Ideas: Capitalism, its decay, and fascism

[TMA_1]

If anybody can help me with the ideas I have on this thread, please respond and correct me, as I have almost no knowledge

of economics and politics, this is all just based on a hunch I felt after reading a bit of Orwell from Homage and 1984 (chap 2, part 9)

I have never really heard of a good condensed explanation of what fascism is, usually I hear the word thrown around as a

smear against capitalist democracies, but I can clearly see that it does have specific traits, it is a political

umbrella with many different ideologies. I have noticed that usually it is seeded in capitalist decay, mainly

when a government loses control of it's capitalism, where competition is destroyed except for the highest classes.

It seems akin to feudalism in a way, where robber barons control the wealth, and the government is in league, acting

as a parasite to the mammon.

Take for example health care. In the American system (absolutely no expert on this subject) could potentially entail

the government paying private insurance companies to ensure people who cannot afford health care themselves. People

look at this as socialized medicine, and it is, but it is eerie, because this seems the kind of privitization that

occures in fascist states. It isnt where the government has control of the ins and outs of health care, it is where

the government pays the lords of the land to dispense their goods, cheaply, and efficiantly. It seems to me that the

vague relation of private capitalism and feudal mercintalism is, though as I said vague, kinda similar.

okay these were just a bunch of random thoughts, ill think of more to say later, please correct me, but try not to

nit pick either, no soap box speeches, I really just am trying to concentrate on the few good thoughts I have and

crystalize them and make them more correct.

Oh, and the term "neo-conservative" seems really misleading. I have heard very simple explanations on what "they" believe. Usually it is always mentioned that they are laissez fair "big spender" capitalists. I have noticed that the republicans have become speading fiends, and want minimal government interference, another little example of what I am kinda talking about (a proto-fascist entity? whatever the "neo-con" entity is?

My goodness guys, the definitions of these different ideologies are so warped in American media, its a sick joke.

[TMA_1]

Oh, and I also wanted to throw this out there for the hell of it. Isnt it a bit scary that the republicans over here have a substantial underclass vote? (mainly it seems from various christian denominations, and for the underclass almost implicitly because of "ethical" issues). If somebody could actually connect two and two, maybe many of all sides of the left could stop ridiculing and alienating this group of people, and stop the evil cycle of xenophobia, maybe many could open arms not to pander to this class, but to welcome them as equals, and take what many of these guys say seriously.

[Dude_Doc]

I have never really heard of a good condensed explanation of what fascism is, usually I hear the word thrown around as a

smear against capitalist democracies, but I can clearly see that it does have specific traits, it is a political

umbrella with many different ideologies.

Well, fascism as an ideology is a system in which corporations are basically in leauge with the government. The government controls the corporations, who in turn "looks like" autonomous entities, but are really controlled or allied with the government in question. Mussolini said something in the likening of "corporatism", and later changed that to fascism.

I have noticed that usually it is seeded in capitalist decay, mainly when a government loses control of it's capitalism, where competition is destroyed except for the highest classes.

Not necessarily. Fascism is the extent of capitalism, true, but it wouldn't have to do with the decay of capitalism. It is just more effective than capitalist democracy, since one leader, or a group, can basically dictate the goal to the rest of te country. But it is true, in a way, that fascism would be implemented as capitalism looses ground. After all, the upper class would do anything to keep their power.

It seems akin to feudalism in a way, where robber barons control the wealth, and the government is in league, acting

as a parasite to the mammon.

Not really, but yes. The difference is that instead of the leader, the country in question is the "main subject" of fascism. Like Italy - the country was in the centre, and Mussolini it's "protector". 

Take for example health care. In the American system (absolutely no expert on this subject) could potentially entail

the government paying private insurance companies to ensure people who cannot afford health care themselves. People

look at this as socialized medicine, and it is, but it is eerie, because this seems the kind of privitization that

occures in fascist states.

Sure, as in Nazi-Germany: "a diverse system that conseals an actual uniformity".

whatever the "neo-con" entity is?

The neo-cons are somewhat of a Stalinist practitioner. They base their ideals on that America has a moral duty to protect the world from "evil". Now, that "belief" may or may not be true, the thing is that people believe it. That has been their basis all along. And this also parallells the Islamist fundamentalist views of a world under true Islamic rules. So believe it or not, but the Islamists and the neo-cons actually have more in common that people would believe.

Isnt it a bit scary that the republicans over here have a substantial underclass vote? (mainly it seems from various christian denominations, and for the underclass almost implicitly because of "ethical" issues).

Well, why not? People, at least in America, have been thought that "communism" and everything that comes with it is "evil", and that as soon as something "left" happens, the government will gain more controll. They vote for the republicans because they are confident in their goals, in their world vision. They explain worldy problems in terms that are comprehensible for most of the underclass. Black and white. People must stop thinking in "us good, them bad" terms, and educate themselves. This is, of course, harder than it sounds. :(

If somebody could actually connect two and two, maybe many of all sides of the left could stop ridiculing and alienating this group of people, and stop the evil cycle of xenophobia, maybe many could open arms not to pander to this class, but to welcome them as equals, and take what many of these guys say seriously.

Well, as you may or may not know, the left is widely displaced. Some think that the underclass simply can't learn to live free, and thus, those who are in the "know" would destroy the system and people would sooner "wake up". Others, such as communists, believe that there must be one or another form of group to unite the people under, in order to form a revolution. This question is tricky.

[Egeides]

TMA, from what I see, Nazis had a tendency to put a wide area where you do what you want (anything) as long as it gives the result asked by the higher authority. But anything passing these limits by even minimal and formalistic ways gets as harsh a punishment as it can get (that's officially: there's bribes, extreme class advantage, etc.). Also, these punishments, how they are established, etc. are actually determined by this higher authority which bases them on the requirements of the authority just above. So it can get pretty random and "personalized" despite a common system. I don't think it can get more like that actually. It's extreme personal rule(ers), power comes from the politics, the politics having become "the nature of things". And it goes on for the rest of society too: within this, it's with the corruption, the need to hide from superiors as long as you give the result (more easily by getting it from inferiors), "do whattever you want"-ish as long as it shows ok exteriorly for superiors, extreme zeal towards obedience for its own sake (not based on evaluating superiors' competence for example; "the law is the law" whatever happens), etc.

That's my little 5 minute snapshot.

I came to think that murderous nonsense ultra ++ comes when common sense decayed, as you say - left way to whatever nonsense and put barriers down (in the system, people, instruction, wherever it is). You go figure what was/is the common sense and not of capitalism and else. Besides, Nazis claimed to revive common sense (volk), so it looks like a risky field.

Whatever version of common sense, popular or professional elite, whatever the profession. I have the impression that this kind of plague comes from politics - starting by not caring about bringing things for example, as Kennedy brought up.

The government controls the corporations, who in turn "looks like" autonomous entities, but are really controlled or allied with the government in question. Mussolini said something in the likening of "corporatism", and later changed that to fascism.

And as silly as it sounds, the Soviets seem to have joined this in practice as well. One governmental entity and allied "production sub-groups" with no right to not be allied. But there's always some differences, at least circumstantial, and some literature gets into that for sure (I dunno the Soviets well enough).

I'd expect difference on a global level just as within. As mentioned earlier, whatever what someone tells it is, from within it kept a same system with all the "personal" distinctions. So no wonder if it can present itself in different shades (of black), or come with differences within its system itself.

It's not just left/right. This distinction is some old thing coming from the French Revolution. It simply was found useful and went on I guess... Give a look at the Romans and you will find that they also had two groups: Populares and Optimates. (besides, I know that there is a recent book specifically about USA-Rome comparison and its limits. It's something from the Atlantic Monthly)

But it is true, in a way, that fascism would be implemented as capitalism looses ground. After all, the upper class would do anything to keep their power.

I'm sure a couple around here would fit in your "upper class" group and they live their lives. I've met people from upper class as lower class, and they just all looked like people. Each seems to care for his job. The difference might just be that some are more oppressed than some others, not that they are inherently more just. One who rules a village by sheer power can be lower class than some bloke just doing his professional job. People live their lives, in one place and another... and yourself or "lower class" around you would be called high class by Africans... except if you dismiss their claims as their own fault as inferior beings of course.

People must stop thinking in "us good, them bad" terms, and educate themselves. This is, of course, harder than it sounds. :(

I guess I'd agree and I got the same answer from someone coming from an especially poor country. Now, the funny thing is that the democracy revolutionaries were pro-education. I don't think that many would argue that fascism came only by a problem with education though. Do you believe that you were taught everything in school? I haven't learned all this from school. So... how do we determine what was misleading or not?; how to be hasty just enough in trusting our understanding of things? It's a rhetorical question to ourselves and I think it's especially valid for this whole thing.

[Dude_Doc]

And as silly as it sounds, the Soviets seem to have joined this in practice as well.

Sure, in a way. But the idea was to redistribute the wealth, which failed sometimes after Lenin's death. Later on it became the corrupted system we know as the Soviet Union.

I've met people from upper class as lower class, and they just all looked like people.

Of course they are people with their own thinking and ideas. They are not "evil" beings of sorts. But they are bound by the system, rich or not. But would they give up all their wealth? Why would they? Wealth means power, and power corrupts.

One who rules a village by sheer power can be lower class than some bloke just doing his professional job.

It is true that one can be lower class. After all, the Bolcheviks were supposedly consisting of working class people - only it later became corrupted by the power that was given them. Of course, some versions would blame this power on civil war, foreign imperialism and counter-revolution, but I guess it's up to everyone to decide for him/herself.

... and yourself or "lower class" around you would be called high class by Africans...

May be so, but that depends on social conditions between Europe and Africa. Europe is "less" oppressed since we have many more rights and "priveleges" than if Africa, because they generally are more oppressed. And that isn't strange, centuries of colonization, imperialism and exploitation, that later grew militant fundamentalists and movements, who bred nationalistic induviduals and dictators. Not to mention that nations who doesn't have dictators tend to be exploited (still) by outside forces.

... except if you dismiss their claims as their own fault as inferior beings of course.

Of course not. Many problems in Africa derrived from, as I wrote above, interference from Europe and later America. It seems China also have an interest in that continent now.

Do you believe that you were taught everything in school? I haven't learned all this from school.

Indeed, a very good point. As a matter of fact, I've learned almost everything by myself, even though schools in Sweden are of a rather higher standard of both history and objectivity.

[TMA_1]

hmm I am attempting to teach myself some things until I can get back to college.

... and yourself or "lower class" around you would be called high class by Africans...

May be so, but that depends on social conditions between Europe and Africa. Europe is "less" oppressed since we have many more rights and "priveleges" than if Africa, because they generally are more oppressed. And that isn't strange, centuries of colonization, imperialism and exploitation, that later grew militant fundamentalists and movements, who bred nationalistic induviduals and dictators. Not to mention that nations who doesn't have dictators tend to be exploited (still) by outside forces.

I believe that answer you gave Doctor answers the question of whether the lower classes can rise up themselves in mass. I do believe that it is a complex answer. In America, I believe it is definitely possible to create much larger pockets of resistance in the working classes, it would take time. For the many nations in Africa, I cannot answer, completely clueless when it comes to Africa, socially and politically, which I havent really realized (that I know so little).

The neo-cons are somewhat of a Stalinist practitioner.

I have always heared that they actually have Trotskyist political roots.

Nazis claimed to revive common sense (volk)

Speaking of that Egeides, I am going through 1984. Orwell wrote a Newspeak word for that, I think it is called bellyfeel, or something like that (I forgot what it was already! my mind must be going). I mean the two arent directly related, but it does feel like there is a close kinship. The idea of the idealization of the working man, feeling from the gut, trusting on common sense, that kind of stuff.

[Egeides]

The neo-cons are somewhat of a Stalinist practitioner.

I have always heared that they actually have Trotskyist political roots.

Funny: Trotsky was opposing Stalin, TMA ;D

Why, what do you think of Trotsky (or Soviets) with present administration? Do you think that Trotsky would have ruled that way? (he was directing the intelligence, wasn't he?)

As for creating larger pockets of resistance, resistance to what?

[Dude_Doc]

In America, I believe it is definitely possible to create much larger pockets of resistance in the working classes, it would take time.

Indeed. The American media is far more conservative than most. Even socialized medicine (see Sicko) is propagated as something negative. I believe that many Americans have time and again heard about the all-seeing, all-knowing state, and it's relentless hunger for power and control. True, states aren't something positive, but with checks and balances a state can actually be controlled, and far more than corporate interest that has no checking in on itself.

The hard thing will be to educate America.  :(

Now, it is hard to say what Trotsky would have done should he have come into power. Lenin certainly wanted it that way. But that is another question too: Was the Soviet system, in it's first decade, really something beneficial? Would Russia have been better of if it first developped capitalism? There are also questions about the real intent of the Bolsheviks, like why they kept their system intact when the Russian civil war already was over. In my own opinion, I believe that Russia would have done much better with Trotsky, but we would still have seen a similar Soviet Union as the one that were.

Oh, and if you ask where I got the "idea of the neo-cons", then spend 3 hours watching this good piece of documentary:

Part 1:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177&q=the+power+of+nightmares&total=350&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Part 2:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876&q=the+power+of+nightmares&total=350&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Part 3:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4729189253956590972&q=the+power+of+nightmares&total=350&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[TMA_1]

Thanks much for the information Doctor, I will totally check out the documentary. Yeah I think it will be a bit difficult. I believe that it will have to start within strong communities in force, as well as on a national scale. I think it will have to be a two pronged move to change the face of the country.

[Egeides]

You two see politics ("resistance pockets") as the central thing? Is it possible to see things by politics, since it's often more changing? (like TMA mentioning political language, in constant mutation)

I think that most things in life are not politics and so I see most things to be done as on the field, daily efforts, etc.

[Dude_Doc]

I think that most things in life are not politics and so I see most things to be done as on the field, daily efforts, etc.

I disagree. Politics have everything to do with how humans live, and where they end up. People in Africa aren't poor just because they somehow lack "daily effort", they are poor for a reason, the politics of capitalism.

[Egeides]

Are you sure that "Politics have everything to do with" makes everything to be politics? Couldn't I put the word life or else too?

One reason: capitalism? Why not, say, one reason: lacking water? Or, two reasons: stupid humans and the flea market not being well supplied?

[Dude_Doc]

Are you sure that "Politics have everything to do with" makes everything to be politics?

Well, of course not every second of life, but most of it. Like I said, it decides most of your life. Politics control what you can and can not do, for example. You, as an induvidual, has to follow those rules in the entire time of your life. It decides how much time you can spend with your family, or how your job will turn out, and so on.

Now, politics can also be the cooperation between people, like deciding basic laws - but such a cooperation can only come if everyone knows and can act upon it. Politics, in real life, doesn't do that. People can never agree on one issue, because that issue is never discussed (and we have the media to thank for that). If people do not know, then they will not act.

Why not, say, one reason: lacking water?

Water that has been polluted by the international corporations that control the pollutor, i.e. the factory? We always hear about the wonders of globalization, but that same globalization has turned villages into shanty-towns, forrests into wastelands and a lot of other things that the mighty gains on. Africa is a very rich country, but it's people are poor. Poor by the material conditions that comes from unregulated capitalism. Those who dare to regulate it are called "rouge nations" and "undemocratic", and "a threat to stability". Those countries are also often candidates for coups, that usually end up in violent dictatorships that lasts for years.

Or, two reasons: stupid humans and the flea market not being well supplied?

Are you suggesting the "white man's burden"?

[Egeides]

Are you suggesting the "white man's burden"?

No, I really had in mind the structural life-blood and the people making it go.

[Tatar Khan]

The problem with Africa lies not in globalism or capitalism but in poverty and lack of education. Poverty causes poverty overall and it is very hard to kick people out of that cycle. Education is the key as in many other things. Africa is poor because of many issues,many are results of colonial intervention by European powers back in the day, however this is now being upkept by the populus itself.

Part of poverty in Africa is due to them having a large number of kids. Usually that means a lot of mouth to feed and they just don't have enough to feed the kids but still have them. So the communities often that work the land find themselves under stress of hunger due to lack of food that is coming from the land. They believe to increase output from the land they need more labour. Labour here comes from members of community so they have kids to increase the number of members of community. Result is increased populus to feed and larger amount of labour that has to work the same amount of land. Since diminishing returns set in the new labour doesn't resolve the issue. Plus the land is usually over strained because many communities do not practice crop rotation due to lack of knowledge of such a principle. They also unaware of diminishing returns law. So the process repeats itself.

Than the land also suffers from all the waste produced by growing population making it even less productive. Overall the situation gets worse and worse, if they had proper education the situation could be improved but they don't have time to go to school b/c they need to work the land to survive.

What is needed is a push to be given to those countries that will get them going and that push requires education and technology from western world. However western governments are not going to spend so much money on these countries b/c according to all constitutions and legislature their prime responsibility is to their own citizens. And if they see that helping Africa will not improve the lives of their citizens, they won't do it.

Corporations that come to Africa usually do set up infrastructure and comms for themselves to function however these do get vandalized by the locals who look for cheap materials. Attempts by corporations to run the telephone cable (by land or by telephone poles) to villages where their workers live ended up in disaster b/c these same villages dug up/ or cut down the wire and poles for their own use a free material and often with telephone wire they sold it because it is a colour metal b/c it is possible to get money for it. So as I said poverty causes poverty.

As for fascism this I believe summarizes it: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism. Racism is not a requirement of Fascism.

Fascism in itself would be opposing capitalism which rests on ideas of open markets, free trade and non intervention in the economy by government. However this doesn't mean that corporations share the same view of open markets, free trade and non-intervention, actually they would in certain causes support those ideas and in others opposite it, depending on what gains they can get from their stance since their prime responsibility is to share holders and sometimes to stake holders.

[Dude_Doc]

The problem with Africa lies not in globalism or capitalism but in poverty and lack of education.

Poverty comes from globalization and exploaitation. Like I said, as soon as a country begins to nationalize it's industries and create social programs, the rest of the world are made to believe that they've become "dangerous" and shouldn't be spoken to. How long have people donated to charity now? What, 50 years? How long are they to remain poor?

Poverty causes poverty overall and it is very hard to kick people out of that cycle.

But they aren't poor - the people are. It isn't easy to begin industry as long as you don't own any of your wealth.

Plus the land is usually over strained because many communities do not practice crop rotation due to lack of knowledge of such a principle.

So you mean that, despite decades of charity, a simple thing as farming can't be teached to the African people?

However western governments are not going to spend so much money on these countries b/c according to all constitutions and legislature their prime responsibility is to their own citizens.

On the contrary, the West is very interested in Africa - only in a different way. They're interested in cheap labour, in non-existant environmental and social laws, and in the resources. The point is that Africa shouldn't really become anything more than it is.

Fascism in itself would be opposing capitalism which rests on ideas of open markets, free trade and non intervention in the economy by government.

Capitalism would want to see weaker governments and harder property laws. They would always support that kind of system. The US is basically turning into a new China, for example, but both are competing on certain grounds. Why would they ever support a democracy, where people can oppose corporate rule?

[Tatar Khan]

Poverty comes from globalization and exploitation. Like I said, as soon as a country begins to nationalize it's industries and create social programs, the rest of the world are made to believe that they've become "dangerous" and shouldn't be spoken to.

Nationalization is not liked because the other side usually get left with nothing. Investors from developed countries put their money in building the factories and industries and than suddenly they lose them. It is like having a house built for you and furnished that you spent your money on only to find the builders not letting you and not even compensating you monetarily. And since some of the largest investors around are mutual fund, pension funds, education funds where average Joe from developed world invests the attitude of developed world's countries is understandable.

How long have people donated to charity now? What, 50 years? How long are they to remain poor?

So you mean that, despite decades of charity, a simple thing as farming can't be taught to the African people?

Well throwing a money bag at people doesn't mean that they going to use it wisely. Only very recently did the western world realize that they have to educate people. Before it used to be just money sent to the governments of those countries and they divided it, than directly to people and they used it however they wanted, not only schools are being built and attempts are made to put kids in them. People are not that interested to go to school, since day in school means day lost from working. And schools don't teach farming techniques, they start out with stuff like language, math and etc. things that can't be applied on the spot but needed for proper education. So locals don't see much value in education.

On the contrary, the West is very interested in Africa - only in a different way. They're interested in cheap labour, in non-existant environmental and social laws, and in the resources. The point is that Africa shouldn't really become anything more than it is.

Actually political instability, lack of proper laws and property rights, constant rebel groups uprising and lack of proper infrastructure in many African countries do not make investing in Africa very interesting venture. Asian countries are preferred due to their more stable governments and laws, where chances of being nationalized or having whole bunch of rebels confiscating/ attacking a factory is low.

Capitalism would want to see weaker governments and harder property laws. They would always support that kind of system. The US is basically turning into a new China, for example, but both are competing on certain grounds. Why would they ever support a democracy, where people can oppose corporate rule?

Fascism has a tendency to reduce economical freedom and government usually start to command and tell corporations what to do, often the fascist states impose unfavorable trade policies for firms in the country and also such governments find international embargoes against them. I don't see any reason why a corporation would want that to happen. With democracy corporations could push their way towards trade restrictions against competition by crying about job losses, unfair practices and etc and people would support them and so will the government.

[Anathema]

It's really hard to define fascism, because it's a rather incoherent ideology and has many variants. If we consider Italian fascism as archetypical, it started out as a reactionary movement against communism and capitalism (and of course the unrest following WW1), it was a "Third Way". Economically, it's a variant of corporatism ("corporate" as in civil bodies, not just commercial agents) because the government oversees and manages the national economy, but unlike modern (liberal) corporatism this is done by coersion, not dialogue.

And then what we all know: militarism, state chauvenism, xenophobia....

Nazism can be considered a form of fascism, but it has a list of subtle differences. Italian fascism doesn't have an ideological goal beyond immediate power over the country and maybe expansion, and people are expected to be loyal to the state. In Nazism, the central theme is not the state but the nation, das Volk, wich' destiny was to dominate all the other races. Italian fascism was more culture-orientated and traditional, Nazism was centred around pseudo-genetics and was striving forward (or so they thought)

Mussolini and Hitler didn't start out as friends, and the former called national socialism a "cheap imitation of fascism".

Then there's Spain, Japan and a host of militarist regimes in Latin America and east Asia that can arguably be called "fascist" but I doubt that there's much common ground between all of them.

[Edric O]

The problem with Africa lies not in globalism or capitalism but in poverty and lack of education. Poverty causes poverty overall and it is very hard to kick people out of that cycle.

Right, poverty breeds more poverty; those who are poor, tend to stay poor. What you should be asking yourself, however, is why that is the case. After all, there was a time not so long ago when Europe and North America were just as poor and uneducated as Africa is today. And in terms of natural resources and other external conditions, Africa is no worse off than Europe.

Something is keeping Africa poor, and, more importantly, something is keeping Africa (and Latin America, and most of Asia) in a dependent and exploitative economic relationship with the West. That "something" is global capitalism.

There is also the legacy of colonialism, of course, but you should remember that it was capitalism - or, to be more exact, the capitalist drive to control natural resources and secure export markets - that was the driving force behind colonialism in the first place.

Education is the key as in many other things. Africa is poor because of many issues, many are results of colonial intervention by European powers back in the day, however this is now being upkept by the populus itself.

No, education is not enough. Africa is poor because its role in the global economy is that of providing cheap labour, cheap natural resources, and the occasional export market every now and then. Education, by itself, will change absolutely nothing, because educated Africans can (and will) just emigrate, and because being educated does not automatically grant you any particular economic power.

Part of poverty in Africa is due to them having a large number of kids. Usually that means a lot of mouth to feed and they just don't have enough to feed the kids but still have them. So the communities often that work the land find themselves under stress of hunger due to lack of food that is coming from the land. They believe to increase output from the land they need more labour. Labour here comes from members of community so they have kids to increase the number of members of community. Result is increased populus to feed and larger amount of labour that has to work the same amount of land. Since diminishing returns set in the new labour doesn't resolve the issue. Plus the land is usually over strained because many communities do not practice crop rotation due to lack of knowledge of such a principle. They also unaware of diminishing returns law. So the process repeats itself.

No, that is not a cause of poverty at all. At most, it might be a symptom. Large families are a common feature of all agricultural societies, as well as most early industrial societies. Indeed, truly explosive population growth usually takes place right after a country begins to industrialize.

The reason why people have lots of kids is not because they need more labour to feed their existing kids (you don't need to be a PhD economist to realize that if you can't feed your existing kids, having MORE of them will only make things worse). Rather, people have lots of kids because they need those kids to support them in their old age. Large families are the earliest and most primitive form of social security.

And overpopulation is not a cause of poverty in the short term (it may cause damage in the long term, but that's another story). Lots of rich countries have very high population densities, like the Netherlands for example.

Nationalization is not liked because the other side usually get left with nothing. Investors from developed countries put their money in building the factories and industries and than suddenly they lose them. It is like having a house built for you and furnished that you spent your money on only to find the builders not letting you and not even compensating you monetarily. And since some of the largest investors around are mutual fund, pension funds, education funds where average Joe from developed world invests the attitude of developed world's countries is understandable.

If we're discussing the issue of compensation, perhaps we should ask the West to compensate Africa for the millions of Africans who were kidnapped, enslaved and shipped across the ocean in the transatlantic slave trade, or for over a hundred years of direct colonial rule, economic exploitation and (in some cases) genocide.

Much of the wealth of the West is derived directly from the past exploitation and oppression of Africa, Asia and the Americas. Therefore, Africans have every right to seize the property of Western corporations whenever they can.

Actually political instability, lack of proper laws and property rights, constant rebel groups uprising and lack of proper infrastructure in many African countries do not make investing in Africa very interesting venture. Asian countries are preferred due to their more stable governments and laws, where chances of being nationalized or having whole bunch of rebels confiscating/ attacking a factory is low.

If you mean that Asian countries are generally more effective at suppressing political opposition and killing, jailing or intimidating the people who have been driven desperate enough to take up arms against the government, then I'd have to agree - Asia is a better place to do business.

Of course, chaos is not good for anyone, and the last thing any country needs is pointless violence. Africa does suffer from warlordism. But if you are going to suppress the warlords just so you can exploit a country in a more orderly and secure fashion, the average man will see little improvement in his quality of life.

[Anathema]

Right, poverty breeds more poverty; those who are poor, tend to stay poor. What you should be asking yourself, however, is why that is the case. After all, there was a time not so long ago when Europe and North America were just as poor and uneducated as Africa is today. And in terms of natural resources and other external conditions, Africa is no worse off than Europe.

Sub-saharan Africa has been behind Europe, the middle-east and eastern Asia for almost the entire history of mankind in terms of "civilization". For that matter Europe has been behind Mesopotamia and China for centuries until about 500-300 BC. Germany, now an affluent country, was a desolate wasteland in the times of ancient Rome. Nothing wich has to do with capitalism.

 

Part of the explanation for sub-saharans substantial underdevelopment is its long isolation, it's not on or near any major trade route in antiquity or the middle ages and advanced crops and domesticated animals like horses didn't reach it until a lot later. The same goes for north America, whose central land mass was nearly uninhabited (except by a small amount of hunter-gatherers) until the colonials came. Internally, there wasn't much contact between African civilizations because of the land barriers. There was no necessity to compete with anyone.

So by the time the scramble for Africa started, it was just one big target. However if they had just left the continent alone entirely, I'm certain that it would be even more backwards then it already is.

Something is keeping Africa poor' date=' and, more importantly, something is keeping Africa (and Latin America, and most of Asia) in a dependent and exploitative economic relationship with the West. That "something" is global capitalism.[/quote']

Uh, Latin America and the bulk of Asia isn't nearly as poor as sub-saharan Africa. Most of those economies are growing steadily or even fast. These countries produce cheap consumer goods for us, but because of that they can have huge trade surpluses and often deliberately keep their currency cheap in comparison with the dollar or euro to keep it that way. Converted to western currencies, IT specialists in India earn crap wages but in their own country it's enough to afford them an affluent lifestyle.

There is also the legacy of colonialism' date=' of course, but you should remember that it was capitalism - or, to be more exact, the capitalist drive to control natural resources and secure export markets - that was the driving force behind colonialism in the first place.[/color']

Newsflash: colonialism ended a long time ago. A lot of former colonies have recovered, some have not - due to conditions unique to any country. There's not a huge western conspiracy to keep these countries poor  ::)

And overpopulation is not a cause of poverty in the short term (it may cause damage in the long term' date=' but that's another story). Lots of rich countries have very high population densities, like the Netherlands for example.[/color']

Stagnation occurs when the population grows faster then the economy - so high birth rates are certainly a factor.

If we're discussing the issue of compensation' date=' perhaps we should ask the West to compensate Africa for [b']the millions of Africans who were kidnapped, enslaved and shipped across the ocean in the transatlantic slave trade, or for over a hundred years of direct colonial rule, economic exploitation and (in some cases) genocide.

Yes to all, except the kidnapping. Slave traders usually just bought Africans who had been enslaved by another, victorious tribe. I find the notion odd that we should recompense African countries for that, while it was their own ancestors that did the enslaving itself and that the actual victims don't live there anymore (except in Liberia, wich is a colony of freed slaves). I am in favour of helping African countries develop, but not for what happened centuries ago. Personally I'm of the opinion that nobody gets born with rights or obligations because of their ancestry.

Much of the wealth of the West is derived directly from the past exploitation and oppression of Africa' date=' Asia and the Americas. Therefore, Africans have every right to seize the property of Western corporations whenever they can.[/color']

It's wrong, and ultimately counterproductive - nationalization of foreign assets gives short term benefits but scares off future investors.

If you mean that Asian countries are generally more effective at suppressing political opposition and killing' date=' jailing or intimidating the people who have been driven desperate enough to take up arms against the government, then I'd have to agree - Asia is a better place to do business.[/quote']

Ugh, strawman. I suppose that there's also a western conspiracy going on to keep China a dictatorship, so that they can supply us with cheap sportswear?  ::)

Of course' date=' chaos is not good for anyone, and the last thing any country needs is pointless violence. Africa does suffer from warlordism. But if you are going to suppress the warlords just so you can exploit a country in a more orderly and secure fashion, the average man will see little improvement in his quality of life.[/color']

???

I'd much rather live a life in relative squalor then be the victim of ethnic cleansing, but maybe that's just me.

[TMA_1]

But it just seems like its a large issue, with outside influences tampering with Africa. If you look at portions of Africa's history, there were constant attempts, jump starts at greater nation building. You see growing Hegemonies rise and sometimes falter. The potential was there though. With colonialization though, it seems like it perminantly destroyed any chances for Africa to ever evolve on it's own. The interference has culturally raped many African peoples, and I dont think these people will ever recover without help.

[Egeides]

Slave traders usually just bought Africans who had been enslaved by another, victorious tribe. I find the notion odd that we should recompense African countries for that, while it was their own ancestors that did the enslaving itself and that the actual victims don't live there anymore(except in Liberia, wich is a colony of freed slaves).

It seems that conquerors commonly do that and the blame does not less fall on them for encouraging or instauring such ways. If the problem is not in the external agressor but in these ways (brought by the agressor and not), then the question might be about what is this system and how it is or not present right now.

[Tatar Khan]

Well we don't need to give Africans phds or even university degrees to improve their lifestyle, even basic understanding of water exchange, crop rotation and simple agricultural techniques will do wonders for them. Land reform is needed in Africa, since a lot of land is owned by rich land owners who happen to be white (and often very racist --> leftovers of the colonialism).

Colonialism also divided Africa into sections that not 'natural' to it. Tribes got their land split between countries and this causes tension and conflicts.

As for improvements in lifestyle due to openness of the country to trade and investment China, Singapore, South Korea clearly point to wards the positive side.

As for what usually is referred to as white man's burden I don't think that modern day corporations are not liable for actions of some people in the past, since many of them had anything to do with that. It would be analogous to a Native American to try to kick me out of my home jsut because sometime ago some British immigrants were bad to them. I am not descended from them and so have no indispensability on me for those actions.

[Edric O]

Sub-saharan Africa has been behind Europe, the middle-east and eastern Asia for almost the entire history of mankind in terms of "civilization". For that matter Europe has been behind Mesopotamia and China for centuries until about 500-300 BC. Germany, now an affluent country, was a desolate wasteland in the times of ancient Rome. Nothing wich has to do with capitalism.

I said capitalism is keeping Africa poor, not that capitalism caused Africa to be poor in the first place. It didn't.

However if [the Europeans] had just left the continent alone entirely, I'm certain that it would be even more backwards then it already is.

It is a false dichotomy to claim that the only two choices for Africa were to be either left isolated from the rest of the world or to be conquered and subjugated.

Uh, Latin America and the bulk of Asia isn't nearly as poor as sub-saharan Africa. Most of those economies are growing steadily or even fast. These countries produce cheap consumer goods for us, but because of that they can have huge trade surpluses and often deliberately keep their currency cheap in comparison with the dollar or euro to keep it that way.

Economic growth does not necessarily translate into better living standards for the majority of the population. A country is not a compact, monolithic entity. Within any country there are social classes, ethnic groups and so on. It is simplistic to assume that national income statistics accurately reflect the experience of the common man.

Having said that, it is of course true that capitalism is effective at industrializing countries, and with industrialization comes economic growth. Yes, capitalism can, and often does, raise living standards. That is not in dispute. What I am saying that there are better, faster, and more equitable ways to raise living standards.

Converted to western currencies, IT specialists in India earn crap wages but in their own country it's enough to afford them an affluent lifestyle.

An affluent lifestyle by Indian standards is not quite the same as an affluent lifestyle by Western standards.

Newsflash: colonialism ended a long time ago.

If by "colonialism" you mean "direct political control," then yes, it's over. But just because a country became politically independent, that does not mean that its economy will suddenly change overnight, that it will suddenly acquire new export markets and that new domestic industries will spring up like mushrooms all by themselves. In most cases, former colonies remained in the same dependent economic relationships that they had prior to independence.

A lot of former colonies have recovered, some have not - due to conditions unique to any country. There's not a huge western conspiracy to keep these countries poor. ::)

Economic forces are keeping those countries poor, not any conspiracy.

Yes to all, except the kidnapping. Slave traders usually just bought Africans who had been enslaved by another, victorious tribe.

Correct; however, European involvement greatly increased the demand for slaves and therefore strongly encouraged the practice of slavery in West Africa.

Even if you do not go out and capture slaves yourself, buying slaves and exploiting them is still evil.

I am in favour of helping African countries develop, but not for what happened centuries ago. Personally I'm of the opinion that nobody gets born with rights or obligations because of their ancestry.

I agree with you. However, in order to put this principle into practice, one would have to abolish most forms of inheritance. I, for one, do indeed support the creation of a global economic system that reduces inheritance to a minimum. Do you?

After all, if I steal some money and die, and my children inherit it, isn't the money still stolen? Doesn't the victim still deserve compensation? My children may be completely innocent, but justice still demands that they give their money back to the victim. The only way to avoid this is if my children do NOT inherit my money.

It's wrong, and ultimately counterproductive - nationalization of foreign assets gives short term benefits but scares off future investors.

In other words, nationalization of foreign assets makes it more difficult for a country to be integrated into the global capitalist system. Good. If I am trying to establish socialism in my country, then obviously I have no intention of ever selling off any more assets to foreign investors, so I have no reason to worry if those investors are scared off. That doesn't mean that I'll stop trading with capitalist countries - after all, in this day and age no country can survive without trade, no matter what economic system it adopts. A socialist economy will still produce export goods that can be sold on the world market. Of course, it is preferable to trade with other socialist countries, but that may not be enough or may not be an option, depending on the situation.

On the other hand, if I am NOT trying to establish socialism, but only wish to nationalize certain key industries in my country, then I have a problem. Any attempt to create a social democracy in the Third World - any attempt to expand public services, to create a welfare state, to impose labour laws and so on - will result in multinational corporations withdrawing their capital from this country and moving it elsewhere. Capital flight makes it increasingly difficult to establish (or sustain) a mixed economic system. You either have to surrender to international competitive pressure and attract investment by moving closer to laissez-faire capitalism, or you have to move towards socialism.

There is less and less middle ground, and eventually there will be none left at all.

Ugh, strawman. I suppose that there's also a western conspiracy going on to keep China a dictatorship, so that they can supply us with cheap sportswear?  ::)

Western conspiracy? Not at all - it is not just the West that benefits from China's position. The Chinese ruling class benefits as well. It is important to realize that, in economic relations, there is no such thing as national interest. Not any more. Different classes within a nation have always had different interests - what is good for the dictator is not good for the worker, and vice versa. Now, thanks to globalization, the interests of each class are becoming more and more globalized. Rulers and businessmen across the world have increasingly common interests. What is good for Chinese tycoons tends to be good for American ones as well. Likewise, workers across the world have increasingly common interests.

I'd much rather live a life in relative squalor then be the victim of ethnic cleansing, but maybe that's just me.

Well, obviously. Though a man dying from malaria will find little comfort in the fact that no one is trying to shoot him.

[Anathema]

I need to get some sleep, so I'll just respond to this part for now:

In other words, nationalization of foreign assets makes it more difficult for a country to be integrated into the global capitalist system. Good.

[......................]

On the other hand, if I am NOT trying to establish socialism, but only wish to nationalize certain key industries in my country, then I have a problem. Any attempt to create a social democracy in the Third World - any attempt to expand public services, to create a welfare state, to impose labour laws and so on - will result in multinational corporations withdrawing their capital from this country and moving it elsewhere. Capital flight makes it increasingly difficult to establish (or sustain) a mixed economic system. You either have to surrender to international competitive pressure and attract investment by moving closer to laissez-faire capitalism, or you have to move towards socialism.

That's probably the biggest problem with your philosophy right here: you can argue all you want that socialism is better from an ethical point of view, but building infrastructure from scrap just isn't possible without foreign capital, and if you want to get it you're expected to abide by the rules of the game.

And history has shown that once a country has gotten to the point where it has a substantial middle class, there's little enthusiasm for a socialist overhaul.