Tweet
Re: bolivia socializes thier oil....................
(1) I am not specifically in favour of forgiving debts, although one cannot deny in any way that they are the result of economic and political practices that have been aiming at tying African and South American economies to the Western ones in a subordinate position. This is pretty complex to explain in short, but it boils pretty much down to very unfavourable conditionalities attached to the loans whose effect in the end was a capital flight to the West rather than accumulation in the underdeveloped countries - whereas the dependencia theory voiced by the South American developement school is too extreme in putting the guilt on the Western countries, the modernization theory which was the bedrock of most Western development ideologies has been proven far too linear in it's approach in the first place, not to mention the fact that it does in no way take into account the cultural realm of politics and development: it basically states that we need to incorporate the underdeveloped countries in the modernization path which the West is following now. EG: "What is good for us, is good for you."
This implies a certain universalism in cultures all around the globe, a universal way of looking at modernization and development. Can you see how ridiculous that is? It is the particular (the Western neo-liberal ideology, which is but one of many) disguising as the universal. The failures in the past 40 years of development have proven this approach a grand failure already.
(2) My research this summer is EXACTLY about the new ideology which led to the African community not only asking for debt reduction, but also a financial ?plug? of 64 billion dollars a year during the period that they think they need to realize an array of (totally unrealistic) development goals. NEPAD ? The New Partnership for Africa?s Development ? is this new plan, and the African Peer Review Mechanism is what was supposed to serve as a review mechanism for the political and economic development which the subscribers to the programme have undergone. It was supposed to put a check on the governments that wish to enter it, and sanction those that did not qualify. This plan again (like the dependencia theory) places most of the guilt with the West and does in no way engage in some selfreflection for the continent when it comes to the political disorder which is still rampant on the continent and which is the biggest drawback on any possible form of development right now. It is this last issue (corruption, predatory politics and neopatrimonialism) that has drawn my attention, and I intend to serve as an agent which puts these issues in the spotlights so that finally the international community wakes the fuck up and African elites and governments start realizing that real development can never take place until real change takes place. The current way in which Africa politics and economics are exercised are not in any way compatible with the global market which thrives on the neo-liberal economic ideology.
You see, I?m not a fucking treehugger as some of you might seem to think. I?m not a proponent of the way in which the capitalist system and democracy are exercised right now (they mainly serve as a means to expand Western influence and spread Western values globally), but I am most certainly not blind to the fallacies of the systems that still prevail in the community of underdeveloped countries my friend.
The way you look at it would only work in an ideal setting, in which every actor in global economics and politics would be equal. But that is not how it is Sean: capitalism isn?t just about maximizing profits, but also about eliminating competition. It is extractive (I mean, how the fuck do you explain that most of the natural resources we use here come from underdeveloped nations??) and extremely eurocentric (include the US with that). The economies of the Asian Tigers and Dragons (including Japan, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, South-Korea) who are now among the strongest and fastest growing in the world did NOT grow in a free market environment, but have been shaped under the tight grip of rather authoritarian governments! Economic development has predominantly taken place where there was political stability, which leads to more confidence with investors. This means that our so much hailed democratic system is not a prerequisite for economic development or participation on the free market. What is important then though, is (1) when civil institutions are not strong enough to promote an environment that facilitates economic development, in most cases the state will have to fulfill this role, and (2) what the approach of a state in control is towards development. So I could in fact agree with your proposal to remove some of the regimes by force, lol?.
Think about it though?.about how practice has already proven the core of the European/US development school at fault. (Western values as a condition for development).
I still have to get back on the extractive nature of Western companies? investment in developing areas though, but this should do for now
Originally posted by thesightless
This implies a certain universalism in cultures all around the globe, a universal way of looking at modernization and development. Can you see how ridiculous that is? It is the particular (the Western neo-liberal ideology, which is but one of many) disguising as the universal. The failures in the past 40 years of development have proven this approach a grand failure already.
(2) My research this summer is EXACTLY about the new ideology which led to the African community not only asking for debt reduction, but also a financial ?plug? of 64 billion dollars a year during the period that they think they need to realize an array of (totally unrealistic) development goals. NEPAD ? The New Partnership for Africa?s Development ? is this new plan, and the African Peer Review Mechanism is what was supposed to serve as a review mechanism for the political and economic development which the subscribers to the programme have undergone. It was supposed to put a check on the governments that wish to enter it, and sanction those that did not qualify. This plan again (like the dependencia theory) places most of the guilt with the West and does in no way engage in some selfreflection for the continent when it comes to the political disorder which is still rampant on the continent and which is the biggest drawback on any possible form of development right now. It is this last issue (corruption, predatory politics and neopatrimonialism) that has drawn my attention, and I intend to serve as an agent which puts these issues in the spotlights so that finally the international community wakes the fuck up and African elites and governments start realizing that real development can never take place until real change takes place. The current way in which Africa politics and economics are exercised are not in any way compatible with the global market which thrives on the neo-liberal economic ideology.
You see, I?m not a fucking treehugger as some of you might seem to think. I?m not a proponent of the way in which the capitalist system and democracy are exercised right now (they mainly serve as a means to expand Western influence and spread Western values globally), but I am most certainly not blind to the fallacies of the systems that still prevail in the community of underdeveloped countries my friend.
The way you look at it would only work in an ideal setting, in which every actor in global economics and politics would be equal. But that is not how it is Sean: capitalism isn?t just about maximizing profits, but also about eliminating competition. It is extractive (I mean, how the fuck do you explain that most of the natural resources we use here come from underdeveloped nations??) and extremely eurocentric (include the US with that). The economies of the Asian Tigers and Dragons (including Japan, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, South-Korea) who are now among the strongest and fastest growing in the world did NOT grow in a free market environment, but have been shaped under the tight grip of rather authoritarian governments! Economic development has predominantly taken place where there was political stability, which leads to more confidence with investors. This means that our so much hailed democratic system is not a prerequisite for economic development or participation on the free market. What is important then though, is (1) when civil institutions are not strong enough to promote an environment that facilitates economic development, in most cases the state will have to fulfill this role, and (2) what the approach of a state in control is towards development. So I could in fact agree with your proposal to remove some of the regimes by force, lol?.
Think about it though?.about how practice has already proven the core of the European/US development school at fault. (Western values as a condition for development).
I still have to get back on the extractive nature of Western companies? investment in developing areas though, but this should do for now
and who the f--k is Lincoln Steffins? Hehehe...you're entitled to your own opinion, as long as you don't oversimplify reality. That just kills any decent analysis of the complex problems we're dealing with here...
Alain de Benoist was right, people who think like this should be shipped to new zealand to operate their little shangrila
Comment