Countering capitalist propaganda on third world 'success stories'

[Brady]

The likes of South Korea, Malaysia, Chile...even Ireland, often held up by the Right as examples of previously poverty-stricken countries being able to develop simply by following IMF rules and opening up their economies to foreign investment.

Obviously there are far more examples of capitalist failures than successes but what to say in response to these?

[NecroCommie]

Who is it that got rich? These countries, or the people of these countries? If the people, who had to fight/suffer/both to get the riches from the elite to the poor? Rights are never given they are always taken. If the working class has rights they have fought for them at some point, which means that at some point capitalism has attempted to deny them these rights.

[Mikhail Tukhachevsky]

First of all I have to agree with NecroCommie. The development of these countries essentialy means that the capitalist class get's more profits and the working class get's nothing. Is Chile a formerly poverty striken country? I don't think so. Is Malaysia a formerly poverty striken country? I don't think so. Are there no class divisions, epxloitation and poverty in South Korea? Then why those militant strikes by South Korean workers?

Second of all we need to examine the history of these countries. To be honest, I don't know much about the history of Malaysia. But South Korea got huge invistments and economic aid from the States, similar to the economic aid Israel is receiving today, for political reasons. This was part of the fight against the spread of communism. Same goes for Chile. The counter-revolution overhtrew the government of Allente, repressing the working class and drowning the revolution in blood. The economic aid Chile received, was in order to help stabilize the dictatorial regime of Pinochet.

All these examples say nothing about the IMF, who has literaly robbed all "third world" countries and continues to do so. Imperialism robs those countries of resources, places dictatorships over the people and exploits it's workers in a savage way. The local bourgeoisie is not any better, while the states of those countries are incredibly corrupt and puppets of imperialism.

The local bourgeoisie in the imperialist dominated countries is not progressive at all. It will never advance the bourgeois, anti-imperialist, democratic revolution as it is tied with a thousand threads to the local feudalist class and imperialism. The only solution for these countries is a socialist revolution, under the leadership of the working class in alliance with the peasantry.

Socialismo o muerte!

[Drace]

Every country can't be as prosperous as the US.
The US is in control of a tremendous amount of the world's resources (I dont have a percentage).
And of course this wealth has come from the exploitation of other countries.

[revolution inaction]

The likes of South Korea, Malaysia, Chile...even Ireland, often held up by the Right as examples of previously poverty-stricken countries being able to develop simply by following IMF rules and opening up their economies to foreign investment.

Obviously there are far more examples of capitalist failures than successes but what to say in response to these?

if i remember correctly far more countries follow imf rules and have there economies fucked up, although i could be confusing the IMF with a diffren body.
I think Argentina is an example of this, and Jamaica, maybe other people know of others?

[Axle]

For every country out there that made it "good", there are ten more that don't and aren't travelling down that road. This is thanks to the already wealthy countries like America who control an enormous amount of the world's wealth.

Under capitalism, the only way third-world countries will make any gains is when countries like America quit needlessly hogging wealth and resources.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chile has always been relatively stable as a country. There was no economic miracle. The Chicago Boys of Chile totally bankrupted the nation with their privatization schemes. Ironically, the thing that bailed them out was huge subsidies and handouts to the the financial elite, generously donated by Allende's fully nationalized state copper mine; Codelco. Later on Chile's been a rather mixed economy.

South Korea actually protected its infant industries and ignored many of the IMF's requests. It prospered by deviating from neo-liberal orthodoxy.

India, China, Russia all learned to liberalize trade, protect their industries, and ignore the IMF.

The ones that took the IMFs advice and loans are the ones that truly suffered. Not that India, China and Russia are havens but that they're less of hellholes than say Nicaragua who has fully capitulated to the IMF.