While it is possibly true that I may be beholden to a dogmatic marxian schema, I think it is certainly equally obvious that there is an apparent opposite dogmatic capitalist schema to which some others are beholden,
Capitalism across all its models bring misery and mass poverty. And we should be very careful coflating more mature models that can now afford welfarism because of their dominant position in the capitalist pyramid, with less mature models which because they are just going through their expansionist phase do not have luxury of the possibilities of ameliorating the impact of capitalist misery.
I am also not inclined to accept that the only choices open to us are within the confines of the capitalist system, remain a choice between authoritarian or liberal welfarist models.
I do not believe nor do I accept either the alternatives lies only in the now defunct authoritarian experiences called actually existing socialism.
If capitalism has not always existed, if it came into being as a result of the development and advancement of human civilisation, then it follows that other more humane systems which will not be capitalist in its essence can also come into being.
What is being refered to as models of capitalism actually correspond to different phases in the growth of that system the fact that they are now coexisting within the same time frame does not remove from their expressions of different phases in the development of that system.
Regards,
Jaye
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
From: kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu>
Sender: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:44:52 -0500
To: <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?
i am offering this example as a response to the broad question of african states and leaders' agency in dealing with their country's resources, and building the economy.
i spent a year teaching at u cheikh anta diop in dakar almost 5 years ago--a really wonderful year for which i am grateful. this is not by way of complaints, then, but simple facts and observations:
the university was overwhelmed with students. a campus with 50,000 students (now more, i am told) that had been built for half those numbers, was bursting at the seams.
we had intro english classes of 500 (now i am told they are up to 1000!). I taught one of those classes, and found it very difficult to make real contact with my students, much less assure that they were learning what i was teaching. i had a master's class of 250--many of whom i got to know, and valued. but 250 for a masters class made discussion very difficult.
all the numbers have increased.
now, this is a university i had taught at twice before in previous decades, and conditions before had not been so dire. what happened?
two things combined, which give some light, to me, on this question at hand:
--when wade became president in 2000 he opening up admissions so that virtually everyone with a bac, i.e.high school diploma, was guaranteed admission. as the various depts vetted admissions, english wound up burdened with an enormous number, some 5000 majors for a staff of fewer than 20.
why could english not increase its staff? why didn't the university build more classrooms so that competition for classes almost, or did, lead to blows at times; there were not enough auditoria for the classes needed, and at times my classes were simply canceled to accommodate someone else with priority.
anyway, wade courted the votes of his students and their families, and destroyed much of the quality of the university in the process.
but wade could have increased the budget to the university to fix the problem, right? wrong. the education budget was set at a fixed percentage by the imf. it was something like 20% of the national budget, and wade had no power to change it since senegal had accepted imf loans.
now there were student strikes and demands for redress. but the students knew, as well as everyone else, why the situation was as it was. were they simply stupid or willful in striking? no. in speaking with them, i was told that they understood that the message of destabilization of the educational year that they were sending was not really to wade, but to the imf, which would reconsider its policies if they destabilized the regime.
Now--people in senegal had the right to vote for wade, or against him. but no one had a vote for the imf.
whose interests were ultimately being served by imf and world bank policies? who determined what those policies were? what trade system was imposed and protected by the imf? it was neoliberalism, as a friend on the imf board told me--a doctrine that could not be challenged.
the authoritarianism of this system was absolute. that is, a policy that directly drove the educational system in dakar, the water distribution system in dakar, the monies for electricity and garbage pickup, the privatization of basic needs, the costs of food imports, the limits on exports--these things were not in the hands of the elected govt. when oil prices went up, electricity stopped cold; garbage pickup stopped cold.
i am not saying the govt of senegal had no control whatsoever; nor that it was perfect, free from corruption, etc. it was better than many, not as bad as others. but its control over its resources, over aid, over policies, was limited, limited by its indebtedness to a system whose policies are made by the donor nations.
i agree that bad governments worsen the situation, but their powers to do so are limited. Mbembe makes this point repeated in On the Postcolony. is he wrong?
i am as interested and committed to the amelioration of living conditions for the average senegalese, average african, as any one else. i recognize that there are many factors that account for the terrible state many people are in. but i strongly believe that the comfort enjoyed in the west, the conditions of exchange being established by the major trading partners, including china, are not set so as to benefit the average african. the average person can vote, and maybe the vote will make some difference; but only relatively so. that means the authority to act lies to a large extent in the hands of institutions which have absolutely no accountability to those over whose lives they rule.
bad african rulers ought to be challenged; but if you don't take the above into consideration, will your vote really make a difference?
more could be said, but this is enough for now
ken
On 12/24/10 11:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Jaye, you want to cast capitalism in a monolithic light. That's your prerogative. I refuse to do that, not when we have several capitalist models in several countries that buck the neoliberal trend and, far from being producers of mass misery, are, even by your own admission, causing improvements in "general conditions" and lifting millions out of poverty. There are different kinds of capitalisms, including the humane Wesfarist capitalism of the Scandinavian states and the state-driven, non-neoliberal capitalism of China. I recognize that you don't want to deal with those because they complicate your dogmatic Marxian conclusion that capitalism is a spreader of "mass misery." So what is your alternative to humane capitalism? Socialism? I have challenged you to prove to me how or that socialism is not as big if not a bigger instrument of mass misery as well as a poor system for creating wealth. You have failed to so. In fact I'd go so far as to say that socialism is an instrument of egalitarian misery. I guess to you egalitarian poverty is preferable to "improvements in general conditions" and "inequalities." That is, if we believe the mythical canard that socialism, pure socialism, is indeed a perfectly egalitarian philosophy/practice, which it is not. I guess to you it's better to live in a society where everyone is miserable and misery has plenty of company than to live in one where wealth is being created and the state steps in proactively to redistribute wealth, implement social security measures, and provide social infrastructures and access to them. Fine. We understand ourselves. By the way, my post on democracy/authoritarianism was a slight aside following from your critique of my response to Ken. It wasn't meant as a reading of the full body of your contributions here.
Happy holidays!
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Jaye Gaskia <ogbegbe@yahoo.com> wrote:
My only response here will be that it will be an incorrect reading of my position thus far to conclude that the issue for me has been a counterpoise of liberal democracy to authoritarian rule!My discourse has been about the capitalist system and its structures, and the need to overcome this. Capitalism as a system has been manifested in both authoritarian and liberal democratic moulds.And in fact, i go as far as to contend that capitalism and the capitalist system and process of production and reproduction [of itself] is inherently authoritarian in its infacncy, in the period of what Marx called primitive accumulation of capital; and what liberals and capitalists of mature capitalism refer to as massive and chronic corruption/looting of the state treasury.Advanced capitalisms which somehow have had no direct history of say colonial exploitation have benefited immensely from colonial expansion and trade by others,So capitalism as a mode of production will always produce mass misery, and unequal distribution of wealth.Regards to all,Jaye
From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com>
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 7:54:27 PM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?
To Jaye and other listmembers who are interested, here is a link to a piece I did for Pambazuka News outlining my apprehensions about the menace of liberal democracy in Nigeria and how it is doing more harm than good (http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/63116). Since it was published, a few other folks have chimed in to say that the same is true for their own African countries. My critique is of course not an indictment of democracy (there are different kinds of democracy and some of them are not patented by the West), but of the copy-cart, winner-takes-all multiparty democracy we find in many African countries today. Nor is it an endorsement of a return to dictatorship. It is rather a call for a different kind of democracy, one that does less harm and more good to/for our people. My recommendation at the end is underwhelming, I admit, but it's because I didn't have time to flesh it out. But the bigger takeaway here is that, as far as Nigeria (and maybe other African ) is concerned, liberal democracy is NOT INHERENTLY superior to authoritarian rule. Both can and have been abused and both can and have been used in some settings to do good for Africa's poor and vulnerable. I speak to Nigerians all the time who long for the return of the military era and abhor this "democracy." And, of course, there were times in our history when people flocked the streets to celebrate military coups. What it tells me is that in the minds of our people, the democracy/dictatorship dichotomy is not that big a deal; what counts is good governance and attention to their problems. Of course, if you put a generic question to them about democracy and dictatorship (without the hypothetical variables like the one I had in my previous framing in response to Ken), a majority may choose democracy; but is that because they believe in liberal democratic practice as an inherently superior political order or because it is, for the moment, a less bad option and because they are still reeling from the hangover of our recent military rule experience? The fetishization of liberal democracy has become part of the problem in Africa. And it is destroying several of our countries.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:
"So altough it does matter that there has been this general improvement in conditions; it is equally important and decisive that there is still mass missery and poverty, and that the gap between the rich and the poor has widened tremendously!"Jaye,
For goodness sake, the Chinese have only been in the business of industrial capitalism for a few decades and you expect "mass misery and poverty" to be a thing of the past? This is a country of over a billion people and a country that until roughly two decades ago was a rustic habitat of peasantry. I know that Chinese economic ascent has been called a miracle but even that miracle has a limit and is still evolving and growing. Give it time please. The country is just emerging from a prolong period of closure and peasantry. transitions are always messy. Check history. At last you concede the great strides and "general improvements in conditions" going on in China. We in Africa could use some "general improvement in conditions." In fact we need it badly and we don't really care how it is delivered--through capitalism or some other economic model, through liberal democracy or some other political model. Let's hope and work towards the just order of "egalitarian equity" but let's not sleep in the meantime and abandon our people in poverty and destitution while other Third World nations' leaders make decisions and sacrifices that translate into massive dividends for their citizens.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:17 AM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
moses and jaye
i have been apprehensive about hogging too much the air space in my dialogue with moses, and jaye is making points along the lines of my thinking, so i will let his comments stand for mine, with my thanks. i am referring especially to the last three postings which cover china and nigeria.
moses, if there is really anything particular you want me to respond to without burdening the list with my thoughts, please send them to harrow@msu.edu.
otherwise i will jump in just when the bug bites me too hard
ken
On 12/23/10 8:05 AM, Jaye Gaskia wrote:
Perhaps it is also important that we put in historical perspective the origins
of the specific expression of capitalism in the scandinavia states, as well as
the origins of the welfare state in capitalism in general.
It took a world wide chronic crisis of capitalism, producing two world wars and
provoking revolutions in Russia and parts of eastern europe [before the 2nd
world war& the iron curtain], and the threat of socialist revolutions in
mainstream europe itself, for keynesianism, which hitherto had been on the
fringe of capitalist political and economic discourse to become accepted as
mainstream and become the basis of social engineering of the post world war 2
years, to mitigate the crisis of capitalism, and reduce the risk of revolution.
And it succeeded, thanks largely to the opening up of the colonial possessions
for rapacious capitalist expansion and which helped to finance the welfare state
in europe.
It is the structures laid down in that period to underpin restored capitalist
growth, improve conditions of living and stave off revolution that is still
holding Africa and much of the former colonial possessions captive till this
day.
It is the internal resistance and manouvrings of new nationalist elites from the
former colonies within the sysytem that is generating the momentum for tinkering
with and restructuring, however minimally, the current global architecture of
capitalism; hence the gradual replacement and eventaul surplanting of the G7,
then G 8 by the G 20.
Afterall the world's population has increased tremendously, and there are many
more 'countries' and states now than there were post war; so their is a little
bit more room at the apex of the capitalist pyramid to jostle. Like every
ecosystem, the capitalist system has its carrying capacity for successful,
dominant, and dominating countries and peoples.
Regards,
Jaye Gaskia
----- Original Message ----
From: kenneth harrow<harrow@msu.edu>
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 11:17:35 PM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?
moses
maybe it is the case that the aspects of scandinavia which you admire are the
"socialist" aspects of their society. maybe your statement about embracing
capitalism, despite its flaws, because it will lead to the creation of wealth
for all, or almost all, ignores the possibility that the very poverty in africa
about which we are concerned has been created, not mitigated, by the capitalist
system that has held it in thrall, during colonial days, neocolonial days,
globalization days.
i am not an historian, so you can correct me here. i thought it generally the
case that the economic situation throughout much of africa has deteriorated
since independence. that when socialist models in tanzania or guinea were tried,
or at least when neocolonialism was resisted, the economic clout of the western
states was enough to subvert those efforts.
you keep referring to the failures of socialism as though there really had been
a state in which the proletariat had become the ruling class. no one believes
that.
no one on the left would defend the authoritarianism that told hold of states
that flourished the banner of socialism or communism. you are attacking a straw
dog, while touting those aspects of societies you admire that actually approach
more successfully ideals of an egalitarian distribution of wealth, which flies
in the face of capitalism, especially capitalism today.
you speak of progress as if it were evident. sorry, i would disagree. just
within my lifetime i have seen the great disparities of wealth appear in the
u.s.; have seen homeless appear in reagan and thatcher's day, where before they
were rare; have seen the continuing demise of the inner cities. while the rich
got richer.
maybe the 10% that hoard the wealth in many african states might be criticized
equally for following this model of accentuating disparities in wealth and
ignoring social services. that model is the neoliberal model of the imf.
it is up to us to resist it. we don't have to call for a socialist revolution to
do so; but when we advocate for a movement back to greater programs for the
disinherited, for less freedom for companies to generate profits for themselves,
we are taxed as advocating socialism.
so be it.
ken
On 12/22/10 4:04 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Capitalism is flawed in many ways, but its excesses and flaws and their impacts-- kenneth w. harrow
on the poor can be mitigated while still harnessing its wealth-creating
potential. There is no contradiction here, just nuance that is grounded in a
quest for progress and the need to defeat or reduce extreme poverty.
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
harrow@msu.edu
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa
Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
harrow@msu.edu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment