Not trying to downplay your arguments or anything, but it’s called critical support for a reason. Of course, different levels of critique are warranted for different situations depending on the nature of an anti-colonial or anti-capitalist movement, keyly if it is principled or not.
For instance, support for Russia warrants an extremely large amount of critique due to it’s non-inherent revolutionary character. Russia, while we can still cheer their victories, will ultimately not lead the proletariat towards socialism, and thus, warrant a large amount of critique.
China, on the other hand, has a far more legitimate and founded revolutionary character, which is why we critique it less. China has expressed interests and has lead endeavors to bring the proletariet closer to socialism, even if flawed, and thus, deserves more support and less critique.
In this way, Burkina Faso is proving itself to be closer to Russia than it is to China. While it can always change, as everything can, Burkina Faso is positioning itself less as an inherently socialist country, but more so as a conditional opponent of US dominance, with the condition being sovereignty.
The reason for this is the question of nationalism vs. socialism. While a third world nationalism is good for rallying support, it must be replaced by socialism upon gaining considerable power lest it indulge in moves like these.
But, we lack a lot of information as to a key question - whether Ibrahim Traore considers his project a nationalist one or a socialist one utilizing nationalism. And to that, only time can tell. But for now, this action is a counter-revolutionary one, and as such, we must condemn solely this action, with continued support towards Burkina Faso’s anti-imperialist operations.
The reason for my original comment is not to show uncritical support for Traoré, but to have western leftists realize that abandoning and denouncing a budding anti colonial revolution because of a particular social conservative move is undialectical.
Not trying to downplay your arguments or anything, but it’s called critical support for a reason. Of course, different levels of critique are warranted for different situations depending on the nature of an anti-colonial or anti-capitalist movement, keyly if it is principled or not.
For instance, support for Russia warrants an extremely large amount of critique due to it’s non-inherent revolutionary character. Russia, while we can still cheer their victories, will ultimately not lead the proletariat towards socialism, and thus, warrant a large amount of critique.
China, on the other hand, has a far more legitimate and founded revolutionary character, which is why we critique it less. China has expressed interests and has lead endeavors to bring the proletariet closer to socialism, even if flawed, and thus, deserves more support and less critique.
In this way, Burkina Faso is proving itself to be closer to Russia than it is to China. While it can always change, as everything can, Burkina Faso is positioning itself less as an inherently socialist country, but more so as a conditional opponent of US dominance, with the condition being sovereignty.
The reason for this is the question of nationalism vs. socialism. While a third world nationalism is good for rallying support, it must be replaced by socialism upon gaining considerable power lest it indulge in moves like these.
But, we lack a lot of information as to a key question - whether Ibrahim Traore considers his project a nationalist one or a socialist one utilizing nationalism. And to that, only time can tell. But for now, this action is a counter-revolutionary one, and as such, we must condemn solely this action, with continued support towards Burkina Faso’s anti-imperialist operations.
Correct!
The reason for my original comment is not to show uncritical support for Traoré, but to have western leftists realize that abandoning and denouncing a budding anti colonial revolution because of a particular social conservative move is undialectical.
Well then, to that end, all I can do is repeat myself by saying that time will tell.