Japan and singapore and Google and Oracle - can marxism explain the success?

[Pulasthi]

Comrades!

I need some help.Please provide me some answers for the following question.These questions were made in a debate in a forum by a pro capitalist guy and I don't know the excact answers that should be given

1 (Argument 1) If as Lenin says - capitalism leads to Imperialism how can we explain the "development" in Japan malasiya or singapore?These countries did not turn in to imperialist nations.

2 Companies like Google microsoft do not engage in the process of exploitation in the traditional sense (they say) These companies have developed themselves simply through the power of wisdom and knowledge.How does a marxist explain this observation?

Please gimme a help if it is possible.A hot debate is going on in a local thread and i am the only one who represents a leftist approach

Thanx

[Pulasthi]

Oh dear no answers yet!!!!!!This section is for LEARNING isn't it?So how can any one learn if no one is interested in answering :)

Please pay your attention comrades

[MarxSchmarx]

Answers some times take time. I've come across a few threads that are answered weeks if not months later - we try to help when we can :)

Anyway, with respect to Japan, Marxism can explain a lot of this success, primarily through its analysis of early to mid-20th century Japan as essentially a mercantilist economy.

Indeed, it is important to understand that Japan's economic prowess comes from an imperialist past. It was the relatively easy access to raw material and later labour in other East Asian countries, and the immense demand on heavy capital created by the Japanese war machine that enabled Japan's rapid industrialization, and by the 1920s Japan to have an advanced industrial economy. The war set Japan back some, but it didn't destroy the intellectual capital and the importantly, Japanese industry now came to supply the American war machine in East Asia, esp. during the Korean war. Another explanation for Japan's success was the tight reign the bureaucracy and state placed on capital. Indeed, the protectionist policies insured that Japan was able to game the system much in the way the merchantilists of Europe did several centuries ago. What is amazing is how much of Japanese "protectionism", so derided in Europe and America, was indeed precisely how Britain, Holland, America, etc... became immensely wealthy and economically developed in the first place. In essence, the local bourgeoisie colluded with the state to ensure their success. This, rather than the radical neoliberalization of Latin America or Eastern Europe - was the example of economic development quite successfully followed by Taiwan and South Korea.

[Lorax]

Obvious troll is obvious.

How about a link to the supposed hot debate in a local thread Pulasthi?

[Ocean Seal]

Comrades!

I need some help.Please provide me some answers for the following question.These questions were made in a debate in a forum by a pro capitalist guy and I don't know the excact answers that should be given

1 (Argument 1) If as Lenin says - capitalism leads to Imperialism how can we explain the "development" in Japan malasiya or singapore?These countries did not turn in to imperialist nations.



Japan is an imperialist nation. Singapore is a very productive, small nation. It doesn't directly take part in imperialism much like Luxembourg, HK, and Switzerland, but it certainly benefits from it. And Malaysia shouldn't exactly be an example of capitalism's prosperity.



2 Companies like Google microsoft do not engage in the process of exploitation in the traditional sense (they say) These companies have developed themselves simply through the power of wisdom and knowledge.How does a marxist explain this observation?

So they didn't have workers. I'm sorry WTF? No exploitation would mean that each worker earns according to his/her labor. Bill Gates gained 50 billion in one year. He'd have to work about 2 million times harder than the average worker in order to get that amount without exploitation. They plainly engage in exploitation.


Oh dear no answers yet!!!!!!This section is for LEARNING isn't it?So how can any one learn if no one is interested in answering

http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg

[Rafiq]

Comrades!

I need some help.Please provide me some answers for the following question.These questions were made in a debate in a forum by a pro capitalist guy and I don't know the excact answers that should be given

1 (Argument 1) If as Lenin says - capitalism leads to Imperialism how can we explain the "development" in Japan malasiya or singapore?These countries did not turn in to imperialist nations.



Japan has a long, bloody Imperialist history. As for Malasyia, that's not fucking success. And as for singapore, it's still developing, and it's only a matter of time until 1. An imperialist power stops it from being one 2. It becomes a world big dog. WW1 all over again.




2 Companies like Google microsoft do not engage in the process of exploitation in the traditional sense (they say) These companies have developed themselves simply through the power of wisdom and knowledge.How does a marxist explain this observation?

Please gimme a help if it is possible.A hot debate is going on in a local thread and i am the only one who represents a leftist approach

Thanx


Microsoft does engage in the process of exploitation... Who do you think makes those computer softweres packaged?

Google? Don't get me fucking started.

[Pulasthi]

Thanx for the replies guys.

Let me point out some facts that are not much clear.

@ MarxSchmarx

I get your point about the imperialist past of Japan.But if the development of capitalism eventually leads to imperialism,why hasn't japan turned in to an imperialist nation yet?

@ Rafiq


As for Malasyia, that's not fucking success. And as for singapore

But there is a success isn't it?It's hard to ignore that success.In the 60s singapore was a very poor nation as far as Im concerned.So what the capitalists argue is that these countries without going to imperialism,without exploitating other countrie's resources have succeeded through capitalism.Here I dont see an answer that should be given.

@ Lorax


How about a link to the supposed hot debate in a local thread Pulasthi?

The debate is over now and if you really want i can post the link.But it's in sinhalese ( a local language ) so I don't think it might help :)

[North Star]

Japan has a long, bloody Imperialist history. As for Malasyia, that's not fucking success. And as for singapore, it's still developing, and it's only a matter of time until 1. An imperialist power stops it from being one 2. It becomes a world big dog. WW1 all over again.


Malaysia is almost a developed country. It is a "success" in the same way China is. Things are developing and modernizing but the working class has no power. Singapore isn't developing... it is developed! It even exports capital. I really don't see anyone invading Malaysia or Singapore. Thinking it will happen is pure mechanical anti-imperialist thinking. A World War I scenario of imperialist countries warring is a bit more likely, but by the time that happens Singapore and Malaysia would simply be members of an imperial bloc like the Allies or Central Powers.

[La Peur Rouge]

...But if the development of capitalism eventually leads to imperialism,why hasn't japan turned in to an imperialist nation yet?


It has.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It has.

Quite the long time ago, too! Like... sometime during the latter half of the 1800's.

[Queercommie Girl]

Comrades!

1 (Argument 1) If as Lenin says - capitalism leads to Imperialism how can we explain the "development" in Japan malasiya or singapore?These countries did not turn in to imperialist nations.

I get your point about the imperialist past of Japan.But if the development of capitalism eventually leads to imperialism,why hasn't japan turned in to an imperialist nation yet?


Japan is not an imperialist nation?! WTF are you talking about?! The 20 million Chinese killed by Japanese imperialists during WWII would disagree with you there.

Even today I'd argue Japan still fundamentally have imperialist plans in Asia.

And don't call me "comrade".

[Catmatic Leftist]

Japan is not an imperialist nation?! WTF are you talking about?! The 20 million Chinese killed by Japanese imperialists during WWII would disagree with you there.

Even today I'd argue Japan still fundamentally have imperialist plans in Asia.

And don't call me "comrade".

That's not his opinion; that's the opinion of the capitalist he's debating.

[Tim Finnegan]

Japan is not an imperialist nation?! WTF are you talking about?! The 20 million Chinese killed by Japanese imperialists during WWII would disagree with you there.

Even today I'd argue Japan still fundamentally have imperialist plans in Asia.
Those are two different claims, though. If, to take a provincial example, Scotland where to become a sovereign state at some point in the future, whether or not it was imperialist would be determined solely by its contemporary relationship to imperialism, and not by the fact that the Black Watch once tramped across India.

(Although, to be honest, I'd say that "imperialism", in the traditional Leninist sense, is a dead horse. Japan's schemes in Asia, whatever they, cannot be conceived in the chronologically provincial terms of Lenin's work on the subject.)

[Queercommie Girl]

Those are two different claims, though. If, to take a provincial example, Scotland where to become a sovereign state at some point in the future, whether or not it was imperialist would be determined solely by its contemporary relationship to imperialism, and not by the fact that the Black Watch once tramped across India.

(Although, to be honest, I'd say that "imperialism", in the traditional Leninist sense, is a dead horse. Japan's schemes in Asia, whatever they, cannot be conceived in the chronologically provincial terms of Lenin's work on the subject.)

I disagree. I'm still essentially a Leninist and follow his ideas on imperialism.

Not to argue this particular point with you right now, empirically and in relative terms it's possible to just say that Japan today is certainly no less "imperialist" (or whatever you want to call it) than China today, if not significantly more. The pro-Japanese attitudes some people in the West have are quite misguided.

Also, to draw an analogy between Scotland and Japan doesn't make any sense at all.

I find it quite bad to be frank that some people in the West don't consider the massacre of Chinese people during WWII to be on the same level as what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, even though more Chinese people actually died.

[Tim Finnegan]

I disagree. I'm still essentially a Leninist and follow his ideas on imperialism.
Why? I know of Leninists who don't, and are better for it. Theories of imperialism have moved on greatly since then, so it's foolish to insist upon the word of Lenin, simply because it is the word of Lenin.


Not to argue this particular point with you right now, empirically and in relative terms it's possible to just say that Japan today is certainly no less "imperialist" (or whatever you want to call it) than China today, if not significantly more. The pro-Japanese attitudes some people in the West have are quite misguided.That's true enough, I'm simply suggesting that its imperialism cannot be conceived of in Leninist terms, or, at least, not in original Leninist terms; modern theories, such as Dependency and World Systems certainly owe him a significant debt, but make several significant departures and advancements upon his thought.


Also, to draw an analogy between Scotland and Japan doesn't make any sense at all.My point was that whether or not a nation is imperialist is determined by contemporary factors, not by history.


I find it quite bad to be frank that some people in the West don't consider the massacre of Chinese people during WWII to be on the same level as what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, even though more Chinese people actually died.And proportionally, more people died in the Great Irish Famine than in either of those episodes. The standards by which these things are measured are not simply about absolute death tolls.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why? I know of Leninists who don't, and are better for it. Theories of imperialism have moved on greatly since then, so it's foolish to insist upon the word of Lenin, simply because it is the word of Lenin.


I don't follow any ideology dogmatically, I simply think the basic framework of imperialism today is still the same as the imperialism in Lenin's time.



My point was that whether or not a nation is imperialist is determined by contemporary factors, not by history.
However, the poster of this thread is suggesting that Japan has never been imperialist.



The standards by which these things are measured are not simply about absolute death tolls.
No, but it is still a major factor. I wouldn't want to get to the point where one can completely ignore the millions of people slaughtered by Genghis Khan just because he lived in the pre-capitalist era or that he is supposedly some kind of "tribal proletarian" (which is objectively not true anyway, but even if he is so what, one cannot ignore tribal warfare just because it occurred in a classless context either), so his militarist crimes aren't on the same qualitative level as the crimes initiated by landlords or capitalists.

I'm not a moral nihilist and I will never be. I agree that moral considerations cannot come before socio-economic analysis, but I also agree with Che Guvera that revolutionaries should be motivated by a sense of justice and love.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't follow any ideology dogmatically, I simply think the basic framework of imperialism today is still the same as the imperialism in Lenin's time.
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that the theoretical framework which Lenin constructed was correct. Capitalist is, essence, the same today as it was in Robert Owen's day, and yet none here are Owenites.


However, the poster of this thread is suggesting that Japan has never been imperialist.
No, he is not, he's suggesting that contemporary Japan is not imperialist. Whether or not this is correct, it must be argued on a contemporary basis, not on that of the 1940s.


No, but it is still a major factor. I wouldn't want to get to the point where one can completely ignore the millions of people slaughtered by Genghis Khan just because he lived in the pre-capitalist era or that he is supposedly some kind of "tribal proletarian" (which is objectively not true anyway, but even if he is so what, one cannot ignore tribal warfare just because it occurred in a classless context either), so his militarist crimes aren't on the same qualitative level as the crimes initiated by landlords or capitalists.

I'm not a moral nihilist and I will never be. I agree that moral considerations cannot come before socio-economic analysis, but I also agree with Che Guvera that revolutionaries should be motivated by a sense of justice and love.
My point was simply that the fact that the reputation of the Holocaust is greater than that of the Japanese atrocities in China is due to more complex factors than mere indifference.

[tbasherizer]

To address Microsoft, Oracle, etc.: They do make their bottom line through exploitation. The evidence isn't scrawled in lead poisoning across charity ads or the news, however. The development environment at Microsoft, to take one example, is extremely exploitative. If a programmer makes a clever algorithm in a feature in a program, it automatially becomes the property of the company. What your capitalist counterpart calls Microsoft's ingenuity is actually that of its developers. The tales of brilliant programmers having their lives made by Microsoft job offers are only part of the story. A developer is like any other worker in that the threat of disenfranchisement hangs heavily over them, in addition to the idea of 'wasting their degrees'. A software engineer can't easily drop a programming job and head somewhere else, so the pressure on him to stay with the company regardless of conditions is high.

As for Oracle, they just bought Sun Microsystems, and tried to privatize development on the famous OpenOffice suite, until the developers revolted and took control of the project for themselves. Google's multicoloured logo and easy-going vibe doesn't hide it from the measures it has to go to to ensure its success in certain markets. In China, it engages in censorship for the government (which I'm sure your cappy counterpart would resent even if there were some people on here who stick with the Chinese government). Don't forget that every computer business rests on the blood of the workers who process the cadmium-contaminated parts of computers.

If any company appears to be scot-free, you can be sure that it's only good PR.

[Triple A]

The need for raw materials due to industrialization led to japanese invasion of china manchuria and korean peninsula, and to the war in the pacific as a whole. I dont see why that isnt imperialism.


After WW2 Japan received huge amounts of money from the US and sided with feudal mentality of total obedience to your boss japan experienced a growth.


Nowadays as one can see japanese economy is in the dump for years.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, he is not, he's suggesting that contemporary Japan is not imperialist. Whether or not this is correct, it must be argued on a contemporary basis, not on that of the 1940s.


He is saying that Japan is an example of a capitalist country that has become successful without having gone through an imperialist stage or being imperialist. Even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that Japan today is not imperialist, what he is saying still doesn't make any sense at all, since Japan was imperialist (at the very least) and the imperialist accumulation it was able to have in the past is one very important reason why Japan is so rich today.



My point was simply that the fact that the reputation of the Holocaust is greater than that of the Japanese atrocities in China is due to more complex factors than mere indifference.


It's not so much "indifference" to the suffering of the Chinese as it is the relative over-emphasis on the suffering of Jews. It's not just the Chinese case that's being relatively downplayed - virtually every other case of ethnic oppression is being downplayed relative to that of the Jews, Irish, Gypsies, Native Americans, you name it. There was a thread in OI a while ago touching on this topic, actually, in which a poster had to point out that the Jews were not the only people to suffer immensely during WWII, not even in Europe alone.

To be fair though, I also think part of the reason is simply geographical. If one is actually in China or East Asia for instance, the Japanese atrocities would actually be given more air-time. In the West however more people know about the Jewish case partly because of its relative geographical as well as cultural (both Judaism and Christianity are Abrahamic religions) proximity. I mean many Western people I've met can't even tell apart China and Japan and actually think they are the same country and can't even point out where Tibet is on a map!

[caramelpence]

In the West however more people know about the Jewish case partly because of its relative geographical as well as cultural (both Judaism and Christianity are Abrahamic religions) proximity

In fairness, I think the greater emphasis put on the Holocaust isn't just due to geographical or cultural proximity (though those issues do have an important impact) but also because the Holocaust was genuinely horrific in a way that the tragedies and atrocities that took place in Asia were not - not because of a greater death toll as such, but because nowhere in Asia was there a programme of mechanized and scientific killing that took place over a long period of time and was orientated towards a specific ethnic group and other supposedly deviant populations, like homosexuals and the mentally ill. At no point, for example, did the Japanese government seek to brand the whole of the Chinese people as inherently subhuman and totally exterminate them through the application of modern scientific methods and technology. When there were atrocities that came close to extermination, like the Rape of Nanjing, they were the product of highly specific conditions and environmental factors rather than a consistent government policy. I would also argue in relation to the Japanese not carrying out a policy of ethnic extermination that another reason why the Japanese atrocities are not treated in the same way as the Holocaust in contemporary Asia itself as well as in the West is that in many countries the Japanese occupation actually had a very contradictory and complex impact, much more so than Germany's domination of continental Europe. I think everyone accepts that there were atrocities, in China and elsewhere, but at the same time the Japanese also gave support to independence movements and nationalist politicians, or at least made decisions that fostered the spread of nationalism, particularly towards the end of the war, partly because they wanted to find a way of bringing nationalism into line with their war aims and partly because of their pan-Asian ideological basis, and many individual politicians - like Sukarno in Indonesia - later became national heroes and major figures in independence struggles, so that, for countries like Indonesia, it would be problematic from the standpoint of their own national myths to unreservedly condemn the Japanese or liken their experience of occupation to the Holocaust in Europe.

[Queercommie Girl]

but because nowhere in Asia was there a programme of mechanized and scientific killing that took place over a long period of time and was orientated towards a specific ethnic group and other supposedly deviant populations, like homosexuals and the mentally ill. At no point, for example, did the Japanese government seek to brand the whole of the Chinese people as inherently subhuman and totally exterminate them through the application of modern scientific methods and technology.


I partly agree. I agree that the Chinese were never subjected to "total extermination" like the Jews were (some Chinese like Wang Jingwei actually collaborated with the Japanese imperialists) and this is one reason why the Jewish Holocaust is in a way worse.

But I reject the notion that killing someone using advanced technology is worse. In fact personally I find it the other way around. To be frank, I'd rather die from a modern American cluster bomb dropped from the sky than under the broad sword of an ancient Mongol horseman in Genghis Khan's army. And I'd rather die in the German Nazi gas chambers than being literally tortured to death in barbaric medieval ways by Japanese troops. Simply because the former way of dying consists of less personal suffering.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think everyone accepts that there were atrocities, in China and elsewhere, but at the same time the Japanese also gave support to independence movements and nationalist politicians, or at least made decisions that fostered the spread of nationalism,


The atrocities were generally greater in China than in other Asian countries, and there were no beneficial effects for China at all, which is partly why in China and possibly Korea they were seen as at least on par with the Jewish Holocaust.

As with your point about "nationalism", I do not necessarily regard that as a positive or progressive thing anyway.

[Pulasthi]

He is saying that Japan is an example of a capitalist country that has become successful without having gone through an imperialist stage or being imperialist.

I have mentioned CLEARLY in the beginning of the post that these were some arguments which I had to face during a forum debate.I have NEVER suggested or haven't suggested anything here.I just forwarded the questions and the replies i had to face,to get a broad idea.

Well if we set aside japan then what is the narration on Malaysia or Singapore?

[QUOTE]And don't call me "comrade".[/QUOTE

As You wish.Simply I didn't expect these kind of rude statements in the "learning" section

[Pulasthi]

Those are two different claims, though. If, to take a provincial example, Scotland where to become a sovereign state at some point in the future, whether or not it was imperialist would be determined solely by its contemporary relationship to imperialism, and not by the fact that the Black Watch once tramped across India.


This make some sense.can You please explain what you mean by "it's contemporary relationship to imperialism?".I appreciate if actual facts can be provided.

[Zealot]

Just give it some time, Singapore is ridiculously expensive and has no natural resources of their own. All their capital comes through trading, exports and the like and it won't last them forever. It's also an extremely corrupt country, rife with mobsters/"businessmen". Begging is illegal and violent crimes are not reported by the media only petty thefts like a kid stealing bread or something. They do all this to make themselves look like a successful country

[Queercommie Girl]

I have mentioned CLEARLY in the beginning of the post that these were some arguments which I had to face during a forum debate. I have NEVER suggested or haven't suggested anything here.I just forwarded the questions and the replies i had to face,to get a broad idea.


All right. Well the answer is simple: Japan had been a major imperialist state from at least the late 19th century to the end of WWII. This facilitated primitive capitalist accumulation in Japan. Japanese capitalist success was literally built upon the blood and sweat of its less developed Asian neighbours.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well if we set aside japan then what is the narration on Malaysia or Singapore?

Malaysia is not directly comparable because it is a far less developed country, although it has had some advantages that had put it in a slightly better position in the global capitalist system than some of the countries in the area, such as Indonesia. Malaysia has some similarities to the development in China, where the government fosters, encourages and supports foreign investment; the cheap labour (but also things like infrastructure & so on, this is something that further limit the development of the capitalist stage in India) then attracts primarily manufacturing industry to establish in the area. Malaysia's development is extremely uneven and represents a corrupt capitalist police state. The cities are full of gated communities and incoherent planning and tolled motorways criss-cross the cities. There are many parallels to development in China since the 70's.

Singapore, on the other hand, is a country that, like Hong Kong, has benefited from its location being much advantageous for capitalist trade, and the transporting of goods from various continents, this is after all why the British controlled those localities in the first place, to control trade, and this is why they have benefited relatively well; although it's fair to point out that Singapore like Japan and most developed countries has in the past relied on heavy government interference and control of economy to assure the development in the first place (to some extent this also happened in Hong Kong, and more strongly in Japan and Taiwan, as far as the regional economies are concerned).

[Os Cangaceiros]

In regards to Singapore and the "free market", I think that this (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm) article has the right idea:



Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

taken from this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/singapore-t94442/index.html?t=94442) thread.

[MarxSchmarx]

Just give it some time, Singapore is ridiculously expensive and has no natural resources of their own. All their capital comes through trading, exports and the like and it won't last them forever. It's also an extremely corrupt country, rife with mobsters/"businessmen". Begging is illegal and violent crimes are not reported by the media only petty thefts like a kid stealing bread or something. They do all this to make themselves look like a successful country

I have heard some of this before, esp about the Singaporean state's attempts to whitewash their serious social problems but always from people who were expatriates in Singapore or who have relatives who live there. The Singaporeans I have met are all from basically the elite, so I have no idea how much their bragging about the social safety net and the infrastructure and teh like is typical. Do you have any study you could point to that systematically debunks the myth of Singapore as a developed country on a par with Europe, North America, Australia/NZ or Japan?