I challenge you.
Name one Sub-Saharan African nation where the politics is not tribal. Name just one.
You cannot talk about Marxism, Communism or Capitalism in societies in which the majority of the population depends on subsistence agriculture and is illiterate / untouched by outside influence.
Mobutu claimed to be ‘capitalist’ while neighbouring Dos Santos claimed to be ‘socialist’. There was no fundamental difference between Mobutu’s rule and Dos Santos rule. The major source of wealth was government. The primary employer was government. The private sector was almost absent. They were both kleptocracies.
The only difference was that Mobutu could con Reagan and Thatcher into providing arms and funds whilst Dos Santos could con Brezhnev and Castro. Siad Barre played the same game with the Americans while neighbouring Haile Mengistu played the same game with the Soviets.
You can write tons of theoretical papers about socialism and capitalism in Africa, but those of us that know Africa understand its all bunk.
Like 19th Century Russia? Like Mao's China?
_____________________________________________________
Nice try but I doubt that even you believe that the marxism that has plagued African politics is centered in the illiterate masses. You know full well that it is the elite, like your boy Odinga, who had the luxury of a fine (and free) Communist education. Do you think that Odinga named his son for Fidel Castro on a whim? Of course not.