Strangling North Dakota with no mercy
Colonialism by another name stinks as much as ever.
This entry fits beautifully with the one I made today, re the work of Aimé Césaire and ante- as well as anti- colonialism, particularly in the Caribbean.
Love, C.
Given the aggressive early protectionism (which continues today in some well-connected industries, even after the neo-liberal "reforms") of "developed" nations
This is a myth. Western countries didn't become rich because of protectionism, but despite of protectionism.
Just look at Hong Kong and Singapore. They were COLONIES, after all. They didn't have any protectionism from anybody, except from the tax collectors.
Protectionism is bad because it makes you less competitive. Without protectionism, either you prosper or you die. With protectionism, you just vegatate on life support.
As long as there are people around to be exploited, capitalism will find them, use them up then close up shop and move down the road where there will always be someone to work cheaper. And by controlling the economies of these countries through the IMF, there will always be people who will be willing to work for starvation wages in hopes that there's an end to the treadmill.
No country became a world power without some protectionism.
The US has been investing in the productive capacity of China, while the US invests in pure finance as selling debt, than is surprised that China can sell products on the world market.
Marx saw all of this happening over 150 yrs ago.
Sonia,
Those two are hardly free from the helping hand of the government. The government owns most of the land, if not all of it, in Hong Kong. They rent it out to businesses and use the money for social safety nets. Singapore's government owns their biggest corporation and investment firm. Ha-Joon Chang, the author in the link, has written about the Asian Tigers at length. Strategic tariffs were in use to build up economies.
http://www.amazon.com/East-Asian...08926362&sr=1-
3
Graeme,
Those two are hardly free from the helping hand of the government.
Adam Smith wasn't opposed to the "helping hand of the government" neither, as long as it involves monetary policy, banking, interest rate policy, tarrifs, etc, rather than excessive taxation or nationalizations of industries.
Read the comment in your own link. It's clear that Hong Kong and Singapore have prospered because they followed the advice of Adam Smith instead of Karl Marx.
If Haiti follows Hong Kong's example, it will be fine too...
I know Chang is no Marxist. He offers a good analysis of actually existing capitalism.
The point is, Sonia, that Haiti isn't being allowed to follow the same route developed countries have taken. US ag subsidies, especially "miami rice" as the CP article calls it, are being dumped into the Haitian market making it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. When the price of food goes up, like it is now, there is no internal agricultural structure to grow affordable food for the citizens of Haiti.
In a perfect world, Adam Smith's market economy looks great. In practice, it looks like today's paper. I think he probably knew it wasn't perfect and thought the government could play a specific role (contrary to what many liberal economists think). I think it is fatally flawed, just like Soviet central planning (and much for the same reason- it creates a powerful ruling class), and we need to come up with something else.
That was a good article, I found it shocking that only 50% of the aid actually reaches the people.
I guess the latter, too Graeme. As for the development of capitalism, it developed with the aid of the state. (Not to mention other good things like theft on a monumental scale, genocide and slavery.)Essentially all capitalism is state capitalism and the free market, free enterprise, etc are nothing but self-serving mythologies to hide from its actual bloody, authoritarian and criminal practice.
Larry,
Essentially all capitalism is state capitalism and the free market, free enterprise, etc are nothing but self-serving mythologies to hide from its actual bloody, authoritarian and criminal practice.
You're ALMOST right. In fact, present-day capitalism is indeed state capitalism, and genuine free market and free enterprise are idealistic dreams of a better future.
Too bad most leftists dream instead of a totalitarian, Communist government-dominated future....
I think Larry hit it on the head, the ideology is just a cover for the benefit of blinkered idealists like sonia.They are clever gangsters, obviously.
Would all the leftists dreaming of a totalitarian future please visit my blog.
"Too bad most leftists dream instead of a totalitarian, Communist government-dominated future...."
If this is true, Sonia, how come someone as involved as myself doesn't know any of those "totalitarian Communist government-dominated" leftists"?
All I know are: 1. Anarchists and semi-anarchists. 2. democratic socialists 3. Greens who are a bit of 1 and 2 4. Revolutionary socialists who favor direct democracy through worker/community councils and worker-self management. 5. Social democrats who favor parliamentary reforms.
Furthermore, even my CP friends since the collapse of the USSR are basically left-wing social democrats.
As Ren, Graeme, myself and others have pointed out MANY TIMES - to no avail it seems - STALINISM IS A DEAD DOG - other than in Nepal. How is it that you ignore us? We are the socialists, not you. If anyone should know what socialists believe, it is us. I have spent a lifetime active in, and studying about, this movement. If it was as you said it is, I would have abandoned it a long time ago. Of course, 30-40 years ago, Stalinism was dominant. But myself and others realized that real socialism had nothing to do with that travesty and so fought, in our different ways, and from different historical/ideological perspectives, to hegemonize a non-Stalinist movement. Years of hard work - usually in the face of vilification - have paid off, though of course, we can not take all the credit for this, the cold reality of "really existing socialism" having a lot to do with it.
Why not give up your rather pathetic, crude ideological attempts and face reality? Just because we are democrats and libertarians doesn't mean you have to like socialism. You can still hate us, but you have to refine your opposition better. (Quite frankly, Sonia, you come off like a twit on this issue, and I know you are intelligent, so act as smart as you really are instead of like some Hate Radio nitwit!)
"genuine free market and free enterprise are idealistic dreams of a better future."
My market-anarchist and mutualist friends, think a lot like that. Except they 1. See the need for an anti-capitalist revolution, since capitalism is incompatible with free exchange. 2. Are sympathetic to other forms of anarchism and worker-control socialism 3. See themselves as socialists 4. are anti-imperialists and anti-war. 5. Favor worker-run cooperatives for all medium and large scale enterprises.
See:http://www.mutualist.org/
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/ and follow the links as well.
There is a whole world out there you don't know exists...
people tend to forget that capitalism and market economics aren't always the same thing. Capitalism is simply the dictatorship of the means of production by the few. I tend to think markets are part of the problem, but I am open to discussion with those that think markets can work in an equitable fashion in a system where industry is run democratically.
I don't really have much time for the primitivists though.
Commenting by HaloScan
