Why do Americans think that third world nations aren't capitalist?

[RadioRaheem84]

Not that all third world nations are capitalist, but they just assume that all third world nations are socialist. For some reason they assume that if a nation is corrupt and underdeveloped its because the country is socialist and not capitalist. They think that the market is not free and over regulated when its just the opposite. One man also told me that he didn't believe that Haiti or El Salvador were capitalist countries because they weren't democratic or lacked a full fledged democratic system (as if saying capitalism and democracy went hand in hand, you couldn't have one without the other). I guess this was a product of reading 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman.

[LOLseph Stalin]

To me this just warrants pure American ignorance. Despite how much Americans like to say they aren't, third world countries are indeed Capitalist. Many corporations from first world countries are based there. Like everywhere else these corporations are generally run by a group of bourgeoisie who employ everybody else. The main difference however, in third world countries is the lack of labour laws. People can be employed under whichever conditions the boss wishes. This includes sweatshop conditions and wages.

[RadioRaheem84]

I also find it strange that many Americans assume that the labor right they have were the result of capitalism. So when they see a nation lacking any sort of labor or human rights, they just assume that the nation is socialist and lacking a free market to bring them all kinds of freedom.

What's crazy is that Friedman's argument in his book (which spawned most of the beliefs americans have today) is that the lack of labor laws and human rights associated with the free market days of the past brought about democratic changes, so it was a good thing that people were exploited and that it is a must in any society for there to be exploitation in order for "freedom" to flourish.

[Misanthrope]

Because they think any country that is a victim of capitalism and imperialism is anti-capitalist. In Africa, states such as Angola and Libya have experienced economic growth since adopting socialistic policies while economically liberal states have experienced little to no growth.

Capitalism doesn't go hand in hand with democracy, quite the opposite. Capitalism is dictatorship of the workplace, socialism is democracy in the workplace, whoever said that is an idiot.

[Pogue]

To me this just warrants pure American ignorance. Despite how much Americans like to say they aren't, third world countries are indeed Capitalist. Many corporations from first world countries are based there. Like everywhere else these corporations are generally run by a group of bourgeoisie who employ everybody else. The main difference however, in third world countries is the lack of labour laws. People can be employed under whichever conditions the boss wishes. This includes sweatshop conditions and wages.

Whats 'American ignorance'?

[scarletghoul]

It is the ignorance fostered by cappie propaganda in america and the climate of antisocialism. The ignorance that makes people think the nazis were nationalised socialism, etc

[RadioRaheem84]

It is the ignorance fostered by cappie propaganda in america and the climate of antisocialism. The ignorance that makes people think the nazis were nationalised socialism, etc


I just dont understand how a nation succumbs to such propaganda so easily. First the Conservatives in power deprive the public sector and federal programs of much needed funds, rendering the public schools system, post offices, and other government services incompetant and then they insist that the government can't do anything right and thats why there is need for privitization.

Supposedly, a friend of mine from Canada said that most Canadians view anything that's private in Canada as kind of "ghetto" while most things government run were pretty well up to par. Is this true? So in other words, I was kept from understanding that a government CAN run something better than the private sector? In the US, we are taught that the private sector can and will always do everything and anything better than the government.

[Kukulofori]

It's not that most Americans don't realise the propoganda is bullshit.They just don't have much else to go on.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, we have so many "leftists" here in revleft that actually don't think third world countries are capitalists, that I wonder why would we be surprised that non-leftists think that.

In fact, it seems there is a whole tendency within revleft (technocrats) that denies third world countries are capitalist.

Luís Henrique

[Misanthrope]

In fact, it seems there is a whole tendency within revleft (technocrats) that denies third world countries are capitalist.

Luís Henrique

What do they see them as?

:confused:

[MarxSchmarx]

Oh come on, stop generalizing. Every country has its ignorant hicks. I don't think there is anything uniquely "American" about a lack of understanding about the third world. I've lived in a lot of countries. And frankly, on the whole, Americans are no more ignorant than most people in other countries.

Having said this, I never understood why when some people, like Germans or Americans, travel abroad people automatically think they are ignorant doofuses while they don't ascribe the same bias towards other travellers.

Besides, most Americans probably see corruption and wars and natural disasters as the problem of the third world. I don't think that's any different from most of the developed world.

[Luís Henrique]

What do they see them as?

:confused:
Something pre-capitalist, I guess. But I think they can explain this themselves better than I.

Luís Henrique

[Invariance]

When capitalist apologists argue such, it is to ignore the horrific social and economic problems which capitalism has wrought on such countries.

'Oh, but capitalism didn't do that! That's not real capitalism!'

When leftists argue such, is is to justify their support of various nationalist capitalist groups in the very mistaken hope that such groups will 'progress capitalism' in such countries.

'Oh, but its not capitalist yet! And since capitalism is required for socialism, I am justified in supporting capitalist groups x, y and z. Capitalism needs to be developed more.'

The former comes from the likes of the Austrian school, which set up an impossible definition of capitalism in order to abstract away from its concrete reality.

Their capitalism has only ever existed in their minds.

The latter comes from the Menshevik school, which in order to justify its support for democratic liberal capitalist groups resorted to a vulgar stagiest interpretation of history, and forgot about the role of the working class.

Their socialism has only ever existed in their minds.

[Raúl Duke]

Not that all third world nations are capitalist, but they just assume that all third world nations are socialist. For some reason they assume that if a nation is corrupt and underdeveloped its because the country is socialist and not capitalist. They think that the market is not free and over regulated when its just the opposite. One man also told me that he didn't believe that Haiti or El Salvador were capitalist countries because they weren't democratic or lacked a full fledged democratic system (as if saying capitalism and democracy went hand in hand, you couldn't have one without the other). I guess this was a product of reading 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman.

Mostly I only hear Libertarians and such make these kinds of remarks (obviously to protect the idea that "capitalism" is successful "wherever" and to dismiss the idea of imperialism).

Among the Left (and not necessarily just the American Left) , there's a stagiest type/kind of theory, which originates somewhat from Marx, that declares some "3rd world countries" to be under-developed for socialism/communism, especially if they don't have a large enough urban proletariat (i.e. the lower clas are mostly farm workers/subsistence farmers/etc). Usually any socialist revolution in these nations end up as state-capitalist. This theory came up so to explain why the Russian and Chinese revolutions didn't end up successful (in terms of ends, i.e. actual socialism and communism. Those revolutions did however raise the living standards, industrialized their respective nations, etc...).

[ComradeOm]

This theory came up so to explain why the Russian and Chinese revolutions didn't end up successful (in terms of ends, i.e. actual socialism and communismThe 'stagist' theory of development long pre-dates either revolution. Indeed it was accepted orthodoxy before 1917