Are Haiti and Somalia what you get when you practice pure capitalism?

[Adi Shankara]

First off, glad to have found a true leftist site. just registered today, gonna see that I am regular poster here.

Anyways, I wanted to know your opinions on Haiti and Somalia. Some people try to pull the "they're socialist nations" bullshit without any proof whatsover.

but it's easy to see that these two failed nations, the two most unstable in the world, have this in common: there is no regulation, everything is privatized (including the [multiple] armed forces) and there is no stable government, no rule of law, and no regulation of any industry, so everything, from child sex slaves to heavy duty weapons, can be traded freely unrestricted.

Haiti, while a little more stable these days due to the international aid pouring in, seems to be in the same boat.

so my question is: does Capitalism, if left alone like the neocons want, always turn out to be like Haiti and Somalia? because it seems like this is the case, as these are two different regions of the world remotely apart, but have a totally laissez faire economy, and are both failed nations. (You can even possibly add Afghanistan to the list)

your opinions, gentlemen/ladies?

[synthesis]

The problem is that "capitalism," much like "socialism," has so many different and often mutually contradictory meanings and usages that even if you were to satisfactorily prove that Haiti or Somalia are indeed consequences of "practicing pure capitalism," your opposing ideologues would simply refute your argument by introducing another definition of capitalism to which your example does not apply. (Of course, we are often guilty of the same evasions, but that's another matter entirely.)

Moreover, insofar as you are defining capitalism as an idea, theory, and/or ideology, as opposed to a mode of production and/or a system of social relations, your question is moot anyways. Haiti and Somalia cannot be products of "pure capitalism" because no theory or idea can ever be entirely and "purely" transitioned into reality; the former always mutates and evolves in relation to the latter.

Thus, even if you chose to present a much better example of "pure laissez-faire," such as Chile under Pinochet, they can simply deny that it represented "pure capitalism" on the basis that Pinochet used force to cement his control (and thus the control of the IMF and so on) over the working class of his country. Again, something of which we too are guilty, but something to be recognized nonetheless.

Finally, if "pure capitalism" is defined as the propertarians would have it - a government with only the power to protect against force and coercion - Haiti, Somalia and Afghanistan would also not apply. People often use these countries as examples of the inevitable inefficacy of anarchy - that is, no government, as you put it - but that's not the case. These countries are primarily characterized not by the lack of any state at all, by the existence of multiple and mutually antagonistic state-like entities vying for control of resources and local support. It's the polar opposite of anarchy, no matter how you choose to define the term.

[Ocean Seal]

First off, glad to have found a true leftist site. just registered today, gonna see that I am regular poster here.

Anyways, I wanted to know your opinions on Haiti and Somalia. Some people try to pull the "they're socialist nations" bullshit without any proof whatsover.

but it's easy to see that these two failed nations, the two most unstable in the world, have this in common: there is no regulation, everything is privatized (including the [multiple] armed forces) and there is no stable government, no rule of law, and no regulation of any industry, so everything, from child sex slaves to heavy duty weapons, can be traded freely unrestricted.

Haiti, while a little more stable these days due to the international aid pouring in, seems to be in the same boat.

so my question is: does Capitalism, if left alone like the neocons want, always turn out to be like Haiti and Somalia? because it seems like this is the case, as these are two different regions of the world remotely apart, but have a totally laissez faire economy, and are both failed nations. (You can even possibly add Afghanistan to the list)

your opinions, gentlemen/ladies?
Absolutely when the corporations run the state what you get is anarcho capitalism which then turns to oligarchy. I also hate it when people play the socialist card, today when I was debating someone they refused to acknowledge that Mussolini was a strong capitalist *shudders*. It seems that whenever anything goes wrong the capitalists just say that the commies did it and call it a day. FUCK Glenn Beck.

[scarletghoul]

The chaos in both of these countries is fosterd by foreign intervention and imperialism. In fact capitalism can not last without a state, and whenever there are conflicting classes a state will emerge. A few years back, the Islamic Courts Union took much of Somalia, including the capital, and set up a functioning state. It seemed like Somalia would finally know peace.. but then Ethiopia, on behalf of the US, invaded and fucked up the whole country again on the grounds of 'defending the real government' (ie, the UN puppets with no power inside Somalia).. There is also a constant US intervention in Haiti, like the current occupation and the kidnapping of Aristide by US marines a few years back.

So no it's not a case of capitalism being left pure and stateless, it's a case of exploitation markets and such being forced to remain in the broken and undeveloped state by US imperialism.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Capitalism, for all its flaws, builds nations. There can be no doubting that. The profit motive itself will propel development all over the country. It is, therefore, foolish to deny the progressive nature of capitalism just because we, as socialists, acknowledge that workers get exploited under that system.

Bottom line, capitalism is not anti-development. It may be anti-worker, but it is not anti-development, because profits depend on development and on development only; else, there will be no market for the capitalist to exploit. So at least for a selfish purpose, the capitalist has to develop the nation.

Based on this, it is safe to conclude that third-world nations are neither capitalist nor socialist but essentially anarchist. That's why such nations have neither the development that comes with capitalism nor the order which comes with a command economy system.

[fredbergen]

Capitalism is a world system. Wall Street and Cité Soleil are two sides of the same coin -- they both reproduce each other. What is "pure" capitalism? Capitalism as it exists is purely the product of its history, the history of class struggle.

[ContrarianLemming]

The chaos in both of these countries is fosterd by foreign intervention and imperialism. In fact capitalism can not last without a state, and whenever there are conflicting classes a state will emerge. A few years back, the Islamic Courts Union took much of Somalia, including the capital, and set up a functioning state. It seemed like Somalia would finally know peace.. but then Ethiopia, on behalf of the US, invaded and fucked up the whole country again on the grounds of 'defending the real government' (ie, the UN puppets with no power inside Somalia).. There is also a constant US intervention in Haiti, like the current occupation and the kidnapping of Aristide by US marines a few years back.

So no it's not a case of capitalism being left pure and stateless, it's a case of exploitation markets and such being forced to remain in the broken and undeveloped state by US imperialism.

I agree, somalia is a problem with imperialism, not capitalism.

[ContrarianLemming]

Capitalism, for all its flaws, builds nations. There can be no doubting that. The profit motive itself will propel development all over the country. It is, therefore, foolish to deny the progressive nature of capitalism just because we, as socialists, acknowledge that workers get exploited under that system.

Bottom line, capitalism is not anti-development. It may be anti-worker, but it is not anti-development, because profits depend on development and on development only; else, there will be no market for the capitalist to exploit. So at least for a selfish purpose, the capitalist has to develop the nation.

the capitalist didn't develop the nations to what they are today, the workers did. capitalists, by definition, don't contribute anything.


Based on this, it is safe to conclude that third-world nations are neither capitalist nor socialist but essentially anarchist. That's why such nations have neither the development that comes with capitalism nor the order which comes with a command economy system.

There all oligarchies. calling them anarchist is an insult to anarchists!

[F9]

Based on this, it is safe to conclude that third-world nations are neither capitalist nor socialist but essentially anarchist.

Ehmmm what?:confused::rolleyes: Do you know what Anarchism is? Based on your post is safe to conclude that you dont.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

the capitalist didn't develop the nations to what they are today, the workers did. capitalists, by definition, don't contribute anything.

I am not denying that. I am only saying that workers developed it UNDER the capitalist system and not under any other system. This is because capitalism, despite its faults, was able to extract the best from every worker. Profit motivated both capitalists and their workers, albeit in different ways. This, at least indirectly, contributed to development.


There all oligarchies. calling them anarchist is an insult to anarchists!

I am using the term in a broad sense, of course. Anarchy as in lawlessness, chaos, disorder etc.

[scarletghoul]

You know Gandhi considered himself an 'Anarchist', right ? I despise Gandhi as he was complete scum and I don't consider him a real Anarchist, but even so, you obviously don't understand the words youre using. I think you have a lot to learn, about capitalism, socialism and anarchism. Look up all of them.. Honestly I've never heard anyone deny that Somalia was capitalist..

[Zanthorus]

I am using the term in a broad sense, of course. Anarchy as in lawlessness, chaos, disorder etc.

To avoid sectarian conflict with our resident anarchists (And in the interests of being etymologically correct) I advise you use "anomie" (From the Greek "a" meaning not and "nomos" meaning law) to represent lawlessness rather than "anarchy" (Which actually means "no ruler" or "no authority", and there is plenty of rulers and authority in Somalia).

[Adi Shankara]

I agree, somalia is a problem with imperialism, not capitalism.

But alas, Imperialism and Capitalism go hand in hand, as they are both about raping the native people's of their land, their culture, their resources, and their souls. I wouldn't be afraid to go so far as to suggest that "Imperialism" is just a synonym for "capitalism".