The other thing is: I mentioned self-described, actually existing (existed) socialist regimes and argued that they were terrible models for creating or distributing wealth. You didn't dispute this but said they were dictatorships dressed as socialist regimes. I didn't dispute that. But I argued that even doctrinaire socialism (which you and I agree has yet to be be implemented anywhere) calls for a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat, meaning that the rights and freedoms and interests of some would have to be taken away by the revolution--something that you claim that "fake" socialist regimes do and which you argue should discredit them from being called socialist. Marxian socialism would also entail the violation of rights and economic and the implementation of a de facto political dictatorship--the very ingredients that are the hallmarks of the "socialist" regimes of the past. You claim to be concerned about rights, freedoms, and the humanity of peoples in new capitalist regimes (China, India, Brazil, etc), that the presence of such violations discredit their stories of success, and that because "self-described" socialist regimes were also guilty of this, they shouldn't be advanced to discredit socialism. Fine. But how can you launch a socialist revolution, in the doctrinaire Marxist sense, without engaging in ALL of those acts that you detest and which you say are unacceptable prices of capitalist wealth creation? If you agree that dictatorship, repression, and denial of freedoms are inherent in socialism--pure doctrinaire socialism, then where is the outrage against these vices in your advocacy of a return to socialism? Again, this is where your definition of socialism may help. What exactly do you mean by socialism? You seem to want to narrate any politics of the Left and Progressivism as socialism. What kind of definitional latitude allows for that semiotic leap? And this may be the source of our disagreement. I believe that there are different kinds of capitalisms, some more humane and more restrained than others, some more attuned to neoliberalism than others. China cannot be said to be a capitalism animated by neoliberal impulses, can it? I mean, Chinese capitalism is even state-driven. I pointed you to Scandinavia only for you to agree quite shockingly (a la Tea Party hacks) that those are socialist regimes? Again, what's your definition of socialism?
Your position on Tanzania and Guinea has clearly illustrated what I suspect is the circular, conspiratorial nature of your contention. So, socialism failed in Tanzania and Guinea because it was undermined by the West. Is there any room at all in this blame game for the follies of villagization and other misguided and imported socialist experiments? Or for corruption and cronyism? Or for prebendal indulgences? What about the capitalist leaning countries? They too, were undermined by the West. So why should socialist leaning postcolonial leaderships be left off the hook if both capitalist leaning and socialist-leaning states were undermined by the evil hand of neocolonial control? It's so predictable and simplistic, this type of analysis; it's always the exclusive fault of the white man; it's never the fault of poor planning, terrible decisions and choices, white elephant projects, naivety, corruption, and the poor vision of postcolonial leaderships. I knew that it would all come back to the evil white man of white liberal discourse. God forbid that postcolonial African leaders--poor, helpless things!---and their corruption and incompetence should share the blame with the instruments of neocolonialism and neoliberal globalization.
One points out how responsible capitalist initiatives and investments coupled with good, visionary leadership and institutions can reduce poverty and improve lives in Africa and how "actually existing" socialist regimes proved to be poor creators of wealth and poor reducers of poverty and the response is again the lazy, predictable refrain that colonial and neocolonial capitalism caused the poverty in the first place. For goodness sake where is the analytical creativity? Where is the new thinking? Where is nuance? Is there one monolithic capitalism, one capitalist model? The Indians and Chinese and Brazilians rejected some of the more anti-people prescriptions of neoliberalism. But they embraced private enterprise, strategic infrastructural investments, and industrialization. They chose their own capitalist path and cleverly avoided the neoliberal trap and they are better off today. It doesn't make them any less capitalist. They didn't accept ALL of the IMF and World bank's doctrines. Capitalism is not only an unquestioning, total adherence to neoliberal principles. It comes in many shades and can be used to improve lives by selfless, committed regimes. Harping on the evil of neoliberalism is a straw man argumentation, since the models that I have advanced actually bucked neoliberal orthodoxy in several respects.
Again, I am not rigid in ideological matters. I do believe like you that capitalism, while a good wealth creator, is a poor (re)distributor of created wealth. Hence my preference for the Scandinavian CAPITALIST model where free enterprise, innovation, and competition are encouraged and supported but excesses are checked, state regulation is strong, and the state acts proactively to redistribute wealth and prevent the type of extreme disparities in wealth that you are discussing. The two priorities of wealth creation on the one hand and redistributive and ameliorative concerns can coexist and should coexist.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
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
--
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