What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[VoodooDali]

Chanak - about it being in the hands of developing nations to insure their own growth - I feel this is a bit simplistic.

Since I lived in Central America for quite a while, I have a different point of view. Their situation is complicated by the fact that they are in fact, still "banana republics." Any attempts they have made to change systems of government have been immediately and harshly quashed by the USA. The best recent example of this is Nicaragua. Also, the USA has benefited from several economic advantages from the get-go - first of all we have a huge country with a lot of natural resources. Countries like Nicaragua and Guatemala have only bananas and coffee. Second, we advanced in the first half of our existence by the liberal use of slavery. I wonder how rapidly our economy would have grown without that free labor... Third, WWI and WWII left the powerful European countries in ruins, and we were able to take advantage of that - not that we shouldn't have, but that was a very lucky break for us.

I try, in my own little way, to have some effect on the economies of the Central American countries. I buy Fair Trade coffee, which is bought directly from farmer's cooperatives, not the few rich families that feudally control most of the land in those countries. I am disturbed that large corporations like Starbucks do not participate in this program. I have written a letter to them regarding it, and received total b.s. from them in return. Anyway, if you would like to buy Fair Trade coffee, I am posting a link below. Not only would you be doing a good deed, the coffee tastes better than anything I've tasted, and it's also organic and shade-grown (which protects the environment).
Cafe Campesino

[Scayde]

Thanks Chan....*HUG*

@fable:...What you posted is very interesting.It looks like a very good read. I will have to check into it.

The question you posed though is in line with a comment I have made several times. Yes, I do see the messianic correlation. Everything I have read about communism points back to a philosophy extolled in a desert 2000 years ago. After the death of their teacher, the early Christians banded together in a communal fashion. It was required that every member forfeit all of their possessions to the common, for use on an as needed basis. It is ironic that the first murders for failure to comply happened within that first generation of the Church. It still results in murder today when imposed against a peoples will. A beautiful ideal to some. A nightmare to others.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Chanak - about it being in the hands of developing nations to insure their own growth - I feel this is a bit simplistic.

Since I lived in Central America for quite a while, I have a different point of view. Their situation is complicated by the fact that they are in fact, still "banana republics." Any attempts they have made to change systems of government have been immediately and harshly quashed by the USA. The best recent example of this is Nicaragua. Also, the USA has benefited from several economic advantages from the get-go - first of all we have a huge country with a lot of natural resources. Countries like Nicaragua and Guatemala have only bananas and coffee. Second, we advanced in the first half of our existence by the liberal use of slavery. I wonder how rapidly our economy would have grown without that free labor... Third, WWI and WWII left the powerful European countries in ruins, and we were able to take advantage of that - not that we shouldn't have, but that was a very lucky break for us.

I try, in my own little way, to have some effect on the economies of the Central American countries. I buy Fair Trade coffee, which is bought directly from farmer's cooperatives, not the few rich families that feudally control most of the land in those countries. I am disturbed that large corporations like Starbucks do not participate in this program. I have written a letter to them regarding it, and received total b.s. from them in return. Anyway, if you would like to buy Fair Trade coffee, I am posting a link below. Not only would you be doing a good deed, the coffee tastes better than anything I've tasted, and it's also organic and shade-grown (which protects the environment).
Cafe Campesino

Thanks for the coffee link.

I don't think it's either simplistic, or inplausible. The US really had no advantage at all over other countries...the resources you refer to weren't exactly exploited until more settlement - and expansion - occurred. The new country just emerged from a debilitating war which sucked up the wealth and fortunes of many a new American...fighting against the British was costly, indeed. Many were homeless after the Revolutionary War.

As a sidenote, Japan has little in the way of their own natural resources, yet have managed to become an economic powerhouse despite of it.

I certainly believe it is in the hands of the people of a country to do something about their own situations. Americans did that, and if you look into the Patriot movement of the late 18th century, you will find that it began as meetings between a very small group of men in homes and taverns. The majority of colonists were against independence from Britian at the outset; the Patriots changed that, through hard work and sacrifice. It seems some form of "you have it, I don't, and I want it, so you have to give it to me" has infected many people worldwide throughout various cultures. Why do those systems persist in South America? The answer isn't that the US keeps it that way...I don't believe it for one second. The people of those countries do.

I realize the answer isn't simple, but the solution really is. The people of those countries need to change it. If they do nothing, then who will? When our country atempts to assist people wanting change, it is imperialist. When the former Soviet Union and Cuba aided the Sandinistas, it was "just"...their atrocities are well documented, yet you don't see them making headlines. I make no excuses, nor have any regrets, for our country's active opposition to Communism. The records of those kinds of regimes speak for themselves...any student of history will see the pattern.

It is understandable that some regimes in this day and age are well-established and powerful militarily...but how much do people care about their own freedom? Their own standard of living? The answer is *not* foreign aid, as recent history displays. It does nothing but line the pockets of tyrants and their cronies.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by Scayde
Thanks Chan....*HUG*

@fable:...What you posted is very interesting.It looks like a very good read. I will have to check into it.

The question you posed though is in line with a comment I have made several times. Yes, I do see the messianic correlation. Everything I have read about communism points back to a philosophy extolled in a desert 2000 years ago. After the death of their teacher, the early Christians banded together in a communal fashion. It was required that every member forfeit all of their possessions to the common, for use on an as needed basis. It is ironic that the first murders for failure to comply happened within that first generation of the Church. It still results in murder today when imposed against a peoples will. A beautiful ideal to some. A nightmare to others.

Well put, Scayde. *hug*

I recall us having conversation along these lines quite a few times...it is a bit shocking to contemplate, but true nevertheless. The scenario is thus: someone loses their life because they did not wish to give something that was their own to another.

When this occurs on a governmental level, it is considered "leveling the playing field." When it occurs on the street, the person (or people) doing the taking and killing are apprehended and tried as murderers and thieves. Either way, it is against the victim's will...

[VoodooDali]

Just for an example - a brief history of Guatemala. (Please pay particular attention to the USA's role in the 50's, which endured until the early 90's in ousting those who would enact land reform. Through the Freedom of Information Act, it is well known that the CIA was an active agent in Guatemala, primarily in providing names to the death squads. I think it is quite clear that even when our neighbors to the south have tried to enact social change, we have been very quick to step in and stop it, because our large fruit, coffee, sugar, and tobacco company interests are more important to us than social justice.)

When Pedro de Alvarado came to conquer Guatemala for the king of Spain in 1523, he found the faded remnants of the Maya civilization and an assortment of warring tribes. The remaining highland kingdoms of the Quiché and Cakchiquel Maya were soon crushed by Alvarado's armies, their lands carved up into large estates and their people ruthlessly exploited by the new landowners. The subsequent arrivals of Dominican, Franciscan and Augustinian friars could not halt this exploitation, and their religious imperialism caused valuable traces of Mayan culture to be destroyed.

Independence from Spain came in 1821, bringing new prosperity to those of Spanish blood (creoles) and even worse conditions for those of Mayan descent. The Spanish Crown's few liberal safeguards were now abandoned. Huge tracts of Mayan land were stolen for the cultivation of tobacco and sugar cane, and the Maya were further enslaved to work that land. The country's politics since independence have been colored by continued rivalry between the forces of the left and right - neither of which have ever made it a priority to improve the position of the Maya.

Few exceptional leaders have graced Guatemala's political podium. Alternating waves of dictators and economics-driven Liberals were briefly brightened by Juan José Arévalo, who established the nation's social security and health systems and a government bureau to look after Mayan concerns. In power from 1945 to 1951, Arévalo's liberal regime experienced 25 coup attempts by conservative military forces. Arévalo was followed by Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, who continued to implement liberal policies and instituted an agrarian reform law to break up the large estates and foster highly productive, individually owned small farms. The expropriation of lands controlled by foreign companies, a move supported by the country's Communist Party, was the signal for the CIA to step in (one of these foreign companies was the United Fruit Company, which interestingly was part-owned by the then US Secretary of State). With their help a successful military coup was organized in 1954, Arbenz Guzmán fled to Mexico and the land reform never eventuated.

A succession of military presidents followed, and as both protest and repression became more violent, civil war broke out. Booming industrialization in the 1960s and '70s helped the rich get richer, while the cities became increasingly squalid as the rural dispossessed fled the countryside to find urban employment. The military's violent suppression of antigovernment elements (which meant the majority of landless peasants) finally led the USA to cut off military assistance, leading in turn to the 1985 election of the civilian Christian Democrat Marco Vinicio Cerezo Arévalo.

Arévalo's five years of inconclusive government were followed by Jorge Serrano Elías, who won the presidency for the conservative Solidarity Action Movement. His attempts to end the decades-long civil war failed, and as his popularity declined he came to rely increasingly on military support. On May 25, 1993, following a series of public protests, Serrano carried out an auto-coup. Lacking popular support, Serrano fled the country, and an outspoken critic of the army, Ramiro de León Carpio, was elected by Congress. Carpio's law-and-order mantle was taken up by new president, Alvaro Enrique Arzú Irigoyen, who attempted to heal his feuding and crime-ridden country with a neo-liberal technocratic salve. In December 1996, the government signed a series of peace accords with leftist guerrillas and the army agreed to reduce its role in domestic security matters. The greatest challenge to a lasting peace stems from great inequities in the basic social and economic power structure of Guatemalan society.

Guatemala swore in a new government January 14, 2000, under its recently elected right-wing president, Alfonso Portillo. An admitted murderer, Portillo won by claiming that if he could defend himself, he could defend his people. His main campaign promise is to shake up the country's armed forces.

[Scayde]

@Chan and Voo...fabulous dialogue guys..mind if I just sit this one out and learn a bit

[Chanak]

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Just for an example - a brief history of Guatemala...

Thanks for an enlightening post. The indiscretions of those in power can have terrible consequences...and we have had plenty of our own.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Chanak
Thanks for an enlightening post. The indiscretions of those in power can have terrible consequences...and we have had plenty of our own.

*Sigh*.....Indeed, unfortunately, we are all very near to hypocrasy when we point the finger at times.......who should cast the first stone?

[frogus]

Originally posted by Chanak
I don't think it's either simplistic, or inplausible. The US really had no advantage at all over other countries...the resources you refer to weren't exactly exploited until more settlement - and expansion - occurred.

This is exactly what I mean. The USA had no advantage over other countries (maybe) - but now it does. The USA is the richest country in the world...

It is simply not an option for people (millions of) who are literally starving to death every day to 'take their economy into their hands' and make something of their lives. They are not lazy or short-sighted, they are dying of hunger and disease, with no way of improving their situation.

[Littiz]

Originally posted by Scayde
A beautiful ideal to some. A nightmare to others.

So true, dogmatic positions of all kinds lead people to a natural arrogance.
I've always hated them. And they all build upon the concept of equality, one way or another.
Equality in the eyes of God, equality in richness, equality in "opportunities"...
(..what if I fail with my opportunity? I'm not "equal" anymore?)

Life is difference, confrontation, change.
There are countless ways of being happy, as well as countless ways of being sad.
Why should we consider "moral" the redistribuition of goods?
Who's able to really make people "equal"?

Can you give to all Brad Pitt's looks? Can you give to everyone the real love of his/her life?
Can you prevent people from dying young, despite their "richness" (by incident, or illness?)
Can you really judge someone else's life?
Why only goods and money have to be redistribuited? Wouldn't this make things even more
unjust, in many cases?

But we said, me included, that helping people under the survival level is "moral".
Thinking about it, why?
Infinite Nature's concepts are easily extended. Human society is the cancer of the world,
by definition: it will consume and destroy the body it lives in, bringing death to the rest
of the "guests" and to itself.
In regard of all the life forms, or even the next human generations which may not come at all,
is it moral to let the cancer expand, bringing more and more people above the survival level?
Is it moral to live?

The more I think about it, the less I consider "moral" all that usually is considered to be so.
There's only a reason, in the end, that may push us to help people who suffer and die:
the little nobility of our race, that make us able to feel compassion or suffer in place of
others.
Wrong or right, I respect and promote it (and frankly, I do not know why).

Religions, or ideoligies that "lead" to such acts, use, as a leverage, fears, envy, or the
perspective of prizes in the afterlife. No morality can be defined this way, IMHO.
(I don't mean to be offensive to anyone, just to provoke some thoughts..)

[frogus]

!!!



That's a fantastic and heavy post, Littiz, with very important ideas. You are clearly a thoughtful person -

but what do you think of this:

Morals are subconscious justifications for our own desires.

?

[fable]

Originally posted by Chanak
For at least the first 100 years of it's existence, the United States was essentially a "Third World" country. We were a poor country and sparsely populated by anyone's standards (back then, and most certainly now), yet somehow we attained unprecendented prosperity and growth during the following 100 years. That was not accomplished by foreign aid and World Bank loans...after all, such things did not exist at that time. Rather, it was done by establishing a system which promoted growth and prosperity. It was a hard road, to be sure, fraught with lean times and often poor working conditions. Yet in time all of these things were not only addressed, but improved upon, while still maintaining a structure that promoted success both corporately and privately. Personal freedoms were always held to be of the upmost importance, and the result speaks for itself.

Yet think of what that says when its corollary is applied to other nations. Did the Swedish not set up a system that promotes growth and prosperity? The Danes? Why isn't Ireland or Spain an economic powerhouse? Are they inherently more lazy? Why was Holland *the* eonomic powerhouse of the 17th century, driving the rest of the Western world, and where did fail, after that? Did they decide to abandon capitalism?

IMO, economic history is more complicated than just an application of capitalism. I'm not expert by any means, but just having the awareness I do as a citizen about the US, there are a few other issues I think undeniably contributed to the nation's power, today:

It's huge. That may seem like a silly thing to say, but it isn't. The continental US is a huge nation, and that made an enormous difference in the 19th century. You remark elsewhere that a nation's size doesn't figure into it and give Japan as evidence, but that overlooks the fact that until the 20th century, Japan was economically and materially backward compared--not just to Europe and the US, but even to Czarist Russia, with its largely medieval technology. Its size and poor soil were responsible. Geographical size did matter once the industrial revolution hit, because it meant that with more good territory you had the possibility of infrastructure to connect it all, creating what we might call a circuit of manufacturing in which raw goods were sent to be processed, forwarded onto shipment, etc. You could also support a much larger population, and support agriculture *and* industry, together.

It's resource rich. Until the latter part of the 20th century, the vast oil resources of the MidEast didn't matter, because it wasn't cost effective to get at it and ship it elsewhere. It would be fair to state that until that time, for all intents and purposes, the MidEast was nearly without natural resources. Comparing a nation in such a situation with those that have immediately exploitable resources (such as the US' enormous forests, rich farmland and cattle grazing territories, all enormous benefits during the 19th century) is a bit unfair.

It's temperate. Climate does matter. David Landes noted in his The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, "One person's discomfort is another's pleasure. Still, the law of heat exhaustion applies to all, and few manage to work at full capacity when hot and wet." This stands to reason, but it's often forgotten. It also accounts, at least in part, for the nearly complete lack of development in the US state of Florida until air conditioning made its appearance. Cold is another factor that affects performance. The prairies of the US are huge. The prairies of the former Eastern Soviet Union are larger. But the latter are for the most part covered nearly year 'round in snow and ice, with temperatures often remaining below zero degrees Fahrenheit for months at a time. You can't herd anything on the latter.

Infrastructure. I can't underscore this one enough. If you have the resources, and you have the climate, putting the money into infrastructure becomes obvious. What's not obvious is that by doing so, you link a whole range of goods that require a medium of exchange; in other words, paper money itself becomes worth more than gold, since it's easily and quickly convertible. This pushes a nation away from simply trading in hard commodities, and towards what we might call a meta-economy built upon smaller economies. Money itself is an object of trade. This is what made the Netherlands the most prosperous place on the face of the earth during the 17th century: a realization of the ways that money could be controlled, especially in other nations, so that high-end firms became much, much richer. If the nation also possesses a culture of social and artistic support, then you get an appearance of 20th century values in 17th century Holland. This is the bright side of capitalism. If you don't, then you get the Cambodian slave trade, used to operate machinery. This is the really terrible side.

Work ethic. No question. The so-called Protestant work ethic had an enormous impact on middle class Americans in the 19th century. Still, the same work ethic operated strongly in many lands which never turned into industrial/economic giants, because other factors were absent. No one can say the Finns are lazy. They are among the most hardworking, industrious people, as a nation, that you'll find anywhere. But other conditions prevented them from becoming a major player in Europe, much less a powerful economic competitor to the US.

The former inhabitants of conquered land were easily killed, or sent to camps. Bluntly put, and the US was by no means the only offender, but that's exactly what happened; and it contributed greatly to the easy expansion of the US government into territories more than three times its original size. This contrasts with Western and Central Europe in the last few centuries, where any expansion had to be at the expense of a large popuilation that was capable of defending itself, and frequently had treaties with its neighbors.

Isolation. When you have neighbors, you have wars. Contrary to pop wisdom, IMO, wars don't automatically equate to an enormous ecomonic boost. WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the American Civil War didn't. War on your own soil, with a great loss of population, drains resources, saps morale, and leaves a nation on its knees for a while.

After its Civil War, the US never had to experience a war again on its own soil. Most other parts of the world did. The 19th century US, after that War, never had to build up an enormous army to match those of the Europeans, because it didn't have to fear invasion. (Except from those insidious Canadians, of course.) Defense spending by the US in the late 19th century was actually a miniscule portion of the federal budget. And as anybody knows who has ever run a retail business, the less money you have to tie up in inventory on your shelf, the better off you are financially.

This same isolation helped turn the US into the number #1 spot for private arms manufacturing, and sales to other nations. There was no need for prohibitions and controls during the 19th century, because no other nation could turn those weapons against the US, itself. The US government's continued unwillingness to support international controls on arms distribution (our unwillingness to support a UN-sponsored landmine embargo, for instance) is an unpleasant side effect of this attitude.

An absence of social laws protecting workers, and damping down 19th century industrial growth. Like Britain, the US went through a period of rapid industrial expansion at the expense of treating a section of its lower class workers as fodder. Life expectancy dropped precipitously in mill towns and steel towns. Anyone who wants to read the history of West Virginia can find out, not simply how badly the land was raped by out-of-state business, but the inhabitants, as well. Personal freedoms were not experienced by the lower class in the US until well within the 20th century. (And while we're at it, let's remember that the first group of people allowed to vote in the US were not simply white males, but white males who had $100 in fixed capital. That was a large sum, at the time, and it effectively made the US a democracy for the middle and upper economic classes, only. Jeffersonian--really, Southern Arcadian--ideals of equality were thrown out the window by the Northeastern Federalists.)

Again, I'm not condemning anybody for this. It's done. (Well, it's done if you're not Nike, using inhumane sweatshops in Southeast Asia that resemble the US and UK at their former worst.) But the US wouldn't have become an industrial powerhouse if it hadn't pursued that course, at that time.

An incredibly cheap source of ready labor for plentiful no-brain tasks, once worker laws appeared. Chicanos. Blacks. Outside the law for a long time, people within these groups were paid literally next to nothing (many worked simply for food and shelter) to handle the time- and labor-intensive tasks down at the bottom of the industrial ladder. This helped maximize profits, which could be concentrated in further expansion, r&d, etc. Much of this is gone from the US, now. And we wonder why US companies are building low end facilities in nations where such laws don't exist?

I think these factors together were responsible for making the US the powerhouse it is, today. That, and a lot of luck, which of course any nation in its right mind will never admit to.

[VoodooDali]

Thanks Fable for saying so well what I tried to allude to in earlier posts.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by frogus
This is exactly what I mean. The USA had no advantage over other countries (maybe) - but now it does. The USA is the richest country in the world...

It is simply not an option for people (millions of) who are literally starving to death every day to 'take their economy into their hands' and make something of their lives. They are not lazy or short-sighted, they are dying of hunger and disease, with no way of improving their situation.

In the beginning, it didn't. The vast resources fable speaks of in his post were not even available for some time to the young country...besides timber (present in many other regions of the world, I note) and arable land (also present elsewhere). My point is the US became as prosperous as it is now by setting up a system in the country that promoted such growth. The former Soviet Union was similarly equipped resource-wise...yet they were not as prosperous as the US. The former USSR possessed more in many cases than the US does. That is the only point I'm making here...prosperity has more to do with what a people do with themselves and what they have, rather than being centered on what they don't have. I brought up Japan as another example...only this time, this is a country that prospered while not having much by way of immediate resources.

If a few men meeting in homes and taverns could inflame a nation to fight for their independence, always under-equipped and quite often malnourished, then anyone can do it. Remember that at the time of the American Revolution, the British Empire was at their zenith...one of the great colonial powers of the world. A motley assortment of desperate men somehow pulled it off...not by "luck," but by determination. The average soldier in the Continental Army had no uniform, usually possessed an outdated and unreliable firearm, and believe it or not, many had no shoes. Many men died during the winter at Valley Forge because the Continental Army was basically a ragtag assortment of rebels on the run, sometimes receiving assistance from Philadelphia, most often not. Washington faced a grim battle with slim odds of victory.

Yes, they are starved and are in desperate situations...but there is never no options for a human being who is determined to escape oppression. There are fates worse than death...why do you think people in (former) East Berlin risked being shot, or being blown to bits in mine fields, to have a chance at freedom? That is because to them, death was preferable to a life of slavery.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by fable
Yet think of what that says when its corollary is applied to other nations. Did the Swedish not set up a system that promotes growth and prosperity? The Danes? Why isn't Ireland or Spain an economic powerhouse? Are they inherently more lazy? Why was Holland *the* eonomic powerhouse of the 17th century, driving the rest of the Western world, and where did fail, after that? Did they decide to abandon capitalism?

Taking a moment to look at the example nations you cite, I note each one has quite a strong socialistic element in particular systems and structures. State-stanctioned health care, retirement plans...tighter regulations and controls...these all add up in the end.

There's a myraid of reasons why the US has grown so expotentially. I mention State-managed retirement. One only needs look at Social Security to see why these are dead ends...401K plans are far more superior, for these revolve around investing in other comapnies...including your own. People may also choose to do this on their own, which they do quite often. Investment in commerce yields more than a State-run plan ever could. There are many retired folks who live comfortably...and they don't do it on tax money. They live that way because they invested in the industries of this country.

Why was Holland a powerhouse in the 17th century? Good question....why was Russia once such a great powerhouse themselves in antiquity? The world market was much different during that time...the coming of the Industrial Age, for one, changed things. Powers who were once great faded from their lofty positions...giving way to those nations who seized upon Industrialzation in earnest, countries like Britian, the US, France...

IMO, economic history is more complicated than just an application of capitalism. I'm not expert by any means, but just having the awareness I do as a citizen about the US, there are a few other issues I think undeniably contributed to the nation's power...

I am no expert, either. However, I am not assessing economic history by applying capitalism. I do believe what I'm doing here is simple: I'm seeking to explain why capitalism is such a successful model. Rather than "luck," a successful economy develops because people contribute to it. And in a capitalistic system, incentives and rewards inherent in the framework make this kind of phenomenal growth possible, unlike any other.

It's huge.

Indeed. So is Russia. The point I've made before, however, still stands: Not only was the US not so huge at one time, it was also rather poor compared to other countries at the time.

It's resource rich.

I'd rather not repeat myself here, but I will as it serves my illustration: so is Russia. But the US and Russia are not the only resource-rich nations in the world.

Japan is not resource rich, and never was. This obviously wasn't a setback to that nation...

It's temperate.

Good point, and worth considering. Many nations fall within the temperate zone on the planet...Canada, the US, Russia, Germany, France, India, China...

infrastructure. I can't underscore this one enough. If you have the resources, and you have the climate, putting the money into infrastructure becomes obvious. What's not obvious is that by doing so, you link a whole range of goods that require a medium of exchange; in other words, paper money itself becomes worth more than gold, since it's easily and quickly convertible...[/b]

Excellent info, fable. These things do indeed matter...and as we have seen, how a nation goes about this is vitally important. Take Russia, for example. Rich in resources, transportation...yet economically they were a dismal failure.

The former inhabitants of conquered land were easily killed, or sent to camps.

The majority of large land acquirements by the US was through dealings with major European powers...powers such as Spain, and France. The single largest land acquisition by the United States was the Louisiana Purchase, bought from Napoleon in 1803...

One sad chapter in American history has been the treatment of the Native American...

Isolation.

LMAO...I find the entire Canadian thing quite amusing. Of course, it wasn't Canada at all...

I do believe that US isolation officially ended during World War II, where we fought the war on two fronts...the European theater, and the Pacific theater. The manufacturing might was in place after the war to fuel an amazing manufacturing boom...and a new and different world economy emerged.

More on this later...

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by frogus
That's a fantastic and heavy post, Littiz, with very important ideas. You are clearly a thoughtful person -

but what do you think of this:

Morals are subconscious justifications for our own desires.

I agree with Frogus, great post Littiz, with issues suitable for an entire new thread. And the same goes for Frogus question: it is a discussion suitable for yet another new thread

@Fable: I am very happy for you posts, they clarify something I have been trying to say in all of my posts, namely: differences in predisposition, that are not "deserved by hard work and being risk-taking" but are totally beyond the control of the individual.

Must go now, will post more later tonight...

[C Elegans]

First, I apologise for not being able to reply as quickly as I’d like to, the discussion in this thread is constantly swelling and I simply have too much work to be able to keep up with the tempo.

Originally posted by Chanak
My apologies for my absenteism from this thread. Things have been busy lately, and I now find the time to sit down and respond. I'll take it easy, so as not to commit a filibuster...

No problem, as you can see I am not able to keep ut the discusion in a good pace either...What is a filibuster?

I certainly agree with Dr. Williams, and in general as well. He is a brilliant analyst whom you happen to disagree with, which is fine, really. However, it does not make his ideas strange...for I have seen the basis of his premises myself. In my experience, most poverty is indeed self-inflicted.

Of course you agree with dr Williams since he shares you view. He is a conservative economist, and he writes for a journal called Capitalism Magazine, so by definition, you should agree with him just as you could expect me to agree with professor Amartya Sen. The reason’s why I find Williams ideas strange, are outlined below.

You say that in your experience, most poverty is self-inflicted. I don’t know what experiences you have, perhaps we need to define what we mean by poverty. Like Frogus, I have several times pointed out that by poverty, I don’t mean poor with Swedish standard, poor with US standards – I am talking about poverty as in not having the basic necesseties to survive. Are you still referring to “poor” as in not having allotted inherited money and being middle class in the US? If so, I again ask you kindly to comment and apply your opinions on the kind of povery I and Frogus are talking about.

Please explain how the poverty of Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan and Mauritia is self inflicted. I am not sarcastic here, I am totally confused how anyone (your or Williams) could hold the view that their poverty is mostly self inflicted. Or on an individual level, you have seen my numourous examples of real poverty – how is the poverty of 1/6 of the world who are not only poor but actually starving, self inflicted?

To quote Williams:

Colonial masters never committed anything near the murder and genocide seen under black rule in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia and other countries, where millions of blacks have been slaughtered in unspeakable ways, which include: hacking to death, boiling in oil, setting on fire and dismemberment.

This I found very strange indeed. It is estimated that the colonial powers murdered about 20 million people in Africa, far more than those who were killed in the conflicts William mention above. It sounds like Williams is not aware of this. He is a doctor in economy and not in history, but I do find it strange that he makes such a blatant claim when he obviously does not even know the basic historical facts. I also find it strange that he does not at all address how those conflicts arose, and seems ignorant about the impact of the European force on Africa. And for unspeakable ways, I have a long list of reading about the colonisation of Africa that by far exceeds dr Williams examples. Human cruelty is the same regardless of what skin colour contains it.

Since you believe most poverty is self-inflicted, I feel I must ask you how much African history you have actually read? No offense meant, but I do think you understanding of the situation in Africa seems fairly shallow, and I find it difficult to believe that you are knowledgable about Afrtican history and still claim their povery is self inflicted. I really recommed you to read some history about the European colonisation of Africa. An easy-to-read popular book is “King Leopold’s ghost”, about Belgiums colonisation of Congo. A novel written by Nobel laurate Joseph Conrad that pictures the colonisation very accurately is "Heart of Darkness".
Here are some links to basic African history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1514856.stm
http://africanhistory.about.com/cs/eracolonialism/
The BBC site is very structured, and each region and topic has a time line. For academic works, and works by historian scientists that write in peer-reviewed history journals, I could recommend some if you are interested. Just PM me or post in this thread.

However, back to topic: Africa was not heaven on earth before the colonial powers came there. There were tribal wars, there were famine caused by drought and a variety of diseases, just like in Europe. 500 years ago, the living standard of Europe and Africa were not so different.
Fable has posted some major reasons how the US came to be so rich, now let me point out some reasons why Africa is so poor. Obviously I can’t go through 15 000 years of African history in one post, but before judging Africas poverty as being mostly self inflicted, consider the following:

1. Climate: Due to climate and geology, most areas in Africa has a poor soil, not very good for agriculture. Africa is a vast continent, but the poorest regions are also closest to the equator. The tropical and subtropical climate makes people and livestock subsceptible to both infectious diseases and diseases spread by the tropical living tse-tse fly and malaria-mosquitos.

2. Geographical factors: Africa is a huge continent, with few islands and mountains providing natural borders between the many different groups of people that have lived there. It is high and relatively flat, which means the rivers are mostly shallow and rocky and float from the interior and out. That means the rivers have not been suitable for transport, as they were in Europe. Thus, trading could never play the same role in Africa as it did in Europe.

3. The slave trade: Portugal started taking slaves from Africa in the middle of the 15th century. Over the next 400 years it is estimated that 15 million people were taken as slaves, most to the Americas.

4. The European colonisation: The impact of the European colonisation cannot be underestimated. Do you have any idea what Africa would look like if the nation borders had reflected naturall occuring cultural and ethnical groups? Did you know Africa would then consist of some 1000 regions, instead of the 20 totally artifical countries the Europeans constructed? Do you know how the African countries were created? There was no such thing as “Somalia”, “Angola” or “Rwanda” prior to the 1880’s, when the European colonial powers split the continent between them, totally without the consent of the people who lived there and with very little knowledge of the land they took. Borders were drawn to reflect the European interest, and people who were traditional enemies where lumped together whereas ethnic groups who were one people, where split due to the new borders. Then the colonial robber barons reinforced local conflicts by supporting one group that suited their interestes, and discriminating another group. We still see the aftermath of this forced construction of nations, in conflicts today. Rwanda 1994 is a clear example. Do you honestly believe that would ever have happened without the impact of the European colonial masters?

5. The cold war. After the Europeans had left Africa, many African contries instead became a playground for the cold war conflicts where the US and the former Soviet union supported different dictors in different countries, all in the name of “protecting democracy” or “protecting socialism”.

Ok, so: After the US and the UK took 15 million people as slaves, after Europes division of the continent, and after 20 million were slaughtered by those same colonial powers – most of the constructed African “nations” finally gained independance between 1960-1990. What do you think they have had the possibility to do since then? It took far more than 40 years for Europe to arise from similar living standards and become rich...and here, nobody has totally raped and exploted the land, the people and the resources!

Yes, they are starved and are in desperate situations...but there is never no options for a human being who is determined to escape oppression. There are fates worse than death...

I know this was to Frogus, but I am curious to know how you think my example girl in Uganda who was sold as a sex slave at age 6, is supposed to escape oppression if she's just determined enough. Or our child worker chained to his workplace in a factory in Bangladesh...or the child born with HIV in Somalia, in an area where there is no clean water.

I think it is very romantic and unrealistic to believe that "being determined to escape oppression" would help those millions of people. I personally find it a disrespectful thought, just like I would think if you said "being determined enough" would cure people from cancer or from schizophrenia.

[C Elegans]

@Chanak: had to split the post in two...

Let’s take Rwanda as an example: We all know the unspeakable horror of the genocide in the Huti-Tutsu conflicts in 1994. Do you know how this conflict arose, and the role the Belgian colonial masters played in that conflict?

Here is a quote from a history article from Univeristy of Maryland:

In pre-twentieth century Rwanda the terms "Hutu" and "Tutsi" did not carry the same political meaning they do today. The pre-colonial history of Rwandan Tutsis and Hutus is one of complex intermingling over hundreds of years. There is no date at which a distinct group of Tutsis "arrived" and conquered a fixed body of Hutu people. In fact, far from representing separate tribes or ethnicities, the two group names represented classes or "amorphous categories based on occupation: Hutu were cultivators and Tutsi pastoralists." In fact, Hutus who accumulated sufficient wealth, for example a large herd of cattle, could become Tutsis, while Tutsis who fell on hard economic times could fall into the ranks of Hutus.

From the seventeenth century until 1961, Rwanda was a highly stratified monarchical polity. The state was organized, centralized, and hierarchical. Despite the fact that there was some degree of movement both up and down the social and political hierarchy, it is fair to say that Tutsis were the dominant group who formed the warrior-aristocracy of traditional Rwandan society. While the king, and most nobles, military commanders, and local officials were Tutsis, they did not completely monopolize power over Hutu "peasants" and Twa hunters. In fact, there is sharp disagreement over the nature of traditional Rwandan society, which is described as being anything from mutually acceptable to oppressively feudal. One indicator of the social cohesion of pre-colonial Rwanda is the fact that, although information is not abundant, large-scale ethnic killings do not seem to have occurred. (my bold)
<snip>
The ordeal of colonialism transformed Rwandan society in a highly detrimental fashion. German, and later Belgian, rulers came to Rwanda and the rest of Africa with firmly held convictions about race and race hierarchy. Whites naturally were thought to be superior, but among Africans certain tribes (or what were thought of as tribes) were deemed to be more worthy than their fellow blacks. The Tutsis impressed Europeans with their grace, nobility, and European-like features. In short, Germans and Belgians considered the Tutsis to be born to rule, and decided to administer the country indirectly using the power structure they had found in place. Thus, it was colonial authorities (especially Belgians) who were largely responsible for creating tribal identities among the Tutsis and Hutus. (my bold) Europeans first ruled through Tutsis, and then after World War II Belgian radicals (Marxists who thought in terms of class war) encouraged Hutus to intensify their struggle against their Tutsi oppressors.

If what I posted above (about African history, and my example from Rwanda) is not new to you, if you already know this and still claim Africas poverty is mostly self inflicted, my next question is: should we not help suffering people to survive, even when it is self inflicted?

Not only do I totally reject the idea that the poverty in the world’s poorest regions is “mostly self inflicted”, I also reject the idea that we should not help them if it is self inflicted. I previously asked you:
And even if poverty was self inflicted, is that a reason not to help? Should I not help a patient who has tried to committ suicide? Suicide is the leading cause of death among young people in the rich world. Should we stop all research, all treatment, all work towards preventing suicide, because it is a self-inflicted harm?

So what is your stance on this?

And what about people in the rich world who cannot support themselves. Have you read WHO:s report about the major causes for not being able to work? If not, read it here:

http://www.who.int/msa/mnh/ems/dalys/intro.htm#intro

As you can see, among the 10 major causes of not being able to work, is unipolar major depression, schizophrenia and dementia. How are these disorders self inflicted? And for those who partly are, should we not help them?

Facts stand behind the sad truth that the most talented in the poorest nations are driven to leave by the structures and institutions of their own countries

I do not see how this is relevant to the topic discussed. People from poor countries, who have the opportunity to flee to richer nations do so, and the rich nations gets richer from this brain-drain? And besides, ability to flee is not a measure of talent, it’s a measure of opportunity and educational level. We will never know: maybe the most talented people die from starvation in those poorer nations. Also remember that apart from highly educated and/or talented people, there is also a vast stream of political refugees in the world.

Take Hong Kong, for example. Many people target overpopulation in India, or China, as a source of their crushing poverty. In Hong Kong, there are over 240,000 people per square mile. Compare this to China, which has roughly 409 people per square mile...Hong Kong is a brilliant financial success, while experiencing overcrowding on a scale that boggles the mind. It has everything to do with the system, not with "conditions," "population," or even "resources."

I fail to see how this is connected to our discussion. I know the Hong Kong example from dr Williams writing. However, I have not seen anybody here claim that overpopulation is the sole reason for poverty. I have not seem the topic of overpopulation being discussed at all here, so this appears like a strawman argument to me. Instead, we have been talking about whether rich regions should share their richness with poor regions or not.
(If you are interested in the topic why people starve in some regions and not others, I heartily recommend reading modern wellfare economics, for instance the by now classic “Poverty and Famine” by Sen. His thinking is based on empricial studies, which IMO is a strenght in the jungle of rationalists in the economic discipline.)

As a sidenote, Dr. Williams' comments concerning Aparteid should not be taken out of context. He was speaking purely from a standpoint which focused on economic conditions in South Africa, not one in support of a discriminatory system. That is probably why that seemed strange to you.

Maybe so, I am not sure what Williams meant, from these two articles it was not clear to me that he meant it from a purely financial perspective. I am sure you have read much more of his works than I have, so you are problably the better judge here.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=388
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/w ... 010902.asp

posted by Frogus
It is simply not an option for people (millions of) who are literally starving to death every day to 'take their economy into their hands' and make something of their lives. They are not lazy or short-sighted, they are dying of hunger and disease, with no way of improving their situation.

Exactly, well put Frogus : This is and has been my main point through several posts in this discussion, and I still do not feel I understand your @Chanak position here.

In a previous post I asked: I think there are millions of people who are at least as intelligent, creative and risk-taking as you view yourselves, but they happened to be born in the slums of Calcutta or in the starvation of Somalia…
<snip>
....The connection is that both you and Scayde seem to propose a worldview where the property rights of people who were born in rich countries and got the opportunity to use their “hard working, creative, intelligent and risktaking” traits, overrides the right of survival for people who where born in countries where none of those opportunites exists. And it seems that part of the argument for why property right to excessive wealth overrides the right for survival is that “hard working, creative, intelligent and risktaking”behaviour could change the sitution for anyone, the poor and needly people included.

You examplified with the immigration to the US, but I do hope you realise that their situation is not comparable to the sitution that millions of people who are dying from starvation have. The living standard in the US when the first immigrants came there, was much, much higher that for people who were born with disease, in areas where there is no clean water, no resources, no way to make a living. Do you realise that there are situations where being “creative, intelligent and risk-taking” does not help? So what about them, why don’t they have the right to the same opportunities that we were born into?

Also, I am still curious what event you where referring to regarding how the Somalians did not appreciate US intervention.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by C Elegans
...What is a filibuster?

In the US Congress, a filibuster is a means by which a member takes the floor for amazing lengths of time, preventing others from speaking...in this case, I was humorously referring to my long posts as a filibusters.

You say that in your experience, most poverty is self-inflicted. I don’t know what experiences you have, perhaps we need to define what we mean by poverty.

Poverty is a relaitve term, much like anything else. In this case, poverty is defined by a person's standard of living compared to their national average. My experiences have included coming to know a great number of homeless people here in the US...whom many call the "dispossessed" or "victims of society." How did I come to know them? I became involved with them by offering them shelter and aid. I discovered some things while involved in my own personal mission. And that was: 8 out of 10 of these people were homeless because: 1. Drug abuse or alcoholism 2. Violent behavior 3. Laziness 4. A simple desire to be left alone, and be free of paying taxes. When offered a job, they would decline, stating that all they needed was some money to eat...never mind that there were a number of places where they could eat for free. They sought to play upon a person's sympathy and guilt in order to obtain money to: buy drugs or alcohol to fuel their habit (the most common)...or, in some cases I have both seen and heard of, they would stash this money somewhere in a compulsive manner. I know of one older homeless man who is worth at least $30,000 US.

Most are able bodied, and able to work. However, they found life as a homeless person to be easier by far than holding a job, for there is always someone willing to give them money out of a sense of guilt...guilt for having something that they don't...Just as well, a great deal of social services support these people by virtue of taxes collected from US citizens. In short, a homeless person can always have a roof over their head, and food to eat. Those that don't have abused the privileges extended to them by exibiting anti-social behavior, such as urinating on shelter staff or other homeless people, or by using drugs in the shelters. Such people tend to be blacklisted, and shelter staff remember who they are by virtue of their actions.

Like Frogus, I have several times pointed out that by poverty, I don’t mean poor with Swedish standard, poor with US standards – I am talking about poverty as in not having the basic necesseties to survive.

Few areas on this planet are incapable of supporting life. Food is always available...and is sent by the truckful to famine plagued areas every year by both governments and private individuals. Still, this does not seem to solve the problem.

Please explain how the poverty of Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan and Mauritia is self inflicted. I am not sarcastic here, I am totally confused how anyone (your or Williams) could hold the view that their poverty is mostly self inflicted. Or on an individual level, you have seen my numourous examples of real poverty – how is the poverty of 1/6 of the world who are not only poor but actually starving, self inflicted?

I'm going to stick to the issues here, thank you...I've explained elsewhere why I believe that most human suffering is self-inflicted. Why? There are methods of tilling the soil that would work even in arid, barren environments...if only the governments and structures of the nations in question would cooperate with the agencies and individuals that were willing to help out...much suffering could be erased, now wouldn't it? Yet they are not, and the stories of relief workers in various parts of the world attest to the enormous obstacles they face when dealing with these various governments' unwillingness to cooperate. In fact, some workers are in dire peril as I write this...

I am a firm believer that if you teach someone to help themselves, they in turn will help someone else in the same manner. I've seen it in action, and it works. What doesn't work is simply throwing food at famine and drought stricken areas. Usually you will find that countries whose populace is suffering in this manner are undergoing intense political turmoil...or their people are the victims of tyrants and butchers, much like they are in Somalia.

To quote Williams:

I don't feel the need to defend the comments of Dr. Williams, especially when they're taken out of context.

Since you believe most poverty is self-inflicted, I feel I must ask you how much African history you have actually read?...

I know enough of African history to feel comfortable in asserting that there are solutions to the problems rampant upon that continent, but these solutions have nothing to do with any sort of distributional shift in the world's resources, as I believe you espouse. We see the same problems, and the same suffering. To deny it exists is absurd, and I haven't at any time stated that it doesn't. Nor am I ignorant of the effects of European colonialism in Africa. I believe that the African continent possesses the resources, and ability, to support the population. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors involved that stem from the way of life of African tribes in the past that contribute to their current plight. Many African tribes were hunters/gatherers. That kind of society does not support a large population successfully. New ways of living need to be adopted by Africans if their suffering is to be eased - and I fervently want to see starvation wiped out from the face of the earth as much as I believe you do. The answer isn't to keep handing them fish, so to speak...but to teach them how to fish. Aid has been sent there for many years now...and still they suffer.

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. As I stated earlier, we see the same problems, but have different solutions for them. I believe that the people of Africa can eliminate their own suffering...given the proper tools and methods, they can succeed. However...if the current climate there continues as it is, I see little hope for the masses of people that are starving, and suffering from disease.

1. Climate:....

Thank you for the insight; I found it very informative, CE. These of course have played a major role in the current situation. What I am saying is that Africans now have the ability to turn the tables and emerge out of the post-colonization chaos (something that South America also suffers from). Innovative ways of farming are available that could turn barren areas into productive ones...different ways of raising cattle can be used...political stability can be achieved if people are willing to do something about it...these things would serve to heal much of the damage. If a car is damaged, you seek to find out why. Simply buying a new one won't solve anything, especially if the driver possesses bad driving habits. That new car will end up damaged just like the old one.

[C Elegans]

@Chanak: I am impressed by you swift reply, which I unfortunately cannot return since I'm just about to go out. Anyway, thanks for you clarifying post, I will address it as soon as I can...but I feel I owe Scayde, Littiz, Fable and others some comments first.

As you may have seen, I do not by any means believe that aid in the form of simply giving money or food is the solution - but aid the form of know-how and simply stopping to maintain the situation, is not currently happening either.

Africas immediate future looks bleak indeed, especially the Sub-Saharan regions...