While I agree that to some extent the existing problems in Africa are due to bad colonialism from Europe and mixed-message support from Europe and the US, that doesn't have anything at all to do with what I said in my previous post and is off topic for this thread.vici10 said:The problems in Africa are not cultural. The problem that it has a lot of natural resources. And it is well known that US will support any dictator in third world country if it means profit for its corporations.
Do you understand just how patronising and arrogant this sounds? (And either hopelessly naive or outright hypocritical.)russ_watters said:Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.
There is no need to furnish me with a list. I know the history of my country and what you are talking about is irrelevant to the issue of this thread and irrelevant to the point I was making. I will not permit this to become another random US-bashing thread. You've been warned: stay on topic.Sea Cow said:Do you understand just how patronising and arrogant this sounds? (And either hopelessly naive or outright hypocritical.)
Even if 'we' swoop in and crush dictators etc etc.
Do you not know the recent history of your own country (assuming you're American) in setting up and supporting dictators around the world over the last half century? I could furnish you with a list if you like.
I did no such thing. You didn't read my post either!zomgwtf said:russ not to drag this thread further off topic but I don't think it's right for you to blame Africa's condition on internal cultural problems.
Then we are in agreement!I've studied African culture and ancient African cultures and I can definitely say that while they did have their fair share of cultural difficulties the majority of their problems came from Europe and friends.
I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'. I would say exactly the same about my own country, the UK, and the poisoned legacy it has left behind in its former colonies in Africa and elsewhere. I'm new here, so I don't know the culture of the place yet, but it seems an odd way to go about things to tell someone they are dragging a thread off-topic for pulling them up directly on what they themselves have posted.russ_watters said:What I said was that that they can take advantage of and prosper under democracy/capitalism like the west. It won't be easy - because of those cultural problems you acknowledge they have - but they can do it. That's it. That's all I said. Everything else being brought up here was generated by people with a chip on their shoulder about the US.
You might note (underscored text)...Sea Cow said:What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa
Russ said:Why? Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.
Sea Cow said:I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'. I would say exactly the same about my own country, the UK, and the poisoned legacy it has left behind in its former colonies in Africa and elsewhere. I'm new here, so I don't know the culture of the place yet, but it seems an odd way to go about things to tell someone they are dragging a thread off-topic for pulling them up directly on what they themselves have posted.
It is the west that has messed up Africa in 200 years of colonialism, shaping the various economies there to fit the needs of the 'mother country' rather than the needs of the various countries' own people. The same goes for Latin America and US intervention there.
I see optimistic signs in Bolivia, Venezuela and elsewhere that people are starting to come up with their own regionally and culturally appropriate solutions. They don't need an enlightened West to show them the way. Quite the opposite – they need real fair trade with the West and beyond that to be left alone. Just as Britain, as the former colonial master, is the last country in the world that can help Zimbabwe, so the US is the last country to be trying to sort out its former 'backyard', Latin America. Real democracy can mean the dismantling of capitalist modes of production, which have left the majority population destitute. Capitalism ≠ democracy. Pinochet was an extremist monetarist capitalist loon. In Chile and many places elsewhere, democracy was overthrown in order to preserve/impose capitalism.
I happen to believe it is our responsibility, in part because of the hand we've had in causing the problems, but again, that piece of this is irrelevant. However democracy can come to Africa, Africa can be capitalist/democratic. That was my point. Yes, I suggested a way that capitalism/democracy could come to Africa and if you don't like it, fine! Maybe Africa's dictators will some day choose to hand over their countries to the people. Maybe the people will revolt. I really don't know nor do I care - for the purpose of this thread - how it could happen. The point, again, is that Africa could prosper under democracy -- but it can't happen overnight because of their cultural problems. That's it!Sea Cow said:I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa...
The fact that you are still harping on a minor and irrelevant part of my post while ignoring the main point shows that that part of my post hit a sorespot for you. Get over it....was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'.
You seem to be using a very very different definition of capitalism than commonly used. Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.AlexES16 said:The ANEP that is the private sector even buyed death squads to mass murder inocent people and people that was against the right wing capitalist dictadorship. By the way the dictadorship was suported by US with millions of dollars and military equipment. But at the end the people united can't be defeated by imperialism.
I think that a large bulk of Africa's problems are the result of western interventionism. For example, If the aid provided by western governments that is intended to be directed to assist the africans in poor living conditions did not go to the hands of the corrupt dictators who of course will not spend the money on who it was directed at, they would not remain in power. The spread of malaria could be partly blamed on the environmentalists in western countries that persuaded governments to banned the ddt vaccine that would have prevented malaria from spreaded and 40 million africans would not have unnecessarily died from malaria. Yes the problems that exist in africans stem directly from africans themselves, but western governments and western environmentalists exacerbated many of the problems in AfricaI happen to believe it is our responsibility, in part because of the hand we've had in causing the problems, but again, that piece of this is irrelevant. However democracy can come to Africa, Africa can be capitalist/democratic. That was my point. Yes, I suggested a way that capitalism/democracy could come to Africa and if you don't like it, fine! Maybe Africa's dictators will some day choose to hand over their countries to the people. Maybe the people will revolt. I really don't know nor do I care - for the purpose of this thread - how it could happen. The point, again, is that Africa could prosper under democracy -- but it can't happen overnight because of their cultural problems. That's it!
What does that mean? Your freedom to do whatever you want may be impinging on another's freedom not to be acted on by those such as you behaving how they want.Al68 said:No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.
vici10 said:Since mheslep demanded references, I provide some references. They show that war in Congo was mostly fueled by desire of corporations to make profit from mineral resources of Congo, that it is not about culture.
The references:
Friends in high places; Richard C. Morais, Forbes Magazine 08-10-1998
http://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0810/0109038a.html
Al68 said:You seem to be using a very very different definition of capitalism than commonly used. Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.
No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.
The results of economic freedom are obvious: higher standard of living for middle class and poor people. The inevitable result of government controlled economies is just as obvious: Mass poverty.
Of course no one should have the freedom to do whatever they want, only those things that don't violate the rights of others. In this context, voluntary trade of goods and services obviously doesn't violate anyone's rights. Using force or fraud clearly would, and should be illegal.Sea Cow said:What does that mean? Your freedom to do whatever you want may be impinging on another's freedom not to be acted on by those such as you behaving how they want.
Again, no, but the question isn't relevant to the issue, since the resources in question aren't limited. At least not in the U.S., where even unused land is plentiful.Where do you stand on freedom of ownership. Should I be free to own an essential, limited resource and charge you rent to use it?
If you're using the words "freedom to exploitand be exploited" to refer to the voluntary exchange of goods and services, then it's not strange at all. "Exploiting" opportunities is how poor people escape poverty.That's a strange kind of freedom – the freedom to exploit and be exploited.
Sorry, I was too lazy to watch it all. So I can only say I agree with the first two minutes of it.AlexES16 said:You mean this?
This simply isn't true. Have a read of some literature about the labour movement in the US in the first half of the 20th century and how it was brutally and often illegally suppressed. Socialism appears to have been largely written out of US history, but up to the 1940s, it was very much there and a force among the many who worked in industry, who sold their labour in a 'market' that screwed them if they did not come together and fight collectively for better conditions.Al68 said:Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.
Yep. It also includes brutal and often illegal coercion of labor by the union leadership. The film 'On the Waterfront' is a dramatic fictional account but reflective in many ways of reality.Sea Cow said:This simply isn't true. Have a read of some literature about the labour movement in the US in the first half of the 20th century and how it was brutally and often illegally suppressed.
That's an overstatement of localized Jim Crow laws.Sea Cow said:You might also wish to consider the fairness of the price that slaves and the descendants of slaves received for their labour right up to living memory in the US, which only ceased to be a formally racist state just over 40 years ago.
In may be in those places that people are coerced by the government to work there, but that condition aside, why do they have no leverage? Were those people forced at gunpoint to work there? Why can't they go elsewhere? Who is to say that $5/day in some parts of the world is extortion? Perhaps they left 5 cents/ day elsewhere for those jobs.Sea Cow said:Once you move away from the US and look at the position of, for instance, the Indian builders who died in their hundreds building the Burj Dubai, all for the princely sum of $5 per day, your position becomes simply ludicrous. Those who control capital impose their terms on those who have no leverage. There is nothing free about such a market.
Are you really that naive? The have no leverage because they are poor and they have no collective organisation to represent them.mheslep said:In may be in those places that people are coerced by the government to work there, but that condition aside, why do they have no leverage? Were those people forced at gunpoint to work there? Why can't they go elsewhere? Who is to say that $5/day in some parts of the world is extortion? Perhaps they left 5 cents/ day elsewhere for those jobs.
Overstatement, you say?mheslep said:That's an overstatement of localized Jim Crow laws.
Sea Cow said:Perhaps they did leave even worse-paid jobs to go there, but the fact remains that most of the value of their labour was not paid to them. It was taken by the developers to make their millions – how? because they are the ones in control of capital, that's why. This idea that the poor would better themselves if only there were more free trade is laughable nonsense. Try looking beyond your own borders occasionally to see how other people live.