Comparative advantage: what kinds of autarky are positive? [Possible SIOC links]

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's one thing to acknowledge that countries with gold and oil should dedicate more manpower and equipment to exploit the national resources. Ditto with tourist hotspots. However, with today's easy mobility of labour and capital, something absent in Ricardo's comparative advantage thesis, I'm not sure about the extent that comparative advantage holds today, as most trade agreements are oriented towards competitive, not comparative, advantage.

I'm looking specifically at the "Secondary" industries, the likes of manufacturing and construction, which are part of what populists call the "real economy." Ignoring today's national borders and considering instead much more rational economic regionalization, to what extent would self-sufficiency in manufacturing, construction, and other "Secondary" industries, for each "rational" economic region, be positive (or negative)?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think countries with tourist hotspots should necessarily exploit it as a 'natural resource'. Not those that want to move towards revolution; the situation might be different in a post-Capitalist world, mind.

I imagine 'secondary' industry autarky, if a region is large enough to be completely autarkical in all areas of industry and trade, should be viewed immensely positively; it's one way that Socialism can be achieved even if only one economic region (imagine somewhere the size of Latin America) falls to revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good post! I recall Dimentio posting back in the day about regions having the size, resources, and population to be self-sufficient. :blushing:


I imagine 'secondary' industry autarky, if a region is large enough to be completely autarkical in all areas of industry and trade, should be viewed immensely positively

Does "Secondary" industry autarky necessarily need to correspond to regions having the size, resources, and population to be self-sufficient in all sectors of the economy? :confused:

Maybe I was stumbling through personal affairs as I wrote my OP, which is not on the level of reforms at all. Part of rational economic regionalization might also include rational economic sub-regionalization. Within the context of the latter, would "Secondary" industry autarky be good for each "rational" economic sub-region within a larger "rational" economic region that is self-sufficient?

[In other words, no sub-region could be self-sufficient. You might not have enough sources of food in your boundaries to feed your population, but you should have enough food processing facilities, chemical processing facilities, construction facilities and equipment, etc. to meet aggregate consumer goods and services demand; there should be no bottlenecks.]

[Искра]

Wtf? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Being in Croatia, you obviously haven't heard populist grumblings in the most developed capitalist countries about the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to other countries (like from the US to China, or anti-Thatcher populism re. UK manufacturing).

For example, the US might have the size and population, but definitely not the resources, to be self-sufficient in all sectors of the economy (just look at its oil imports). However, I do think it is more than capable of gaining or regaining self-sufficiency in the "Secondary" industries, the likes of manufacturing and construction.

Another example was pointed out by CPGB comrade Macnair, who noted that the UK is woefully short on resources to be entirely self-sufficient and is a massive net importer of food. However, despite the Thatcher regime's outsourcing, the UK is more than capable of gaining or regaining self-sufficiency in the "Secondary" industries. It may be a net importer of food, but it should be capable of being self-sufficient in the food processing needs of its population (food processing being distinct from typical agriculture and fisheries).

Historically, the Soviet Union was more than capable of obtaining and maintaining self-sufficiency in its "Secondary" industries, whatever one's opinion may be on "socialism in one country" more generally. Today's Russian bourgeoisie is addicted to oil and gas, but the Russian Federation could regain self-sufficiency in its "Secondary" industries.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The only reason for wanting autarky in an economic region - across the entire economy - is the ability, post-revolution, to be able to work more easily towards Socialism, rather than facing Capitalist encirclement and facing a Stalinist or otherwise degeneration of the revolution.

If your angle for autarky is due to 'populist grumblings about outsourcing of jobs', then really you're just coming from a nationalist perspective and fail to understand the difference between populist policies under Capitalism, and policies that facilitate the possibility of Socialism in the future.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The only reason for wanting autarky in an economic region - across the entire economy - is the ability, post-revolution, to be able to work more easily towards Socialism, rather than facing Capitalist encirclement and facing a Stalinist or otherwise degeneration of the revolution.

Actually, Engels in Anti-Duhring criticized the highly decentralized scheme of economic communes trading with one another as developed by Eugen Duhring.

There are other reasons, even after eliminating the threat of bourgeois encirclement, for dividing the world economy on the basis of more rational economic regionalization and sub-regionalization, such as uneven development.


If your angle for autarky is due to 'populist grumblings about outsourcing of jobs', then really you're just coming from a nationalist perspective and fail to understand the difference between populist policies under Capitalism, and policies that facilitate the possibility of Socialism in the future.

Since revolutionary socialism must be merged with worker-class movements, some but not too many populist angles are necessary, like against outsourcing. However, there are two main reasons why I think both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois societies today can't achieve the kind of autarky-oriented rational economic regionalization and sub-regionalization (with self-sufficiency in "Secondary" industries being the focus of the latter) needed to address the aforementioned grievances:

1) National and provincial "identities" (from tiny nation-states to provinces with irrational geopolitical boundaries for economic development); and
2) Difficulties in realizing real purchasing power parity worldwide, and by extension realizing a globalized and upward equal standard of living for equal work based on this parity (thus allowing real freedom of movement through instant legalization and open borders, and thereby precluding the extreme exploitation of immigrants).

[Hence "[genuinely] transitional measures," "directional demands," etc.]