actually industrialize and allow many people to leave the land before collectivization could really begin. Collectivization/communalization/socialization of land should preferably begin on vacant land that is purchased by the state and a willing group of entrepreneurial co-operators who actually understand what is going to be done and the social structure they are setting up in, and become state-tenants, but organize and manage co-operative farming with all the advanced technology you can get.

All of this, and we're not even mentioning credit, banking and finance: important elements in capital movement between firms, and to finance all co-operatively operated/state-owned (or local, regional, communal, owned-land).
 
Last edited:
Okay, I can understand why cooperativization is done, but, honestly, why would a newly independent nation in Africa whose mission was libertarian socialism would carry out precisely the opposite (authoritarian socialism). I mean, I can sorta get where they're coming from in their plans, but there should be a lot more expected resistance with this, from farm-workers/really formerly enslaved workers who want to be smallholders/land owners/small proprietors especially since smallholders have a lot more to lose than to gain when joining those "cooperatives", they are smallholders because they believe that whatever farming technique works for them can be enough to self-sustain themselves and their families. They have no reason to even joining the communally-owned, cooperatively-operated lands. There has to be a carrot and stick for this, since using compulsion and force is itself economically inefficient, chaotic, and will produce inefficient results as expected in the final product and organization of land and food production. You can't force cooperation to happen really. The methods and technology must be advanced, there's no markets in the countryside or division of labour to speak of. This is too early really and too much really even for my tastes as a socialist. They have less developed farming methods, tools, and capital inputs to really justify even socialization of land.

Firstly, what I would recommend is to reverse it, and ultimately probably wait decades for this before you can try collective ownership of farms even 100%. It's not like the Kibbutzim where it's pioneerish or actual need to confront obstacles to farming. You're already doing it on established land that people want and expect to obtain, this is not in new soil, with farming techniques that are not advanced.

Okay then what do I propose, well here's what I would recommend, land reform first: break up the former farmlands done owned by whites and landlords into smallholdings/property, and then establish agricultural academies, education (literacy and farm skills), new seeds, agricultural extension, and new farming techniques that does not require machinery, all to be carried out by agricultural marketing cooperatives and agricultural banks/agricultural credit unions. Farmers could be taught what cash crop and products existed under formerly owned white and landlord owned land and estates, it's really just obtaining the value of labour they should've had under the land in which products are sold, but the boss/master gets all of the surplus value. Yes, I get it, people are now part of the lamest and the weakest of cooperatives, there's individual private property, and there's exciting no socialization of land (nationalization to mention), or communal ownership of land to happen. Those export earnings will then be used to establish small workshops, farming implements, handicrafts, agricultural processors, creameries, products, light industrialization, tool making, an agricultural sector, this is division of labour and early manufacturing, done with some economic planning (not centralized economic planning). Establish and merge pre-existing consumer and agricultural cooperatives, with establishing some worker cooperatives for manufacturing to then unite them in cooperative societies, as Marx advocated for (to go for communism is to merge co-operative societies and organized enough in the economy). It gives the state money to actually industrialize and allow many people to leave the land before collectivization could really begin. Collectivization/communalization/socialization of land should preferably begin on vacant land that is purchased by the state and a willing group of entrepreneurial co-operators who actually understand what is going to be done and the social structure they are setting up in, and become state-tenants, but organize and manage co-operative farming with all the advanced technology you can get.

All of this, and we're not even mentioning credit, banking and finance: important elements in capital movement between firms.
1st: it isn’t libertarian socialism that isn’t the goal at the moment for any leader.

2nd: I’m not saying this will be successful but many African socialists didn’t care nor really want to go through a capitalist stage, as many African society’s prioritize cooperative or communal interests this is merely capitalizing on said existing culture. Cooperatives and village communes are more state tenants and controlled at this point, due to a lack of existing education or experience it’s not your traditional cooperative or commune in any sense.

3rd, I’m not going to revert my entire story I’m sorry. Feel free not to read if your perceived issues are too much.
 
Last edited:
1st: it isn’t libertarian socialism that isn’t the goal at the moment for any leader.
Yeah, I agree.

2nd: I’m not saying this will be successful but many African socialists didn’t care nor really want to go through a capitalist stage, as many African society’s prioritize cooperative or communal interests this is merely capitalizing on said existing culture.
Yeah, but how would the country be convinced. But yeah, African socialists not really caring about capitalism or are willing to go to a capitalist stage is an understatement, but understandable since all African nations were really served with an extractive, resource and raw materials based economy that is expropriated to European nations in the trillions of dollars, in the 70 trillions range.

I don't blame African leaders for wanting to skip to a communal/cooperative economy, I understand why. But I am also curious to ask, what happened in Botswana? Did the supra-national African socialist state have relations with Seretse Khama of Botswana? Also, what happened to the actual Tito of Yugoslavia? Did Stalin kill him before Tito had the chance to send him the "note"?

3rd, I’m not going to revert my entire story I’m sorry.
I am not asking to revert/shut-down the story. I am not sure how agriculture would be like after this with all this resistance. Will a surplus happen enough to feed people, or will it follow the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in asking for grain to the West? Will small, individual private owned plots happen like Yugoslavia?

Industrialization would come far more slowly than it had for other socialist states. Mali had neither the resources, manpower or money of the Soviets, thus a more measured and gradual policy of industrialization would take place. In cities like Dakar and Abidjan and Ouagadougou the Malian government would encourage surrounding people’s to help build or work in factories, with propaganda promising workers economic democracy, and workers councils handling factories, and a market to allow for goods never seen before by the average rural farmer. This propaganda in the future would return to bite the Malians.



This slow industrialization plan would also coincide with slow mechanization, small amounts of cars or trucks were available within Mali, and usually government owned, so the government would set to work distributing tractors, and trucks to the locations that were needed the most, and helping the slow mechanization of agriculture.
Makes sense. But at least the Malian government is not making the mistake the Soviets are doing by necessary, they had to grow an agricultural and light industrial strong base before jumping to manufacturing and heavy industry.

So the promise of worker self-management would not be as fully realized as Yugoslavia? Hmmm.... also, we could see some problems with the model, "bite the Malians", I think it's the whole "social ownership/social property" problem of everyone owning production, but no one really owns it type of thing? Well at least Malians will get the consistent and diverse food and final consumer products, and more food security than even Yugoslavia or the Eastern Bloc, Soviet and China under Mao, North Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
Top