These are all solvable problems without requiring the expropriation of foreign investors. A sensible legislature which allows workers to unionize and a tax collecting agency which actually does its job - in short working institutions - can reduce most of these problems.

But what happens most of the time in these unstable African governments is that they gravitate from one extreme to another: Either they enforce zero workers rights and exert very little control over foreign investors - allowing them to pay bribes to individuals rather than taxes which would benefit state run institutions. Or they nationalize every last farm and shop in the country, scaring away foreign investment and know-how and end up with lower productivity and mismanagement of local industries.

You are saying this, as if the decision to strip the population from their subsistence and working rights was made ONLY by local politicians. This is in fact a collusion between politicians and foreign investors. In this collusion, foreign investors have much more responsibility because, after all, local corrupt politicians have less opportunities than foreign capital owners, and therefore it is harder for them to make ethical decisions. Moreover, developed countries love to put all the responsibility of corruption in the hands of local politicians, as if they were really supporting in some way the non-corrupt ones, which is completely untrue as anyone from a third world country will point out.

I agree that it's a collusion between politicians and foreign investors. I wouldn't go so far as saying that one party has more responsibility than the other. But I would add a third party that also carries responsibility: The electorate - if the country in question has a democracy.

Even in a mature democracy, like in the USA, it is difficult for voters to determine who is acting in their interest due to the multiple layers of non-declared interests that exist in each political party. Now imagine what happens in a poor country. Your supposition that the electorate is responsible for this is as true as assuming that a victim of theft is responsible for the robbery.

Once a country has reached certain threshold of poverty, elections can get very sensitive to bought support. Maybe not direct, checked "money for vote" transactions, but gaining "genuine" support by being generous (genuine as in the voters don't realize that they are being manipulated).

And if toxic investors are clever, they might even support every major candidate a little: they have already reached their goal if the eventual winner believes that his secret supporter was acting as kingmaker. Might be much cheaper in total than actually forcing a result with money.

It's actually historically the normal case that governments try for the sensible middle road, then get pushed towards communism by the West. Allende, for instance, was pretty liberal - but the USA was convinced he was a communist, and torpedoed the Chilean economy.

>Actually I believe that for a country rich in cash crop potential, some form of communism might actually be not so bad

The international community / western marketplace obliterates any country that dares expropriate / nationalize the lands of the (white colonialist) landholding class.

Just look at how the West has cut off Cuba and Venezuela.

Not true in Ethiopia's case, it was never a colony for any meaningful amount of time.

It defies the "african countries are poor only due to the oppressive white colonialism" narrative.

EDIT: As for Venezuela, 1 USD was ~6-7 Venezuelan bolívars in 2013.

Last time I checked it was roughly 1,100,000. A staggering 180 000 times drop in only 5 years.

External political climate remained roughly the same in that time span.

> Just look at how the West has cut off Cuba

The US cut off Cuba, but even with US retaliatory sanctions much of the rest of the West did not.

Add Guatemala 1953 for an even more blatant example. Or the ousting of Allende in Chile. Nothing short of disgusting.