In many cases the two were the same. Rhodesia, Portugal, and South Africa (and Katanga, but Katanga is weird) explicitly linked majority rule with communism and painted anyone who thought majority rule might be good as a "communist". It would at times go the other way, with the Baluba refugees outside Elisabethville naming the roads in their camp "Khruschev Street" and that because Khruschev, a communist, fought against white rule, and the refugees fought against white rule, communism meant fighting against white rule. (Which, given that the communists were often the only ones doing more than saying "and that's terrible" as South African security services gunned down children one can see their point easily.) Vaguely socialist with a heavy bent toward state interventionism was seen as the way of the future, in Africa and in Europe. Europe was dominated by Social/Christian Democrats with dirigisme economic planning. That newly independent countries might want to copy that is hardly surprising. That's really all I can say. Even a brief perusal of post-Independence African history would show that is both straight up wrong, and utterly fails to explain why conflict has been so endemic in Africa. The largest conflict in African history, the complete disintegration of Zaire in "Africa's World War" had nothing to do with Communism or Marxists and everything to do with sordid little dictatorships doing their damned to loot a corpse. EDIT: Sorry, didn't see your post Arakhor. Got bumped to the next page.