 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cuz historically, the results of the SotA has been coup d'etats, murder, torture, etc. Reasonable people are rather disinclined to believe you. If the Bolivian military is keeping its hands off, it's not because of the SotA training, but inspite of it. |
historically the results of an ivy league education were a belief in the dominance of white males, a support for capitalism, particularly free market capitalism, and a support for US foreign policy. Oh, and a strong belief in the superiority of Western culture, as expressed in great books.
until it wasnt. Curriculums and their results DO change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cuz historically, the results of the SotA has been coup d'etats, murder, torture, etc. Reasonable people are rather disinclined to believe you. If the Bolivian military is keeping its hands off, it's not because of the SotA training, but inspite of it. |
That's just plain false. True, there have been military people from Latin America who went through the 30 or 90 day courses then went back home and still commited crimes but it is hard to blame that on the SotA. Their goals are to teach modern military techniques along with respect for human rights and the proper role of the military in a constitutional democracys (I.E. no coupes, no death squads, do what the elcted officials tell you to do, etc..). Many of the old school Latin American military officialsa weren't going to change their world outlook after just a month long or three month long course so it is fullish to blame the SotA for their actions. After all the SotA did everything it could to prevent them from commiting human rights abuses.
By and large the SotA has done a great job with very limited resources and has helped to stabalize a great many new democracies in Latin America. Of course if someone wants to blame everything under the sun on the SotA then they can but I think even those people realize they aren't being very honest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
Hey Che...thanks for the response to that question posed earlier. Good post, and some good points.
Here's another one for you.
Given your ideology, and given that it's steeped in Marxist thought, are not the following points true?
* The less-developed a nation is, the less likely a communist revolution is to succeed (on the thinking that, per Marx, only mature capitalist nations with vast infrastructure capable of providing for everyone's wants and needs meets the criterion)
* Capitalism is hugely good at building the aforementioned infrastructure (implication: better than a communist-state-before-it's-ready-for-prime-time....I think this has been demonstrated adequately, historically).
Given the two points above, does it not make more sense, from a purely ideologic point of view, that communists should be among the most rabid supporters OF capitalism? I mean, if for no other reason that the stronger and more vibrant a capitalist economy is, the faster it will reach maturation, which means, the faster it will collapse, which then opens the door for the revolution you're looking for?
Just....exploring the idea....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
* The less-developed a nation is, the less likely a communist revolution is to succeed (on the thinking that, per Marx, only mature capitalist nations with vast infrastructure capable of providing for everyone's wants and needs meets the criterion) |
This is true, but when opportunity presents itself, you don't turn it down. As a budding capitalist, you should know that. 
quote:
* Capitalism is hugely good at building the aforementioned infrastructure (implication: better than a communist-state-before-it's-ready-for-prime-time....I think this has been demonstrated adequately, historically). |
In the metropoles (the imperial cores), yes, but in the periphery (colonial world), this has not necessarily been the case. Only a handful of 3rd world countries have made the transition to 1st world nations.
According to the theory of underdevelopment (developed by 3rd world theorists in the lates 60s and early 70s), it isn't that the colonies or neo-colonies aren't developed, but that they are developed for the markets of the metropoles. Most of the development, then, is not for the purpose of building wealth, but for extracting wealth. Thus, as long as the economy of the periphery remains tied to that of the metropole, it will be unable to provide for its own people or develop an economy.
The question, then, is which way forward. Clearly the IMF/World Bank method of "development" has been an unmitigated disaster for those counties that have tried it. The only successful model in the 20th Century has been that of the Asian tigers, and that requires considerable government interference as well as an authoritarian state, and certain cultural factors which I'd say are lacking in Latin America and Africa.
Now, with abundent hydorcarbons, it might be possible for Bolivia to make a successful socialist economy if it can avoid corruption, authoritarianism, and uses its mineral wealth to build its national infrastructure and educate its people. I don't know if they can do it, but it's far less certain that the Bolivian elite can or even would.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
Let me develop that a little further. Marx developed his theories when capitalism was still not fully established even in Europe. Capitalism could only really be considered an economic force in a handful of countries: England & Scotland, France, low countries, the northern United States, certin German states, etc. Marx could only draw upon the information and experience then existing, and so it seemed natural that capitalism might / would develop along identical pathes in every country, such that Marx could state that fully developed capitalism was a necessary precondition to socialism.
The problem that Marx, and for that matter, almost everyone else, fell into is in identifying an imperialist country with fully developed capitalism. Bolivia is every bit as capitalist as the United States, but it's economy is oriented outwards rather than inwards.
In these cases, waiting for full industrialization is essentially putting off the revolution for ever. Bolivia will never industrialize because the Bolivian elite doesn't have enough capital to make it happen, and international capital sees no profit in industrializing Bolivia.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 11-06-2005 at 04:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Also, I think the theory you mentioned was dreamed up by a dunderhead, but that's just me...
-=Vel=- |
The theory of underdevelopment certainly has its critiques, and not just from those who are proponents of capitalism. Some of the proofs aren't necessarily proofs. For example, for every dollar invested in Latin America, a dollar and seventy six cents was extracted in profit (this study was presented to me in the late 80s, and that data may be from the 70s, it's been a while).
My commentary at the time was, that dollar seventy-six didn't exist before, so it's not exactly as if Latin America is losing wealth. If the dollar hadn't been invested, the $1.76 wouldn't have been created. After all, the point of investing capital in the first place is to create/extract newly created wealth. Nor did the study tell us how much wealth was created for the Latin Americans that wasn't expatriated.
On the other hand, consider a Brazilian example. Brazil produces aluminum ore. American corporations built a mining operation, a railway, and a port, all for the extraction of aluminum ore to the U.S. So Brazil export ore to the U.S. In the U.S., that ore is smelted, refined, and turned in to aluminum products which are then shipped back to Brazil.
Brazil would do much better to make its own aluminum products and not only sell to its own market, but to the American one as well. Instead, American corporations get the wealth, and Brazil gains no captal for investment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
It's Lenin's theory, not Marx, in case you didn't know that. |
It's not Lenin's theory, either. Andre Gunder Frank, F.H. Cardoso, Anibal Quijano, Rui Mario Marini, Samir Amin, and others developed the theory. It is focused on the effects of imperialism in the 3rd world, while Lenin's theory of imperialism was on the effects of imperialism in the 1st world, and the causes of capitalist imperialism.
To me the theories seem like two sides of the same coin but some argue (and I didn't follow) that there are significant differences. Unfortunately, therefore, I can't elaborate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Ahh, yes. Classic 1960's & 1970's statist nonsense. Most of the 3rd world tried this approach where they put up sky high tarrifs on outside goods then attempted to manufacture everything domestically. Sounds good doesn't it? There are major problems though. |
But that's how Europe and the U.S. developed, didn't it? Hell, we even fought a civil war partly over the question of tarrifs (and the pro-tarrif side won).
Ultiamtely, the problem wasn't that their neighbors raised similar tarrifs, but that OPEC brought the party to an end. They sucked the wind out of everyone's sails, including the 1st worlds'. Eventually they realized that by killing the world economy, they were shooting themselves in the foot, but by then the blow was pretty much fatal for Latin America.
I agree, however, that the tiny market was a serious problem. This, I think, was the leg up that the Asian tigers had over Latin America, huge markets. If Latin America could have created a single market for capital investment, it would have been more likely to succeed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
As I noted previously, the Asian tigers had a very statist approach to developing their economies. They are the only underdeveloped countries to transition. The monetarist model you advocate has been an unmitigated disaster. Even the "showcase" model of monetarism, Chile, had to renationalize significant portions of its economy in the early 80s, despite following Freedmans recipe to the letter. Just like everyone else, their economy had the rug pulled out from under it by OPEC.
As for how well Chile, Mexico, etc. are doing, I'll reserve my judgement. Mexico still has yet to fully recover from its currency collapse, and Chile can only be considered a success when you ignore how bad off one third of its population is.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2005 23:02
|