Where will this unhelpful externalization and relativization of every African malaise stop? I am tempted to think that only those who have never actually lived in poverty romanticize and relativize it. Poverty is no fun in any way--I don't care how you slice it. Our folks in the village and in city slums are groaning in lack and we say: well they're still happy and content and do now miss what they do not know or need. How condescending! When I am in Naija, that's all I hear about, the misery and suffering, even from old folks.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:
"Are those kind of developments referenced in your submission only possible under a dictatorial regime? Or for that matter only under a repressive market economy model?"---Jaye
Come on broda, I was responding to Ken's speculative assertion that people would not trade some of their freedoms and rights for a better life, for jobs, improved standard of living, access to social goods and social infrastructure, etc. In the West this may be true, but NOT in Nigeria, where democracy has meant only misery, as much misery as dictatorship brought. In Nigeria, folks certainly would be willing to give up whatever freedom they still have (which is not much even under this so-called democracy) in exchange for decent living. Why do you think Nigerians keep migrating to Libya, China, Vietnam, and other dictatorial spaces? It's economics, pure and simple. Do you dispute that? Again, this is all hypothetical. And it is neither an endorsement of dictatorship nor a condemnation of democracy, especially Western liberal democracy. Both have flaws and merits as anchors for economic development. Both can be abused to cause misery and both can be used positively to engineer economic success. Which tells me that in many parts of the Third World where poverty lives and breathes, majority of poor people are concerned about effective, visionary, people-oriented leadership more than they are about whether the leadership is democratic or dictatorial (categories that are becoming less and less precise). I was merely trying to point out to Ken, contrary to his argument, that for the most part, most people in the Third World care more about escaping poverty and having a decent life than they do about what system they are ruled with and how many rights they have. Polls come with their own problems, but for what they're worth Chinese people in poll after poll have said they are happy to give up some of their rights for the "good times" to continue and are willing to wait for these rights to be gradually ceded by the government. Nigerians would gladly exchange the current repressive, rapacious, and corrupt democracy if you presented them with a dictatorship like the one in China that has been doing well by its peoples economically. Of course, this is all hypothetical--following from Ken's own hypothetical--and it is unlikely that Nigerians will actually be presented with such a choice, since as said, Nigeria's past dictatorships, unlike the Chinese model, have been anything but developmental.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Jaye Gaskia <ogbegbe@yahoo.com> 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
>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.
>
-- 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
--
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
No comments:
Post a Comment