In a conversation with AfD leader Alice Weidel on X, Musk concurred with her assertion that Adolf Hitler was a communist and pushed disinformation about migrants coming into the US.
Please explain how a democratic, publicly owned economy is “feudalism.”
Democratic is not what the USSR was, and that style of thing is the only thing Marxists ever achieved. There’s also a difference between public ownership and state control, doubly so in non-democracies. Also you’re leaving out a model not really seen anywhere outside of liberal democracies and that’s foundations, that is, self-owning companies. Zeiss is a good example. Their purpose, according to statute, pretty much say “We do optics and funnel some money to the University of Jena”, no shareholder interest at all.
As for prefiguration, it doesn’t seem to be possible in a Capitalist state so far either, so again you just approve of Imperialism and Capitalism so long as it’s your state that sits on top of the Global South.
Dude Latinos are the most vocal and active in the prefigurative space. There’s a reason we use a Portuguese term, “especifismo”, for a basic organisational principle. It’s the failure to think outside of the vanguardist box that makes Marxists not achieve anything but regression: Don’t dilute yourself to be better and more enlightened. You are not, you’re also a mere human. Anarchists understand we need to eat humble pie when talking to people, that we do not have all the answers, that all we have is a good compass and a toolbox that can help people to walk into that direction, on their own terms, at their own pace, organically, without coercion, which is crucial because the end goal does not contain any coercion.
Labour vouchers being used to buy goods and services from the social fund isn’t money, because they are destroyed upon use.
How do you eat if you don’t have a labour voucher? How is that “to everyone according to need”? It’s the same “bow to the bosses or starve” tyranny as capitalism without welfare state.
Your bits on the USSR translate to “I said it wasn’t democratic” as well as “state and public control is totally different and in the USSR it wasn’t public” so they can be safely ignored, given the books I already linked proving otherwise.
As for Imperialism, I mean you specifically who said you wanted to live in a Social Democracy in the Global North rather than Socialism. I don’t think you share many views with most Anarchists, based on how you seem to understand Anarchism and prefiguration.
As for labour vouchers, those aren’t the only way to get things, and they’d likely become unnecessary once production advances enough. You can have social services and whatnot, but during the development of Communism (and Anarchism, whether you agree or not) labour vouchers are a necessary form of accounting. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their work” can only truly become “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” at a higher phase of Communism with more advanced Means of Production. Things like healthcare and education are usually free or inexpensive in AES countries, same with food.
It is not “the same as Capitalism,” because production is not done for accumulation of profit in an M-C-M’ circuit, and because production is publicly owned and planned. Very, very different from private ownership and competition for accumulation and profit.
Your bits on the USSR translate to “I said it wasn’t democratic” as well as “state and public control is totally different and in the USSR it wasn’t public” so they can be safely ignored, given the books I already linked proving otherwise.
Noone but tankies considers the USSR to have been democratic. You can use a different, non-standard, sectarian, definition of a common concept all you want but don’t be confused if people don’t agree with your equivocation tactics.
As for Imperialism, I mean you specifically who said you wanted to live in a Social Democracy in the Global North rather than Socialism.
No. I said I do not want to live under what you call socialism, which is, in the best case, red-painted oligarchy. I’d love there to be actual socialism but in the meantime, until material conditions are created which actually allow a revolution, and that includes resilience against a Bolshevik counter-revolution, a liberal democracy with a social market economy is adequate. It is an improvement over your red-painted oligarchy, ask any East European.
As to your implied accusation of colonial exploitation: First off, there’s no cannon boats of ours sailing up your rivers, we gave that up long ago: If you don’t want to sell us stuff, then don’t sell us stuff. Secondly, this. The USSR never cared about the conditions the people producing their imports are in, somehow a social market economy does manage to.
Guess Wikipedia is “tankie” now. For a better source, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan (also referenced as a source on the Wikipedia page). I also recommend Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. Again, nobody is going to care what you say if you keep doubling down, when you have been given sources and you provide none other than “only bad people agree with you” you’ve already admitted to not having done the research necessary to make such a claim.
As for your defense of Imperialism, I’m quite happy to be proven right, you’re a neoliberal at heart with an Anarchist coat of paint. No Anarchist I have ever spoken to, regardless of their opinion of the USSR, has said Imperialism is fine once it has been pointed out. The US maintains 750 foreign military bases just for the US military, it’s much higher if you include Western Europe, and they make up the same economic bloc. These countries exert power to force slave-like labor in countries they intentionally under-develop by expropriating vast amounts of resources. Imperialism in the 21st Century as well as Super Imperialism are great books to check out to remove the neoliberalism from your brain and take a proper anti-Imperialist stance.
To quote Michael Parenti:
The Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich! Only the people are poor. But there’s billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken. There’s been billions for 400 years! The capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries. These countries are not underdeveloped, they’re overexploited!
You did not read the article. It makes a clear distinction between council democracy itself (soviet means council), and what was implemented in the USSR. There did exist some democracy on lower levels that were not of immediate interest to the higher-ups, but that was also the case under monarchism.
Your next paragraph is worse, when you rely on “any East European.” Nostalgia for the Soviet Union is well-documeneted. 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want Socialism back,
Russians have neither a liberal democracy nor a social market economy. They’re also not terribly educated about the outside world. Ask Poles, ask Ukrainians, ask Romanians.
and this number is actually a good deal higher in many post-soviet sattelite states.
That asks specifically about the economic situation. Probably due to current factors such as affordability of rent, you won’t see me arguing that there’s work to do in those areas. Oh wait Hungary tops the list yep that’s not surprising they just got EU funds cut due to democratic backsliding and they were very much a net recipient. Fidez is a bunch of corrupt fascists. We’ll have to switch stereotypes around, Romanians are supposed to be the thieves I guess it’s ok they can still be the drunks.
As for your defense of Imperialism, I’m quite happy to be proven right, you’re a neoliberal at heart with an Anarchist coat of paint. No Anarchist I have ever spoken to, regardless of their opinion of the USSR, has said Imperialism is fine once it has been pointed out.
Which imperialism did I defend? I said that we stopped sailing cannon boats up rivers. I’m fucking European don’t dare blaming shit Seppos do on us.
Unless you mean the “pressure companies abroad into not using slave labour” thing in which case yes I’m completely fine with us throwing our big economic dick around. Do you have any issues with us using our economical power to combat slave labour and other forms of exploitation, even against the will of governments in the global south?
And, no, we’re not the “same economic bloc” as the US. This is our bloc. Mercosur is likely to come into force soon, US is way unlikely to ever happen. Things that may puzzle you: It actually includes Vietnam.
The Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich! Only the people are poor.
…then elect better governments? It’s your countries, your responsibility. Do something with those riches, like for starters distributing them fairly, and growing them. Are we supposed to swoop in and direct you in how to do it? We’d very likely do a better job this time around but generally lost the taste for imperialism so the answer is no.
Wikipedia, however, does consider it democratic and used a source I already gave you that proves that it was, along with another that does as well. You have nothing working in your favor.
As for your racism against Eastern-Europeans, it’s no shock that they preferred the Socialist system when 7 million people died due to its dissolution and the introduction of Capitalism brought mass poverty. Pretending that they are “too stupid and uneducated” to tell you that they had it better under Socialism than under Capitalism is that neoliberal chauvanism oozing out. Really, you have a lot in common with Reagan and Thatcher in worldview. Really, it’s similar to Orwell’s view of Eastern Europeans as stupid, illiterate, and destined to be taken advantage of, as he portrayed them in Animal Farm.
Denying the existence of G-7 and NATO wasn’t on my bingo card, neoliberals like yourself love those. Trying to pretend you do “good” Imperialism is European Chauvanism, it’s nice to see you own up to it. The IMF brutally exploits the Global South with predatory loans. This is a process also referred to as Neocolonialism, and exerting power is often done under the convenient guise of “helping” the Global South. This is the same sham as calling the IDF “the most moral military in the world.” The fact that you blame the imperialized and colonized countries you yourself benefit from for being imperialized and colonized is monstrous behavior, akin to Churchill blaming Bengali’s his policies starved on themselves:
“I hate Indians,” he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for “breeding like rabbits.”
Or, more topically, Macron recently saying African countries should be thankful to France for colonizing them:
“I think [Africans] forgot to thank us. It doesn’t matter it will come with time. Gratitude, I am well placed to know it, is a disease not transmissible to humans. But I say this for all African rulers who did not have the courage with respect to their public opinions to say it: none of them would today have a sovereign country if the French army had not been deployed in this region”
It’s hilarious that you think you’re trying to save me when you’ve been fighting against Socialism and defending Colonialism and Imperialism. Such a Neoliberal “Anarchist” is an oxymoron.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Wikipedia does not consider anything anything, it describes how other people describe it. Basic media literacy, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seem to be confusing racism with banter and it’s kinda telling you can’t tell the difference.
The IMF brutally exploits the Global South with predatory loans.
The IMF did a lot of shit especially in the past, but don’t pretend that loans were forced on states, or they would treat even EU countries any differently (remember Greece?), or that it wouldn’t be a UN institution that the global south itself co-founded. Haiti was made to take on debt, ages ago, and France is skirting its responsibility, yes. But IMF loans? If you don’t want them, don’t take them.
What you’re doing here is blaming stupid decisions of southern governments on the north. You act as if you were incapable of governing yourselves.
But it’s oh so fucking easy to blame diffuse foreign powers. It’s a tactic employed by many politicians in the global south: “Don’t look at our corruption, blame the evil Europeans”. They’re distracting you and you’re falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
Macron
…and the French are making fun of him for it. He’s not exactly popular, as you might have heard. His only saving grace is that he’s not LePen.
I’m curious: What do you think about the German-Namibian hydrogen project?
There’s really nowhere to go if you won’t even entertain the idea of reading sources beyond glancing at Wikipedia.
As for the German-Nambian Hydrogen Project, I am not familiar with it and don’t have the time to research for a satisfying answer on it. I’m not going to speak on something I don’t know enough about.
Ha! We reached max comment depth so I’m replying here. Feel free to answer or don’t or just tell me to end this I think lemmy wants to send us a message.
If I had a dime for every time a politician blamed colonialism for the consequences of their corruption I’d have enough money to buy them. Which, btw, would be illegal. As in: It’s illegal for me, under domestic law, to bribe people abroad that’s why the Chinese are making inroads in Africa we’re not matching their bribes, any more. Russia, at least, is pretty much out of the game now after they overextended, they’re at least a magnitude worse than the Chinese in approach.
Or, differently put: Maybe be a bit more specific when you say “global south” or “global north”. We’re currently defending Ukraine against imperial aggression from the north, you might’ve heard of that.
What drives our economies, btw, what makes us so rich, is labour productivity, industry with high degrees of automation, uncoupling value-add from labour investment. Which is why it’s so fucked to see a country like South Africa fall to the consequences of corruption, to wit, more blackouts than electricity production. No, it wasn’t evil England who made the ANC bleed Escom dry. Those are domestic problems requiring domestic solutions.
If you get the time do read up on it, aside from checking that everything is indeed kosher, ask why you haven’t heard of it before. Why, in the list of data points you are exposed to, one that does not fit the colonial exploitation narrative seems to be missing.
Anyhow short rundown: Germany needs green hydrogen for its industry (at least until fusion, it’s dependent on energy inputs), Namibia has lots of wind and sun, world’s best location in fact, and Germany the tech to turn that into electricity, then into hydrogen, then into ammonia for transport. Germany is going to finance the initial stage of the project which includes enough generation capacity for Namibia’s electricity demands as well as to start exporting. IIRC it also includes fixing up the Namibian electricity grid. Namibia is planning on using its revenue share to further expand things and become an exporter of both green energy and refined metals, because when you have lots of hydrogen and also lots of iron ore it does make sense to export steel instead of ore, if not finished metal products. Value added yadayada you know your Marx.
And Namibia really can use the extra money. There’s plenty of stuff to invest in, from making sure San are not malnourished over not re-introducing school tuition to speeding up land reform. With easy access to capital and material, I’m sure Namibia will become a manufacturing powerhouse, at least compared to its population size. Sensible people look for win-win situations, and this is one of them. SWAPO even calls it Socialism with Namibian characteristics.
(Side note: Australians so far do not seem to have understood that it makes sense to keep the value-add in country, it’s not like they’re lacking in cheap energy, or the capacity to tap it. Confounds me to this day).
Democratic is not what the USSR was, and that style of thing is the only thing Marxists ever achieved. There’s also a difference between public ownership and state control, doubly so in non-democracies. Also you’re leaving out a model not really seen anywhere outside of liberal democracies and that’s foundations, that is, self-owning companies. Zeiss is a good example. Their purpose, according to statute, pretty much say “We do optics and funnel some money to the University of Jena”, no shareholder interest at all.
Dude Latinos are the most vocal and active in the prefigurative space. There’s a reason we use a Portuguese term, “especifismo”, for a basic organisational principle. It’s the failure to think outside of the vanguardist box that makes Marxists not achieve anything but regression: Don’t dilute yourself to be better and more enlightened. You are not, you’re also a mere human. Anarchists understand we need to eat humble pie when talking to people, that we do not have all the answers, that all we have is a good compass and a toolbox that can help people to walk into that direction, on their own terms, at their own pace, organically, without coercion, which is crucial because the end goal does not contain any coercion.
How do you eat if you don’t have a labour voucher? How is that “to everyone according to need”? It’s the same “bow to the bosses or starve” tyranny as capitalism without welfare state.
Your bits on the USSR translate to “I said it wasn’t democratic” as well as “state and public control is totally different and in the USSR it wasn’t public” so they can be safely ignored, given the books I already linked proving otherwise.
As for Imperialism, I mean you specifically who said you wanted to live in a Social Democracy in the Global North rather than Socialism. I don’t think you share many views with most Anarchists, based on how you seem to understand Anarchism and prefiguration.
As for labour vouchers, those aren’t the only way to get things, and they’d likely become unnecessary once production advances enough. You can have social services and whatnot, but during the development of Communism (and Anarchism, whether you agree or not) labour vouchers are a necessary form of accounting. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their work” can only truly become “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” at a higher phase of Communism with more advanced Means of Production. Things like healthcare and education are usually free or inexpensive in AES countries, same with food.
It is not “the same as Capitalism,” because production is not done for accumulation of profit in an M-C-M’ circuit, and because production is publicly owned and planned. Very, very different from private ownership and competition for accumulation and profit.
Noone but tankies considers the USSR to have been democratic. You can use a different, non-standard, sectarian, definition of a common concept all you want but don’t be confused if people don’t agree with your equivocation tactics.
No. I said I do not want to live under what you call socialism, which is, in the best case, red-painted oligarchy. I’d love there to be actual socialism but in the meantime, until material conditions are created which actually allow a revolution, and that includes resilience against a Bolshevik counter-revolution, a liberal democracy with a social market economy is adequate. It is an improvement over your red-painted oligarchy, ask any East European.
As to your implied accusation of colonial exploitation: First off, there’s no cannon boats of ours sailing up your rivers, we gave that up long ago: If you don’t want to sell us stuff, then don’t sell us stuff. Secondly, this. The USSR never cared about the conditions the people producing their imports are in, somehow a social market economy does manage to.
Guess Wikipedia is “tankie” now. For a better source, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan (also referenced as a source on the Wikipedia page). I also recommend Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. Again, nobody is going to care what you say if you keep doubling down, when you have been given sources and you provide none other than “only bad people agree with you” you’ve already admitted to not having done the research necessary to make such a claim.
Your next paragraph is worse, when you rely on “any East European.” Nostalgia for the Soviet Union is well-documeneted. 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want Socialism back, and this number is actually a good deal higher in many post-soviet sattelite states. When you do no research and assume yourself to be right, you show others exactly how unreliable your other points are. Why make a point easily googled to disprove?
As for your defense of Imperialism, I’m quite happy to be proven right, you’re a neoliberal at heart with an Anarchist coat of paint. No Anarchist I have ever spoken to, regardless of their opinion of the USSR, has said Imperialism is fine once it has been pointed out. The US maintains 750 foreign military bases just for the US military, it’s much higher if you include Western Europe, and they make up the same economic bloc. These countries exert power to force slave-like labor in countries they intentionally under-develop by expropriating vast amounts of resources. Imperialism in the 21st Century as well as Super Imperialism are great books to check out to remove the neoliberalism from your brain and take a proper anti-Imperialist stance.
To quote Michael Parenti:
Why do you keep replying? What is your goal?
You did not read the article. It makes a clear distinction between council democracy itself (soviet means council), and what was implemented in the USSR. There did exist some democracy on lower levels that were not of immediate interest to the higher-ups, but that was also the case under monarchism.
Russians have neither a liberal democracy nor a social market economy. They’re also not terribly educated about the outside world. Ask Poles, ask Ukrainians, ask Romanians.
That asks specifically about the economic situation. Probably due to current factors such as affordability of rent, you won’t see me arguing that there’s work to do in those areas. Oh wait Hungary tops the list yep that’s not surprising they just got EU funds cut due to democratic backsliding and they were very much a net recipient. Fidez is a bunch of corrupt fascists. We’ll have to switch stereotypes around, Romanians are supposed to be the thieves I guess it’s ok they can still be the drunks.
Which imperialism did I defend? I said that we stopped sailing cannon boats up rivers. I’m fucking European don’t dare blaming shit Seppos do on us.
Unless you mean the “pressure companies abroad into not using slave labour” thing in which case yes I’m completely fine with us throwing our big economic dick around. Do you have any issues with us using our economical power to combat slave labour and other forms of exploitation, even against the will of governments in the global south?
And, no, we’re not the “same economic bloc” as the US. This is our bloc. Mercosur is likely to come into force soon, US is way unlikely to ever happen. Things that may puzzle you: It actually includes Vietnam.
…then elect better governments? It’s your countries, your responsibility. Do something with those riches, like for starters distributing them fairly, and growing them. Are we supposed to swoop in and direct you in how to do it? We’d very likely do a better job this time around but generally lost the taste for imperialism so the answer is no.
To save your soul.
Wikipedia, however, does consider it democratic and used a source I already gave you that proves that it was, along with another that does as well. You have nothing working in your favor.
As for your racism against Eastern-Europeans, it’s no shock that they preferred the Socialist system when 7 million people died due to its dissolution and the introduction of Capitalism brought mass poverty. Pretending that they are “too stupid and uneducated” to tell you that they had it better under Socialism than under Capitalism is that neoliberal chauvanism oozing out. Really, you have a lot in common with Reagan and Thatcher in worldview. Really, it’s similar to Orwell’s view of Eastern Europeans as stupid, illiterate, and destined to be taken advantage of, as he portrayed them in Animal Farm.
Denying the existence of G-7 and NATO wasn’t on my bingo card, neoliberals like yourself love those. Trying to pretend you do “good” Imperialism is European Chauvanism, it’s nice to see you own up to it. The IMF brutally exploits the Global South with predatory loans. This is a process also referred to as Neocolonialism, and exerting power is often done under the convenient guise of “helping” the Global South. This is the same sham as calling the IDF “the most moral military in the world.” The fact that you blame the imperialized and colonized countries you yourself benefit from for being imperialized and colonized is monstrous behavior, akin to Churchill blaming Bengali’s his policies starved on themselves:
Or, more topically, Macron recently saying African countries should be thankful to France for colonizing them:
It’s hilarious that you think you’re trying to save me when you’ve been fighting against Socialism and defending Colonialism and Imperialism. Such a Neoliberal “Anarchist” is an oxymoron.
-Michael Parenti
Wikipedia does not consider anything anything, it describes how other people describe it. Basic media literacy, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seem to be confusing racism with banter and it’s kinda telling you can’t tell the difference.
The IMF did a lot of shit especially in the past, but don’t pretend that loans were forced on states, or they would treat even EU countries any differently (remember Greece?), or that it wouldn’t be a UN institution that the global south itself co-founded. Haiti was made to take on debt, ages ago, and France is skirting its responsibility, yes. But IMF loans? If you don’t want them, don’t take them.
What you’re doing here is blaming stupid decisions of southern governments on the north. You act as if you were incapable of governing yourselves.
But it’s oh so fucking easy to blame diffuse foreign powers. It’s a tactic employed by many politicians in the global south: “Don’t look at our corruption, blame the evil Europeans”. They’re distracting you and you’re falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
…and the French are making fun of him for it. He’s not exactly popular, as you might have heard. His only saving grace is that he’s not LePen.
I’m curious: What do you think about the German-Namibian hydrogen project?
There’s really nowhere to go if you won’t even entertain the idea of reading sources beyond glancing at Wikipedia.
As for the German-Nambian Hydrogen Project, I am not familiar with it and don’t have the time to research for a satisfying answer on it. I’m not going to speak on something I don’t know enough about.
Ha! We reached max comment depth so I’m replying here. Feel free to answer or don’t or just tell me to end this I think lemmy wants to send us a message.
If I had a dime for every time a politician blamed colonialism for the consequences of their corruption I’d have enough money to buy them. Which, btw, would be illegal. As in: It’s illegal for me, under domestic law, to bribe people abroad that’s why the Chinese are making inroads in Africa we’re not matching their bribes, any more. Russia, at least, is pretty much out of the game now after they overextended, they’re at least a magnitude worse than the Chinese in approach.
Or, differently put: Maybe be a bit more specific when you say “global south” or “global north”. We’re currently defending Ukraine against imperial aggression from the north, you might’ve heard of that.
What drives our economies, btw, what makes us so rich, is labour productivity, industry with high degrees of automation, uncoupling value-add from labour investment. Which is why it’s so fucked to see a country like South Africa fall to the consequences of corruption, to wit, more blackouts than electricity production. No, it wasn’t evil England who made the ANC bleed Escom dry. Those are domestic problems requiring domestic solutions.
If you get the time do read up on it, aside from checking that everything is indeed kosher, ask why you haven’t heard of it before. Why, in the list of data points you are exposed to, one that does not fit the colonial exploitation narrative seems to be missing.
Anyhow short rundown: Germany needs green hydrogen for its industry (at least until fusion, it’s dependent on energy inputs), Namibia has lots of wind and sun, world’s best location in fact, and Germany the tech to turn that into electricity, then into hydrogen, then into ammonia for transport. Germany is going to finance the initial stage of the project which includes enough generation capacity for Namibia’s electricity demands as well as to start exporting. IIRC it also includes fixing up the Namibian electricity grid. Namibia is planning on using its revenue share to further expand things and become an exporter of both green energy and refined metals, because when you have lots of hydrogen and also lots of iron ore it does make sense to export steel instead of ore, if not finished metal products. Value added yadayada you know your Marx.
And Namibia really can use the extra money. There’s plenty of stuff to invest in, from making sure San are not malnourished over not re-introducing school tuition to speeding up land reform. With easy access to capital and material, I’m sure Namibia will become a manufacturing powerhouse, at least compared to its population size. Sensible people look for win-win situations, and this is one of them. SWAPO even calls it Socialism with Namibian characteristics.
(Side note: Australians so far do not seem to have understood that it makes sense to keep the value-add in country, it’s not like they’re lacking in cheap energy, or the capacity to tap it. Confounds me to this day).