>>403276>Why do socialists get so excited over these lost cause nations like Somalia? Or Sudan. Or Ethiopia. Or Libya. I don't get it.Really, socialism as a movement is not a movement for rich people. In a general sense. There can be individuals who become class traitors, just like white people who can become race traitors, but the communist base is in the ghetto more than gated suburbs like in America, and rich countries in the world are like the gated suburbs of the world, as most of the population of the world lives in the Global South which is full of massive slums.
Which is what Europe might've looked like if they didn't engage in colonization, especially in the Americas, which allowed to deport millions of immigrants just like your great grandparents or whatever if you're a white guy in the United States or Canada. But otherwise this is what Milan would've looked like today, or there would be serious problems with slums (more than there already are anyways). Once you industrialize, you have a surplus population, and in Europe's case, something like 17% of their population left mostly for the Americas between 1850-1920. If you look at it relative terms today, that would be like 800 million people leaving Africa and India and South America for the U.S. and Europe.
Europe's population would double immediately. Imagine 400 million Africans and Indians moving to Europe and helping them take off the population pressures. That would be a fair trade. But that's where the real movement in the world, that's where most of the proles are, and that's where revolutions are likely to occur (and have occurred). It's probably not in Europe. The Russian Revolution in 1917 had far more relevance out there than it did in the rich countries other than being perceived as a threat.