Western Countries

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

How is it that in western countries we live in capitalism and still have a reasonably high standard of living?

My theory (and I'm sure its not exclusively mine) is that were simply living off the spoils of imperialism.

But how does this explain countries such as Switzerland who are wealthy and capitalist and yet don't engage in imperialist organisations such as the EU?

Is it possible for all countries to reach a kind of comfortable capitalism that is dominant in the US and Europe?

Also I've heard South Korea described as a triumph of Capitalism. On the face of it this seems to be true considering the fact that the North Korean economy was superior up until the 80's. How can the rise of SK be explained using a Marxist Analysis?

These questions probably seem stupid or pro-capitalist but that is unintended.

[crazyirish93]

No for there to be a "comfortable capitalism" in Europe and the USA there has to be cheap resources and labor gained from workers in Africa and other places .

[Ocean Seal]

How is it that in western countries we live in capitalism and still have a reasonably high standard of living?

My theory (and I'm sure its not exclusively mine) is that were simply living off the spoils of imperialism.

But how does this explain countries such as Switzerland who are wealthy and capitalist and yet don't engage in imperialist organisations such as the EU?

Is it possible for all countries to reach a kind of comfortable capitalism that is dominant in the US and Europe?

Also I've heard South Korea described as a triumph of Capitalism. On the face of it this seems to be true considering the fact that the North Korean economy was superior up until the 80's. How can the rise of SK be explained using a Marxist Analysis?

These questions probably seem stupid or pro-capitalist but that is unintended.
Yes, you are correct, it is largely due to the spoils of imperialism. But I wouldn't say that Switzerland doesn't participate in imperialism. Switzerland, is firstly a country which hoards all of the money for the capitalist kleptocrats, and makes a profit doing so. They are an important part of the imperialist machine.

No it is not possible for all countries to achieve 1st world capitalism.

South Korea, Hong Kong, and so on are often described as the triumphs of capitalism, but are really just the result of imperialist nations investing and investing in them until they look pretty a shiny. Yes some countries do improve and are placed under the "caretaking" of the imperialist nations, but the imperialists don't spiff up the vast majority of the countries that they pillage, only those which are strategically important as in close to important enemies (DPRK & China).

Moreover, South Korea engages in imperialism. They've actually taken some actions in Madagascar and other parts of Africa which are very similar to what a top dog imperialist nation would do.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

No for there to be a "comfortable capitalism" in Europe and the USA there has to be cheap resources and labor gained from workers in Africa and other places .

Thanks for the response comrade. I must admit I was kind of looking for confirmation of what I already knew, I guess I was having a 'crisis of faith'. I hope its not unusual for a leftist to feel disheartened by the failure of the 20th century communism and the incessant propaganda we hear: 'Capitalism provides incentives, promotes growth etc...Communism is against human nature, totalitarian, economic failure etc'

Red brother: Good point about strategic support for HK and SK, Do you know of any sources to further strengthen this argument?

[Omsk]

Interesting that you mentioned that,i just had an interesting argument with a right-winger about the entire Communist states=poor Capitalist states=rich/advanced.

For an example,il take Switzerland.
It was easy for Switezerland to become rich,neutrual,no war,capitalist support and economic/financial deals with the Nazis. Even in the 21st century, some Swiss banks and entities still refused to surrender the assets obtained from victims of Nazi persecution.It is a widely known fact that the Swiss were on mid-good terms with the Nazis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Several reasons. Obviously, for someone to come up triumphantly with one singular reason is being somewhat presumptious.

We cannot overlook imperialism - both in its modern form (think USA, foreign wars, dodgy oil contracts and geo-political pressure) and its historical form (empire, slavery, colonisation). One of the problem I have with Leninists, in general, is not their focus on imperialism, but their lack of distinction between modern and historical imperialism. Modern imperialism is undoubtedly practised, but the fact is that Western Capitalism is a far more successful economic (if not political!) system than those used in most of Africa, Asia etc.

The big debate over the industrial revolution actually stems from the Great Divergence debate between the West and the East. i.e., it is implicit that, at both the national and regional level, first mover advantage in terms of technological progress, access to natural resources and ability to transport goods [i.e. access to new/more markets, distribution times etc.] plays a big role in long-term economic development. When we talk of imperialism being vital to the hegemony of western-style Capitalism, we must be clear that it was the first mover advantage afforded by slavery and colonisation, and later by empire (Britain, Spain, Portugal, France) that allowed western-style Capitalism to - relatively speaking - flourish in the long term. I mean, if you look at England alone, its access to cheap coal and its island status, combined with the invention of the steam engine, undoubtedly allowed it to pay relative high wages (relative being the key word, wages were still dreadful as were living conditions, for the newly-industrial working class, from the early-modern period onwards) which led to productivity gains, especially in agriculture, relative to much of continental Europe.

So yeah, we have to look to imperialism as a reason for the hegemony of Western Capitalism, but we have to look at it in an historical sense, and understand that there are more factors than simply 'THE US IS INVADING EVERYWHERE THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY IT AND THE UK ARE RELATIVELY PROSPEROUS', because that is silly and a really superficial, historical analysis.

[Prometeo liberado]

How is it that in western countries we live in capitalism and still have a reasonably high standard of living?

My theory (and I'm sure its not exclusively mine) is that were simply living off the spoils of imperialism.

But how does this explain countries such as Switzerland who are wealthy and capitalist and yet don't engage in imperialist organisations such as the EU?

Is it possible for all countries to reach a kind of comfortable capitalism that is dominant in the US and Europe?

Also I've heard South Korea described as a triumph of Capitalism. On the face of it this seems to be true considering the fact that the North Korean economy was superior up until the 80's. How can the rise of SK be explained using a Marxist Analysis?

These questions probably seem stupid or pro-capitalist but that is unintended.
High standard of living is always and will continue to be measured in relation to the poverty of other nations. But one quick walk down the neighborhoods of south Chicago or the hills of Appalachia or Skid Row in Los Angeles and you start to get the feeling that this mythical high standard of living is more propagandist window dressing than a barometer of reality. Healthcare? You better make sure you have the right paper work and level of poverty if youre gonna get it all. Food? Take what the market will let you and your family have, be it the most fattening and unhealthy crap that chemistry can dream up. Poor people are an expendable commodity in the West and if they can be killed off by diet then so be it. Housing? Cant pay the rent yet we have thousands upon thousands of empty houses and apartments waiting for the highest bidder. Homeless? See Food. The West is richer in terms of accumulated wealth. Yet how can you measure the level at which the working class is shit upon in the West as opposed to the heap of shit the working class is dumped on in say Belize. You shouldn't. Shit is shit. But the term higher standard of living would have you think otherwise.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Stammer and Tickle: Fantastic post. More and more I am coming to the opinion that classical imperialism died after the 20th century National Liberation struggles and morphed into a purely economic rather than military operation. In the face of this it seems that the idea of one nation state oppressing another nation state is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I intend to read up on Nkrumah's works about neo-colonialism, I'm not familiar with his work, does anyone here have any thoughts on him? ((Why is it always a 'him':()

[dodger]

American workers are very productive disciplined and skilled. I admire them. My admiration for America does not extend to it;s capitalist ruling class. They are also blessed with assets under their feet,, abundance of energy. in their great rivers . I don't think it fanciful to say it could be heaven on earth. Below is an article from Workers that struck a chord. It mirrors my own take on our history. I like their approach.


Anxious to work out why the oldest working class, the British, had avoided moving to revolution, external commentators at the height of empire concocted a false argument in an effort to explain away this behaviour and in some circles it is still lazily dispensed a century or so later.

The argument asserted that a section of the working class was bribed by imperialism with “crumbs” from the British Empire’s industrial and colonial monopoly and formed a “labour aristocracy” that held back the revolution out of privileged self-interest. The first person to promote this erroneous notion was Engels in the 1850s (particularly after Marx’s death in 1883); then later it was adopted by Lenin, desperate to understand the reason why workers in western Europe stuck to the Second International’s social democracy and ended up endorsing the fratricidal bloodbath of the First World War.

But the case for bribery is not supported by the actual facts of history. No capitalist ever voluntarily cedes more pay collectively to groups of workers. Increases are extracted from the employer either by class organisation and action, or are driven by skill or labour shortages. By the latter half of the 19th century, the skilled craft unions were well organised and exploited their position to force higher wages from their employers, particularly as there were no more reserves of rural labour – these had already been absorbed into urban, factory development. In such circumstances the bargaining power of workers is greatly enhanced (a process starting to happen currently in China). Dread of skilled workers underlies the false notion of a “labour aristocracy”.

When imperialism and colonial rule were at their heyday in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, British workers gained nothing from empire. Indeed poverty and unemployment were widespread; witness the poor physical state of many of those enlisting for war. Industrial and imperial monopolists in Britain were content to fritter away large amounts of their wealth on ostentatious display in their newly-constructed mansions..

The phoney argument also conveniently ignored the awkward fact that the standard of living of the working class was higher in certain countries (Sweden, Denmark) which had no colonies, but lower in countries which had large colonial territories (France, Belgium).

Blaming all on the role of a “labour aristocracy” ascribes lack of revolutionary progress to an imaginary, external, venal cause. The truth is both much simpler and yet harder to accept. Workers, though prepared to struggle against aspects of the system, were willing to live with capitalism. As capitalism now lurches further into absolute decline, the pressing task is to change the ideology of our working class. Our class is the source of change.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Fair point Dodger. Do you think that it is then possible to gain a western-style social Democratic capitalism in the developing and poorer countries?

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

I was always under the impression that our contentment is reliant on the continued oppressing of the developing world and that it would be economically impossible for social-democratic capitalism to exist everywhere around the world

[cb9's_unity]

It my be hard to stomach, but the genuine Marxist thing to do would be to first recognize capitalism's remarkable ability to develop technology. Marx predicated that capitalism would do this sort of thing, he just had no idea that discoveries in science would allow the extent of development of technology that have happened. Remarkable developments in commodities have eased some of the human suffering that massive inequality otherwise causes. By no means am I saying that poverty is a breeze in the U.S. Many Americans still live in conditions that are stressful, humiliating, and devoid of the pleasures Imperialism has brought to the upper classes. Cheap commodities have just been another distracting drug to get a series of short highs off of.

That being said, this system is predictably becoming unsustainable. Low prices of those commodities are increasingly becoming dependent on cheap third world labor. Either under socialism or capitalism, the third world will not continue to be content to do this. Soon the first world will loose its fix.

A danger the left has, and which many here are guilty of, is to make their own standards of living qualitatively the same as the capitalists. Of course, one would rather have access to cheap commodities than none at all. Yet those types of things are not the chief governors of quality of life. With that in that view, the first world working class still has it better than the third world, but it is still very far from a truly satisfactory life. The people around me are not much less alienated from their work than the worker in China. (It seems to me that a lot of people here don't place enough significance on alienation)

Workers across the world are being exploited in the same way. That some do not face as severe a repression as others is no reason to divide them. My fear is that workers in the third world will become resentful of those in the first world. Instead, it is our mandate to show American workers their commonality with those in China. That way, they can see the commonality of their enemy.

[KR]

How is it that in western countries we live in capitalism and still have a reasonably high standard of living?

My theory (and I'm sure its not exclusively mine) is that were simply living off the spoils of imperialism.

But how does this explain countries such as Switzerland who are wealthy and capitalist and yet don't engage in imperialist organisations such as the EU?

Is it possible for all countries to reach a kind of comfortable capitalism that is dominant in the US and Europe?

Also I've heard South Korea described as a triumph of Capitalism. On the face of it this seems to be true considering the fact that the North Korean economy was superior up until the 80's. How can the rise of SK be explained using a Marxist Analysis?

These questions probably seem stupid or pro-capitalist but that is unintended.
Depends on how you define "high standard of living", but i would say that if all of the world was equally developed, than the standard of living in western countries would decrease a little, but not much.

[blake 3:17]

How is it that in western countries we live in capitalism and still have a reasonably high standard of living?

My theory (and I'm sure its not exclusively mine) is that were simply living off the spoils of imperialism.

I agree with you. There's been some debate here on the Labor/Labour Aristocracy, you can google it if you want a definition. I support the thoery, this a widely circulated piece from a fiend & comrade critiquing it: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1110


Even in the 21st century, some Swiss banks and entities still refused to surrender the assets obtained from victims of Nazi persecution.It is a widely known fact that the Swiss were on mid-good terms with the Nazis.

Sure, but so what? That's the hardly the impetus and main perpetuator of global inequality. You might want to read Norm Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry and in particular his take on how reparations to the victims of fascism were made and where they went.

[dodger]

Fair point Dodger. Do you think that it is then possible to gain a western-style social Democratic capitalism in the developing and poorer countries?

Are you kidding?
In uk we are sitting on 1,000 yrs of coal.
Surrounded by fish(an island). We need to exercise sovereignty as a nation. Get control of our lives back . Decide what we want and need. Economic outcomes are dictated by our philosophy. All we used to hear in the 50/60's was"American, CAN DO!" Seems they should be screaming that today, us to. Can do. The other crowd can't or won

Rethinking Development Economics (Anthem Studies in Development and Globalization) (Paperback)
Reviewed by William Podmore:
This is a most important book. Ha-Joon Chang, Assistant Director of Development Studies at Cambridge University, has edited this collection of 23 essays exploring development strategies. There are 19 contributors, mostly from Britain, but also from the USA, Norway, India, Holland and Italy.

Part 1 presents overviews of economic development; Part 2 looks at different development experiences in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the former socialist countries. Part 3 studies structural and sectoral issues, Part 4 trade, industry and technology, Part 5 financial markets and corporate governance, Part 6 poverty and inequality and Part 7 institutions and governance.

In the `golden age' of 1950-73, the world economy grew by 3% a year. By contrast, it did worse in the periods when neoliberalism held sway: between 1870 and 1914 it grew by 1-1.5%, and since 1980 it has grown by 1.5%. Neoliberalism has not brought the promised economic growth, but it has brought vast wealth for the few and falling living standards for the majority - arguably, what it was designed to do.

Following liberalisation of finance and trade, capital inflows surge, there is massive speculation, a credit boom, asset bubbles and current account deficits, resulting in financial crises. 89 countries were worse off in 1996 than in 1986 (UN figure). Russia, for instance, suffered falling living standards, fewer jobs, more inequality, corruption and crime, capital flight and state collapse. The number of poor people rose from 2.2 million in 1988 to 57.8 million in 1995. By 2000, the economy was worse-equipped than at the end of the Soviet period. As Erik Reinert sums up, "Where industry is closed down, poverty enters."

The problem is not `government failure' or `failed states' but a failed system. The capitalist model - Thatcherism - is now shattered.

In a brilliant essay, Ilene Grabel, Associate Professor of International Finance at the University of Denver, advocates well-designed controls over international private capital flows [IPCFs], "Numerous recent cross-country and historical studies demonstrate conclusively that there is no reliable empirical relationship between the liberalisation of IPCFs in developing countries and performance in regards to inflation, economic growth or investment. More damaging to the neo-classical case is the fact that there is now a large body of unambiguous empirical evidence which shows that the liberalisation of IPCFs introduces and/or aggravates important problems in developing countries. For example, numerous studies find that liberalisation is strongly associated with banking, currency and generalised financial crisis. Other studies show that liberalisation is associated with an increase in poverty and inequality."

She writes, "First, capital controls can promote financial stability and thereby prevent the economic and social devastation associated with financial crises. Second, capital controls can promote desirable types of investment and financing arrangements (e.g., long-term, stable and sustainable arrangements, which create employment opportunities, improve living standards, promote income equality, technology transfer and learning-by-doing) and discourage less desirable types of investment/financing strategies. Third, capital controls can enhance democracy and national policy autonomy by reducing the potential for speculators and various external actors to exercise undue influence over domestic decisionmaking and/or control over national resources. ... Nearly all industrialised countries successfully utilised capital controls for long periods of time. Continental European countries employed extensive capital controls during the economic reconstruction that followed World War II. Capital controls played critically important roles during the high-growth eras of Japan and most of the `Asian tiger' economies."

Countries need land reform and policies to protect their infant industries. They need to avoid the poverty trap of relying on natural resources and cheap unskilled labour. South Korea, for example, grew using active industry, trade and technology policies. It controlled finance flows, restricted foreign investment, ignored TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights) and promoted R&D, education, and national ownership of industry.

As Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network, concludes, "Capital controls constitute an integral part of a nation's right to economic self-determination and no pressure must be brought to bear on any state to abandon such controls if it has resorted to them."

John Sender, Professor of Economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, criticises current aid policies promoting self-employment, "The history of most economies in which the percentage of the labour force living in absolute poverty has declined shows that an increasing proportion of the labour force became employed for wages, and that the percentage of the labour force employed for wages in large enterprises increased." By contrast, more self-employment means lower GDP.

He continues, "If the poorest women now rely, and will increasingly depend in the future, upon wage incomes to survive and to escape from poverty, then it is not clear that fashionable policies providing them with training to make baskets, or offering them micro-credit to facilitate start-up enterprises in rural environments already over-supplied with similar and failing enterprises, are sensible. Aid agency policies now focus on `capacity building' in all manner of ineffective, small-scale and corrupt decentralised organisations - NGOs [Non-Governmental Organisations], CBOs [Community-Based Organisations], Group Credit and other financial institutions, but any organisation that has a realistic prospect of increasing the political and economic bargaining power of the lowest-paid wage workers is shunned, or dismissed as potentially `market distorting' and, ipso facto, harmful to the poor. There is, for example no support for, or even discussion of, the need to allocate resources to support the formation of trade unions by seasonal agricultural labourers. ... In fact, the voluminous literature on poverty published by the aid bureaucracy and its consultants studiously avoids mentioning the specific organisations, the legislation, or institutions that have historically been most significant in defending the human rights and living standards of the poor in capitalist labour markets."
***************
Reclaiming Development: An Alternative Economic Policy Manual (Global Issues) Plenty of good ideas to kick around, reviewed again by William Podmore:


Ha-Joon Chang, now Reader in the Political Economy of Development at Cambridge University, and Ilene Grabel, of the University of Denver, have produced a brilliant, superbly-organised book. They aim to reclaim development from the neoliberal orthodoxy that has failed developing countries and yet has dominated policy and debate for the last 25 years.

Part 1 considers and rejects six key myths about development. Part 2 provides development policy options that are better than their neoliberal counterparts.

Chapter 1 refutes the myth that developed countries succeeded because they embraced the free market. Post-1945 Japan and France, for example, subordinated their financial sectors to industry's needs and grew far more rapidly than Britain and the USA, which let finance dominate industry.

Chapter 2 refutes the myth that neoliberalism works. In 1960-80, with active, interventionist policies, GDP per head grew by 75% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and by 34% in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1980-2000, under neoliberal policies, it grew by just 7% in the former and fell by 15% in the latter. 1980-2000's best-performing countries were India and China - hardly neoliberal models!

Chapter 3 refutes the myth that neoliberal globalisation is unstoppable. China, India, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, France and Germany all have very different policies and institutions from Britain and the USA.

Chapter 4 refutes the myth that the USA is the model for all. Despite its 1990s `boom', 10% of US families were poor in 2000, as in 1989. It grew no faster between 1980 and 2000 than between 1960 and 1979.

Chapter 5 refutes the myth that Anglo-American history is the norm. The British and US experiences were abnormal - slavery and empire, for instance. During their own development, both used East Asian-style trade and industry policies.

Chapter 6 refutes the myth that developing countries need the international financial institutions and independent central banks. Neoliberals denigrate the public sector as self-interested, but it seems this doesn't apply to the staff of the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and the central banks. They all represent global finance, not national democracy.

In Part 2, each chapter presents the neoliberal case, counter-arguments, and a range of alternative policies.

Chapter 7 examines trade and industry policies. The neoliberals promote free trade as the supreme good. But countries like India and China have grown using infant industry protection and interventionist trading policies. Industry gains with subsidies, licences, managed credit and investment, R&D and training, all tied to meeting performance guidelines. Firm capital controls and financial regulation promote long-term, stable investment.

Chapter 8 looks at privatisation and intellectual property rights (IPRs). Austria, France, Finland, Norway and Singapore all have dynamic state sectors. IPRs are neither necessary nor sufficient to create new knowledge. They reduce technology transfer and innovation, and increase companies' powers at the public's expense. Education and government support for R&D are more important to innovation than protection of IPRs.

Chapter 9 studies international capital flows. Since 1980, the liberalised financial environment has encouraged portfolio investment in developing countries (buying stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc.) - zero in 1980, $9.4 billion in 2002, and foreign direct investment (buying controlling interests in foreign firms) - $4.4 billion in 1980, $143 billion in 2002. This financial liberalisation increased the opportunities and incentives to speculate. Bank loans financed speculative real estate development and stock trading, and mergers and privatisations that did not make economic sense.

Policy can discourage, not ban, the use of foreign loans as a source of finance and ensure their use for productive developments. Restrictions on capital flight, on currency speculation and on access to foreign currency and loans protected India and China during the Asian financial crisis.

Chapter 10 examines domestic financial regulation. Financial liberalisation does not bring investment for development, but speculation, currency and banking crises, and recessions. Financial systems should provide long-term finance for investment in infrastructure and infant industries. But large banks are less willing than small banks to lend to small businesses.

Chapter 11 looks at macroeconomic policy. Restricting currency convertibility reduces the risks of currency depreciation and collapse, of capital flight and financial instability. Post-1945, European countries' managed exchange rates and capital controls supported growth and kept currencies stable.

In the neoliberal view, inflation is the only danger, and government spending (especially when deficit-financed) is always inflationary. Yet a World Bank study of 127 countries from 1960 to 1992 found that inflation rates of up to 20% did no harm to economic growth. Public spending on transport, education and health care reduces poverty and promotes economic growth.

The evidence is that independent central banks like the European Central Bank and the Bank of England bring not economic growth or more jobs or financial stability. Instead, they bring excess credit growth and inflated stock and real estate prices.

These kinds of policies for equitable and stable development, growth and jobs, are good not just for developing countries but also for any country that wants to survive the present crisis.
******
What we want and what we need are key to what we need to do. Do we have any answers? Have we gone to our class and asked, that we may garner answers? No harm in asking, we may be surprised at the response. It is an exercise that cannot be shunned. I am pushed for time this link again from Workers illustrates their approach.

http://www.workers.org.uk/features/feat_1210/rebuild.html


******

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Good responses by all in this thread. Having read through the responses I'd say that the best definition for 'a reasonably high standard of living' is an abundance of affordable consumer goods plus progressive labour laws such as the minimum wage and 8 hour working day.

[Rooster]

My theory (and I'm sure its not exclusively mine) is that were simply living off the spoils of imperialism.

And imperialism is...?


But how does this explain countries such as Switzerland who are wealthy and capitalist and yet don't engage in imperialist organisations such as the EU?

If you don't know, Switzerland is famous for it's long history of banking.


Is it possible for all countries to reach a kind of comfortable capitalism that is dominant in the US and Europe?

No. Capital requires that it can't.


Also I've heard South Korea described as a triumph of Capitalism. On the face of it this seems to be true considering the fact that the North Korean economy was superior up until the 80's. How can the rise of SK be explained using a Marxist Analysis?

South Korea was a state capitalist economy and it benefited from inputs from around the world both in superior culture and in superior resources. North Korea too, is a state capitalist regime, but it's model was based on, and supported by, a stagnating one. Now they're trying to introduce the advanced production techniques of the south into the north through the economic zones.


Good responses by all in this thread. Having read through the responses I'd say that the best definition for 'a reasonably high standard of living' is an abundance of affordable consumer goods plus progressive labour laws such as the minimum wage and 8 hour working day.

[quote]The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, appears as “an immense accumulation of commodities"[quote]

[Rafiq]

Slavoj Zizek brought up a great point: Marxists have two choices, abandon the LTV or abandon the idea that "first world exploits third" and that's how the lives got confortable.

The two are incompatable.

He summarizes it wonderfully in his book.

[blake 3:17]

He summarizes it wonderfully in his book.`

Which one? He is rather prolific. Academic Marxist friends have told me there are some pretty severe critiques of LTV (Labor Theory of Value) -- do you know them? The ones I came across didn`t make sense to me at all.

[Rafiq]

`

Which one? He is rather prolific. Academic Marxist friends have told me there are some pretty severe critiques of LTV (Labor Theory of Value) -- do you know them? The ones I came across didn`t make sense to me at all.

Living in the End times. I just finished it yesterday.

It's not really a criticism of the LTV, it's a criticism of the whole "First World gets good living standards all because of third world exploitation". Most of the criticisms of the LTV are heavily based off of straw man arguments. One of the criticisms, which is held high by the miseans, was destroyed in marx's like first chapter of Das Kapital. It just goes to show they don't even bother to read.

[rednordman]

Your all liers. Its because god supports capitalism and that is all....:laugh:

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

And imperialism is...?

My understanding of imperialism is the international export of capital, often through military means.


If you don't know, Switzerland is famous for it's long history of banking.

It would be appreciated if someone could enlighten me about the role of the Swiss banking system in the imperialist system.


No. Capital requires that it can't.



South Korea was a state capitalist economy and it benefited from inputs from around the world both in superior culture and in superior resources. North Korea too, is a state capitalist regime, but it's model was based on, and supported by, a stagnating one. Now they're trying to introduce the advanced production techniques of the south into the north through the economic zones.
What do you mean by superior culture?


[quote]The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, appears as “an immense accumulation of commodities"[quote]

[Mr. Natural]

People are only "comfortable" within capitalism on The System's terms. In reality they are "plantation house slaves" who have lost the ability to creatively produce their lives in community with others. They have lost their human nature.

[Alv Erlingsson]

A great article that addresses and answers many of the questions discussed in this thread is "There Will Come a Day ... Imperialism and the Working Class." written by Gotfred Appel. Unfortunately I do not have access to post links here in this forum, so if anyone is interested, they must google the article. Just type in There Will Come a Day ... Imperialism and the Working Class, and you will find it :-).

[goalkeeper]

edit: didnt realise this was an old debate revived by the above poster

[Crabbensmasher]

Industrial development. Western countries got a head start with the Industrial Revolution. They were able to put up infrastructure before anybody else. The same infrastructure that got started in 1800s America, is still struggling to be set up in sub saharan Africa today. During those 200 years, we were researching, perfecting and innovating so we can produce more using less resources. We became the most competitive and reaped the rewards. And yeah, a lot of that can probably be attributed to Imperialism:
We were able to develop using the resources of the rest of the world. On top of that, we kept them from rising up themselves by putting a gun to their head in the form of educational disenfranchisement, repression, fear, racism etc. Furthermore, we had the stability to ward off anything stifling our own economic development. This stability was created through repression and indoctrination of our own people. It's the "Shut up and do your job" mentality.

As for other western countries or Japan for example, I think the Marshall Plan after the cold war had a lot to do with their rapid development.

Really I think it's just about the West getting a head start on industrial development. The little guys either got helped out (Marshall Plan), or fucked over (Africa, Southeast Asia, countless other examples). We had, and still have the power to either make or break anyone else. Very depressing stuff indeed

[Popular Front of Judea]

As for other western countries or Japan for example, I think the Marshall Plan after the cold war had a lot to do with their rapid development.

We are talking about the same Japan that colonized much of Asia and handed America it's ass at Pearl Harbor? Oh and the Marshall Plan was strictly for the rebuilding of Europe, nothing more.

If you want to believe the vulgar Maoist nonsense of America as the heart of imperialist darkness fine. The historical record speaks otherwise.

[Comrade Jacob]

South Korea is state-capitalist, it has a powerful economy for certain. That's because their worker is highly exploited (plus support by the US in order to show-up the DPRK). The proletariat are very socially alienated, this is shown by the fact that they have the highest rate of suicide in the world. Japan has a similar situation.
Switzerland is a "good" (rich) place to live because it's nation have loads of private banks and a large amount of gold.

I would agree that they are living off the spoils of imperialism, of course they are, it's to keep the workers and the revolutionary-peasants at bay.

Social-democracy is bribery of the proletariat - V.Lenin