Imperialism proof

[Muzk]

Ladies.

Today I've come to you with a serious issue.

My politics teacher, which happens to be a professor of economics, said that poor countries are poor because there are no laws or securities for investments of bigger business.

Obviously we all know that this is not true, and that less worker rights and wage differences are used to maximize profit. (Imperialism)

But now, I do not really know how to tell/write my teacher a letter that, really CRUSHES the argument of "poor be poor because no laws"

Any opinions on that?

I've already pointed out the issue of wage differences/worker rights in different areas in one of my earlier politics works before, but since she now states such an argument as this, I do not think she really trusts/believes me.

So, how would YOU do it? How would you crush this argument and PROVE TO 100% THAT CAPITALISM, THE PROFIT SYSTEM IS THE CAUSE OF THE THIRD WORLD BEING THE THIRD WORLD?

Also, I already know that those countries could easily provide their own people with enough food, if there wasn't the climate changes/pollution OR big business interfering with a healthy "primitive" society.
(We know there is no such thing anymore, the system is global now)

[red cat]

You might find these useful.

http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-manual/manual_22(e).htm

http://www.sezindia.nic.in/

http://revolutionarypath.blogspot.com/2007/07/fight-against-sez.html

[Muzk]

Will definatly work my way through them... and crush the theory... that's gonna be awesome

[red cat]

Some more information in the article on SEZ here :

http://www.bannedthought.net/india/PeoplesMarch/PM2006-12.pdf

[Muzk]

That's only one country.Is it the poorest of them all? Don't any of you have some "super proof"? :>

Or should I use them as an example of how capitalism works & enforces its own "laws"?

[red cat]

That's only four countries. Are they the poorest of all? Don't any of you have some "super proof"? :>

Or should I use them as an example of how capitalism works & enforces its own "laws"?

That's only one country and that's India. I think it's the poorest after Nepal.

[Muzk]

That's only one country and that's India. I think it's the poorest after Nepal.



I've googled a bit and India seems to be one of the richer countries... Google told me about GDP(whatever that is) but India seems to have a lot of it (compared to the others):(

[red cat]

I've googled a bit and India seems to be one of the richer countries... Google told me about GDP(whatever that is) but India seems to have a lot of it (compared to the others):(

GDP means gross domestic product. Its the total value of everything produced in a year. That way everyone in India should probably own a car. But 80% of the population lives in dire poverty.

[Muzk]

Gah I hate it how the ultimate proof ain't thrown at people, you have to look really deep

I'll write my own theory and use the indian SEZ thing as an example. I hope she even reads it...

[Invincible Summer]

Gah I hate it how the ultimate proof ain't thrown at people, you have to look really deep

I'll write my own theory and use the indian SEZ thing as an example. I hope she even reads it...

You make "ultimate proof" sound like it's some religious thing. And there isn't ONE GREAT "Ultimate proof," you'll spend forever looking for it. There are a multitude of examples one can synthesize to create a variety of arguments.

[Muzk]

I did my own theory now... I'll quickly translate it and paste it here... I really need to know if it's "right"

[Muzk]

*cough* Finally done

Dear *****

In the politics class you said, that poor countries are poor because there are no securities nor laws.

Now, you've studied economics and I shouldn't try to intervene, because I am just a student. But sometimes you have to look at the things from above, rather than from inside.

You talked about big business and investments of billions.

Now, we must first understand what „poverty“ is. If not even the lowest demand of goods can be supplied, it is poverty. To be considered poor, you would have to not even be able to afford the basic human needs, such as nutrition and water. So, to be clear: death due to starvation or similar things, which could have been avoided if they had the basic needs of a human.

So it is even possible for people to be living in these places in the first place, they would have been able to live in „normal“ conditions before. So what has changed?

I'm talked about two different kinds of poor areas:
Production and primitive areas
In productional areas, most of the work is done in factories, where consuming goods are produced for other countries, and workers earn a wage to live off of.
In primivite areas, which are very rare these days, people live together with each other and only live off of the surrounding nature.

Yes, companies invest into poor countries. But charities do not give you profit. It is easier to build factories at these places or move them there from elsewhere. Companies have the money and want to make their capital grow, that's why they need labour. This labour has to be as cheap as it can only be. In these poor countries they find this cheap labour. Labour is almost worth nothing, because these people have nothing to lose, nor any rights, and are therefore hopelessly dependent on the oppressors. Of course there is resistance, but it is very hard if the oppressors call the weapons and law their own.

Most of the times there is „puppet state“ in office, which serves no other purpose other than keeping the people in place, and strengthening their own capital.

Plus there's global pollution and climate changes caused by the profit system, that have destroyed giant areas, and that there are longer drought seasons than before, which have made it a lot harder for people who could earlier live on their own in those places without any „real“ problems are now dependent on the same oppressors, have to flee, or simply die.

Workers in those poor countries receive the lowest wages possible. Protests? There are no public organisations for workers rights. These kind of things are forbidden, since the world market can't lose any of those countries, or they would get less profit in the end, which would lead to another crisis, and the consuming system might tremble. When the people are no longer blinded by consumption and media, then the end of the rulers of the earth is near.

The liberation of the third world is one of our main goals, those countries can take good care of themselves. Technique can be shared with those, which would make things a lot easier than it was ever before.
But who decides all this? Not the people. There is no democracy.

There are laws. But the laws of whom?



Am I right? Or did I make a mistake at some point?

[Led Zeppelin]

My politics teacher, which happens to be a professor of economics, said that poor countries are poor because there are no laws or securities for investments of bigger business.

First of all, I think it's a really bad idea to write a letter like that to your professor. It's entirely pointless since it won't convince him of anything anyway. All you'll achieve with it is getting yourself on his shit-list.

Anyway, as a response to what he said and what you wrote above:

What your professor is saying is actually very traditional thinking. Most people think like that; "If only the other countries had the same laws as we do" or "if only there was less corruption in other countries", and so on. It makes sense psychologically to create such a false equivalence when the country you're living in has go it "right" according to you but you don't really know why it has got it "right".

For example, if you believe that life in your country is so good due to the laws and regulations, then you'll consider the problem with other countries being the lack of such laws and regulations.

If you believe that life in your country is so good due to the type of blood that's running through your veins, like many Americans do, then you'll consider the problem with other countries being the lack of "good" blood running through their veins.

The way to undermine these types of arguments is to attack their premise. Life is not "good" in western countries due to laws and regulations, it's "good" for other reasons, the tale of which history tells. Give these people a history lesson, then they'll realize that what they're claiming is based on nothing but thin air.

[Muzk]

Thank you, really, I might just point out colonies, mass murder and slavery... that'll hurt.