Economic Nationalism

[Dominick]

Economic nationalism, as put forth by Lou Dobbs and others in the name of the middle and working class, seems to have some traction. Some offer up protectionism to solve the problem, but that is a hindrance to internationalism. Further, there is a reality of deteriorating workers conditions as a result of globalism. In the context of current conditions, how shall we as revolutionaries approach this? That is to say, what alternatives do we have to offer?

[Leo]

I think this belongs to Learning so I am moving it. If anyone has any objections, please send me a pm.

[Anatta]

Well, traditionally, economic liberalism has ruined the economies of the underdeveloped countries which have implemented it. Chile is an excellent example. The Chilean economy was based primarily on copper. Once Pinochet came to power and cozied up to the US, he adopted Friedman's neoliberal ideas and the economy began to grow. Unfortunately, copper prices fell and Pinochet was unable to pay off the massive debt from IMF/World Bank loans, wrecking the economy. Not to mention the fact that Pinochet was a brutally repressive dictator.

In general, functioning economies need protectionism and developmentalism to survive and better the position of the working classes. In a globalized economy, improved industrial efficiency, etc. only benefits the foreign investors, not the workers themselves. It seems that protectionism (at least at some level) is something that the majority of leftists would agree with, in my opinion, because the alternative ("free trade") tends to favor only the elites of the more developed nations while increasing the wealth disparity in poorer nations.

[BreadBros]

False dichotomy, false choices. A globalized economy is not bad. It opens up entire new possibilities, not only the likelihood that national and cultural differences will evaporate, but also of increased efficiency of production and the possibility that the mass of humanity which has been behind in development will jump forward. Whats bad for workers is the capitalist structure of production and the distribution system it creates. Globalization is threatening because it intensifies and brings to fore the problems and contradictions within capitalism. Take for example the issue of jobs. Its possible that with greater efficiency there are no longer enough jobs for everyone in a worldwide economy. This is bad in the short-term because it leaves many of us without jobs. However, this situation reveals the fact that we don't each have to have a wage-labor job to survive, we can go forward with socialist reforms which will result in less work for all and greater resources for all. Saying that we have to back to protectionism or economic nationalism ends up being an attempt at "saving" capitalism (or more accurately, delaying capitalism's internal decay). Avanti!

[Dominick]

I was not implying that we have to support either economic nationalism or protectionism, rather, I was trying to elicit concrete ideas as to the alternatives revolutionaries may put forth to workers that are constantly faced with such choices.

[Anatta]

Certainly, BreadBros, such a realization would be ideal. However, it is most certainly not a false dichotomy. As much as we would like it to, the world economic order will not change overnight. Would you argue that it is better to cause the world's poor to suffer now so that we might have but a chance of convincing the world of the superiority of a non-capitalist system? I myself favor saving those who can be saved now, rather than helping prop up the global capitalist order in order to display its inadequacies.

[VukBZ2005]

Economic nationalism is an inaccurate description to describe the concept of policies that are geared toward the development of manufacturing as the main economic activity for non-industrialized countries. A better term would be import-substitution industrialization.

In a Capitalist economy, import-substitution industrialization is geared toward the autonomous development of industries that produce the products that are usually imported through increased protectionist laws and monetary laws, such as devaluing a overvalued currency. The problem with import-substitution industrialization in a Capitalist economy is that is usually geared toward an inward course instead of an outward course. Because it is geared inwardly, the economy is not able to expand, because the prospect of overproduction in a Capitalist economy cuts off the economy from finding an escape route from an economic crisis of overproduction. This is the reason why Latin America, in addition to abusive U.S imperialist policies, was not able to industrialize completely in the 20th Century.

If this is done outwardly, you would get a result like Taiwan or South Korea, because a economy that is in the type of situation that those countries are in right now are able to export the products that it has manufactured through the construction of industries that are geared toward both building a domestic market and exporting to foreign markets to these foreign markets. This brings more wealth back to the non-industrialized country in question and that country is able to develop its infrastructure to the point of an industrialized nation. Every industrialized country that is now at the fore of the global Capitalist economy developed this way.

The problem that comes from Capitalist development produces the kind of situation we are facing in the industrialized countries today; after a period of industrial development and a reformist period, that society has become too wealthy to exploit large profits out of the working class majority anymore. This leads to de-industrialization and the decline of an industrialized Capitalist economy.

That is why I am against the Capitalist development of a non-industrialized country, because it would just repeat the same situations that we are now undergoing and because it is now possible at this point in time to industrialize in that fashion. I much rather prefer the Communist development of a non-industrialized country, because not only would it save us the trouble of witnessing the type of abuse that we see in China and going through massive difficulties, it would allow us to establish policies that ensure the industrial development of the country while allowing the population to control the means of production. The 1936 Spanish Revolution emphasizes this, even though it failed.

In a Communist economy, import-substitution industrialization is geared towards not only the substitution of manufactured products from industrialized countries, but enable both overabundance and free economic will.

I want to see some of your responses on this first before I post again.

[BreadBros]

Certainly, BreadBros, such a realization would be ideal. However, it is most certainly not a false dichotomy. As much as we would like it to, the world economic order will not change overnight. Would you argue that it is better to cause the world's poor to suffer now so that we might have but a chance of convincing the world of the superiority of a non-capitalist system? I myself favor saving those who can be saved now, rather than helping prop up the global capitalist order in order to display its inadequacies.

Maybe I misunderstood you? I'm not opposed to state-centered reforms that help the working class. I am, however, opposed to protectionism. I'm not expecting a cataclysmic sudden economic change either. To illustrate my point more concretely: lets take the issue of diminishing jobs. I'm no economic expert but it seems to me that with the # of manufacturing jobs leaving the US and the increasing precarity of our service economy, the unemployment rate may stand to rise high in the future or at the very least more and more people will be in precarious economic positions. I don't think the solution to that is to shut ourselves off from the world and create an economy that tries to force the creation of jobs. That just reinforces the wage-labor system, is regressive in a lot of ways namely reinforcing nationalism, seems to be economically inefficient and...to be honest I'm not even sure it would work, the track record of isolationist economies isn't pretty. I would say a more proper leftist reform (if we're going down that route) would be introducing some kind of minimum assured income for everyone, which I don't think is unrealistic.


That is why I am against the Capitalist development of a non-industrialized country, because it would just repeat the same situations that we are now undergoing and because it is now possible at this point in time to industrialize in that fashion. I much rather prefer the Communist development of a non-industrialized country, because not only would it save us the trouble of witnessing the type of abuse that we see in China and going through massive difficulties, it would allow us to establish policies that ensure the industrial development of the country while allowing the population to control the means of production. The 1936 Spanish Revolution emphasizes this, even though it failed.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your opinion...the question is really: is Communist development POSSIBLE instead of capitalist development? Because nearly every attempt at communist development has inevitably turned out to be capitalist development in sheep's clothing in the end.