xabad;936000 wrote: and how come your rep power is 35 with just 158 posts ? ha. what are you secrets ? lol what does "rep power" mean? I made this account in 2010 and forgot about it for a while, then really only started posting a few weeks ago.

That was Raula you quoted

And I said I'm not going to answer that question, and explained why several times now.

xabad;935991 wrote: then you have something to hide. just state your positions, so that we know better where you coming from. If it helps you to think of me as a Socialist, Communist, Anarchist or whatever (not that you seem to know what those positions entail), feel free to do so. But I'm not letting you derail the thread by making it about my personal politics.

DoctorKenney;935985 wrote: The 2008 crash had nothing to do with capitalism LOLOL. You've already lost.

xabad;935979 wrote: if not capitalism what do you want then ? so we can know your stance As I said before, what I believe is irrelevant to a discussion and critique of neoliberalism.

raula;935976 wrote: If indeed Swahili is just another language...how come it hasn't been abondoned after its use (E. African trade)..??? & how do you term the emergence of the spanish language in S. America?? Why would Swahili disappear after hundreds of years, simply because of 60 years of British (and briefly German) presence in East Africa? Not to mention the British used indirect rule in Africa - rule through already existing indigenous structures - meant that English did not become the language of power in most African encounters with the colonial state. The colonial conquest of Africa was also very different from the colonial conquest of the Americas, so it's not the most useful comparison.

xabad;935973 wrote: the problem was not capitalism but with ****** deregulation, and capitalist societies are still better, richer and will self correct in the end. Heh, another "but that wasn't really capitalism" argument to subvert evidence that it hasn't worked.

DoctorKenney;935968 wrote: You Socialists have lost the debate back in the 20th century. Deal with it And you're stuck in the 20th century with Friedman and Fukuyama -- if you've looked at all at the world around you, you'd see the last decade has been the crisis of capital and the collapse of global capitalist economies.

Keep the "haram" critiques of socialism coming, just sat down with my popcorn. Can someone provide me with the hadith criticizing Marx and Engels? What was Imam Shafi's view on "commodity fetishism"? lmao

DoctorKenney;935951 wrote: Again, I do NOT support the IMF and World Bank making parasitic loans (with high interest rates) to corrupt African dictators. That's not neo-liberalism. That's colonialism under a different name. Countries like the United States (100 years ago), Japan, West Germany, Chile, South Korea, and others have ALL prospered due to neo-liberalism. If you actually read the works of F.A. Hayek and Mises than you would know what I'm talking about I have -- if you don't consider the IMF and World Bank neoliberal institutions, you're in a parallel universe.

Alpha Blondy;935941 wrote: what about dealing with madrasah educated east African academics who tell you bantu Christian Africans were ripe to be colonalised, and worthy of enslaving. Except I've never heard that from a Muslim east African academic, but the scenario I described above is one I have direct experience with and those ideas are increasingly common when discussing the history of the Swahili coast. So try again.

xabad;935934 wrote: if you are muslim also, you should know that socialsim is haraam. So explain to me exactly how socialism is haram, as opposed to other secular political and economic philosophies and forms of governance. I'm getting popcorn for this.

DoctorKenney;935921 wrote: Except that none of these African nations actually practiced neoliberalism. Too much government spending, high taxes, high debts, high regulations, little property rights, are what African nations are filled with. It was never practiced. Unless you give me evidence that it's application didn't work, then you have no argument. lmao only on SOL can someone conveniently discard neoliberal structural adjustment policies and the IMF and World Bank as non-practitioners of neoliberalism to make an argument that neoliberalism hasn't been impeded African development. You would be eaten alive for making that argument in an economics or political science class at my university.

Alpha Blondy;935916 wrote: irrespective of their leanings, these ''islamphobes from the interior'' have valid grievances. their religious views shouldn't prejudice your neutrality. surely as a researcher, you ought to behave with the utmost discretion. laakin, it seems to me you lack basic 101 ethnography. Get back to me when you have to deal with missionary educated east African academics who tell you Swahili Muslims on the coast are not real Africans, but Arab settlers who enslaved Africans.

xabad;935903 wrote: what would you ideal economic system look like ? are you for state control of all modes of production or some. explain yourself That's irrelevant -- I made a comment about why I dislike Thatcher and so far this has been support for and critiques of neoliberalism and its human costs, I don't think we need to derail the conversation.

DoctorKenney;935889 wrote: But to claim neoliberalism is like the World Bank is like claiming all Socialists are like Stalin. Dishonest comparison Except it's not. Neoliberalism refers directly to a type of economic policy and view of the market, articulated in documents like John Williamson's Washington Consensus. The IMF and World Bank are international institutions that embody neoliberal economics and design their policies accordingly.

xabad;935891 wrote: But those industries are inefficient and being propped up by the government. the chinese are currently privatizing their big public companies and banks. get up to date safferz. I'm quite up to date, and I work with researchers studying this stuff too (a colleague studies China in Africa specifically). There's a government hand behind Chinese banks and industry.

Alpha Blondy;935886 wrote: another question.....do you not think this language has also killed many indigenous languages. some describe its devastating cultural genocide as being very similar to that of English and Spanish? The people who talk about "Swahili dominance" are usually islamophobes from the interior who want to rewrite east African history and continue their marginalization of those who identify as Swahili. Language use (and spread) *everywhere* has always been historically linked to governance and trade/commerce, people and communities adopt and abandon languages when they feel it can provide more for them in terms of access to power or wealth.

DoctorKenney;935874 wrote: After Mao died, China adopted neo-liberal policies....and then they grew extremely fast. Now China is the 2nd richest country in the world. These aren't theories, these are FACTS Conclusion: You know nothing. The government of China nationalized industry and has complete and direct control over their economy, which is the type of governance you seem to take issue with above. And who knows nothing here?

DoctorKenney;935866 wrote: Again, I said by African standards , Botswana is very rich. What part of that don't you understand? And BTW, I don't support the World Bank or the IMF. They're nothing more than leeches who are making Africa poorer. Look at how Somalia has FAILED due to Siad Barre's socialism. We Somalis don't like being told what to do. We're an entrepreneurial people, and to have the President tell us how to conduct business will always fail. Always You want to repeat that failed policy? There is no such thing as "by African standards," there are indicators for development that enable comparisons to be made across states and continents. It's true that Botswana is faring much better than its neighbours, but that isn't saying a whole lot. And I've said nothing about "repeating failed policies" (and I'm not so narrow as to define socialism in terms of Barre's "socialism"), so put the strawman to rest. The discussion here is about neoliberalism and its human costs, particularly to us as Africans.

DoctorKenney;935850 wrote: None of it was neoliberal policies. Africa has stagnated in the last 50 years. Compare Botswana to Zimbabwe. Which country is richer and more prosperous? Botswana had more open markets and a freer economy, and they are VERY rich by African standards. lol okay, you're in some sort of parallel universe if you don't consider World Bank and IMF policies neoliberal restructuring, which has had an absolutely devastating effect on the entire continent. Bringing up one country that is an arguable exception to that doesn't change what it's meant for the vast majority of African states. I work with researchers who study Botswana and the picture there isn't as rosy as you seem to think. What's universal healthcare when there is only one cancer ward in the entire country and people are sent home to die?

DoctorKenney;935844 wrote: South Korea advanced because of neoliberal policies. Now, South Korea (which was starving in the 1960s) is one of the richest nations in the globe. And remind us how well Africa did when neoliberal structural adjustment policies were introduced in the 70s and 80s? Right.

It's always amusing to see an African support neoliberalism.

Apophis;935792 wrote: From cultural misogynist perspective Fixed that for you.