06 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere is too much wrong with the following remark to allow it to go without comment:
if the hungry africans had anything that the western world wanted, and had enough stability to demand payment for it, instead of warlords giving it away for guns, they wouldn't be starving.
that is another discussion however. the point i was trying to make is that there is enough food to feed everyone. theoretically.
if the hungry africans had anything that the western world wanted, and had enough stability to demand payment for it, instead of warlords giving it away for guns, they wouldn't be starving.If the hungry Africans have nothing the West wants, then what it is that warlords are giving away for guns and to whom?
There was a reason why the western powers engaged in their rush to colonize Africa which had a lot to do with Africa being replete with stuff they wanted. The trouble with colonies is that they do entail some limited degree of responsibility which today can be evaded by engaging instead in exploitative terms of trade. The process of first colonizing and then de-colonizing will, if you examine it, supply all the explanation required for that lack of stability which you bemoan and for the ongoing power of warlords. Behind every debt that Africans are unable to repay, you will find a western bank or government lending on unfair terms to corrupt and undemocratic post-colonial governments. The continuing Western interference in African governance is illustrated for example by the story of the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup d'état attempt, in which Mark Thatcher, son of the sainted and utterly mad Margaret Thatcher, was criminally implicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thatcher#2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat_attempt
Oxfam has campaigned against the unfair terms of trade imposed on Africa by the West, saying for example as follows:
"For every dollar given in aid, two are stolen through unfair trade, costing the poor world $100bn a year," said Oxfam's executive director in Hong Kong, Chong Chan-yau.
Oxfam claims that trade rules are 'rigged' against the poor
"Globalisation is leaving millions in despair, creating a world more unequal than ever before, when it could do the exact opposite," he said.
The charity calculated that 130 million people could be lifted out of poverty if Africa, Latin America and poor parts of Asia were allowed to increase their share of global commerce by just 1%.
In Africa alone, that would generate $70bn a year - five times the amount the continent gets in aid, the report says.
06 May 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe continuing attempts by the west to secure unfair advantage for their corporations in Africa are seen in bilateral trade "agreements" with the US, the EU. For example:
http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/july-2007/africans-fear-%E2%80%98ruin%E2%80%99-europe-trade-talks
The US government's "Feed the Future" programme was referred to in a post on this forum some weeks ago. e,g,
http://feedthefuture.gov/model/african-agricultural-capital-fund
Again, this exposes Africans to intolerable intrusion on unfair, exploitative terms by American agricultural giants.
An interesting feature of the Chinese agreements in Africa and Latin America is that they are far less inclined to interfere politically in the partner countries or regions and that is giving them a competitive advantage over the West in some important matters concerning land and resources.
07 May 14
Originally posted by finneganIf the hungry Africans have nothing the West wants, then what it is that warlords are giving away for guns and to whom?
There is too much wrong with the following remark to allow it to go without comment:if the hungry africans had anything that the western world wanted, and had enough stability to demand payment for it, instead of warlords giving it away for guns, they wouldn't be starving.If the hungry Africans have nothing the West wants, then what it is t ...[text shortened]... enerate $70bn a year - five times the amount the continent gets in aid, the report says.[/quote]
do you understand what an AND is? both stability and something to bargain for are required.
cheap labour, cheap resources, there are plenty the west can simply take without offering anything in return, simply because there is nobody to object.
the rest of your rant has to do, again, with the lack of stability.
07 May 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedit doesn't matter to the people if the money received for a certain resource goes to arm whatever warlord is in charge at the moment. that warlord also sells whatever resource there is at a lower price, because there are 10 other competing psychopaths in the region who might underbid him. they all contribute to the low level of living.
07 May 14
Originally posted by Zahlanzi..and..?
If the hungry Africans have nothing the West wants, then what it is that warlords are giving away for guns and to whom?
do you understand what an AND is? both stability and something to bargain for are required.
cheap labour, cheap resources, there are plenty the west can simply take without offering anything in return, simply because there is nobody to object.
the rest of your rant has to do, again, with the lack of stability.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou clearly fail to understand my use of "and" in my post. The use of "...and..? invites you to continue and implies that your thought was incomplete. It invites you to continue your line of argument and clarify what point you were trying to make since what you posted seemed to me to go nowhere.
nothing apparently. you haven't advanced the discussion.
Difficult word "and" - don't you agree?
07 May 14
Originally posted by normbenignI'm not a "critic of capitalism" and I don't think anyone who ever glanced at an economics book thinks that sellers ask the "highest possible price" (by definition, such a price is infinite). And for that matter, the same people don't believe that sellers will make sure that everyone can afford their product to maximize their profits. If you have a product that costs, say $2 to make, how could you possibly make a profit selling it to people who only have $1 to spend? A rational seller will try to maximize profits by finding a balance between the amount of people buying their product and the amount of money they are willing to pay. The real world is so rife of examples of products not everyone can afford (i.e. almost every product in existence) that I'm truly baffled you would deny their existence.
That is the fly in the ointment for critics of capitalism. Without any thought or experience, they presume sellers will always choose to sell at the highest possible price, to an obviously limited number of buyers. The real truth is that sellers make more by reducing prices to increase the number of buyers who can afford their product.
This has the ...[text shortened]... available to lower income people, as well as involving them in the production of what they use.
07 May 14
Originally posted by finneganno. you just spout nonsense to trigger a pointless discussion.
You clearly fail to understand my use of "and" in my post. The use of "...and..? invites you to continue and implies that your thought was incomplete. It invites you to continue your line of argument and clarify what point you were trying to make since what you posted seemed to me to go nowhere.
Difficult word "and" - don't you agree?
when you have something new to add, do so.
07 May 14
Originally posted by normbenign
That is usually facilitated by the motive of making profit.
http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/45135-capitalism-irish-famine.html
Capitalism and the Irish famine When you ask an ordinary person what the cause of the Irish famine was they will most likely say it was a failure of the potato crop. This is only partly true. The most important questions to ask is why were millions depending on a crop that was not even indigineous to Ireland? And why were the landowners exporting vast amounts of pork, beef and grain when the people were starving?
Ireland in fact produced enough food to feed 18 million people during the 1840s. However the market dictated that that the supply went where there was "demand". When capitalists harp on about supply and "demand", demand only includes those with money. The poor all over the world have many demands and needs but these will always be ignored by the capitalists.
The role of the state under capitalism is to protect private property. That is why the police and army protected the landlords and hung or deported those who tried to "steal" food.
07 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou posted a ridiculous comment about Africa to which I posted a reply, identifying a list of grounds that call your opinion into question. In turn, your reply did indeed demonstrate that further discussion would be pointless. But it was not pointless to make the observation which I did make. It served its purpose.
no. you just spout nonsense to trigger a pointless discussion.
when you have something new to add, do so.
The discussion of "and" was indeed pointless and it was you who introduced that odd topic, not me. I simply responded to your line of argument by mocking it.
When I have anything new to add, I will indeed take you up on your kind offer and hope again for a fair and intelligent hearing*.
(*Not from you, obviously).
07 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYounghttp://www.politics.ie/forum/history/45135-capitalism-irish-famine.html
Capitalism and the Irish famine When you ask an ordinary person what the cause of the Irish famine was they will most likely say it was a failure of the potato crop. This is only partly true. The most important questions to ask is why were millions depending on a crop ...[text shortened]... e and army protected the landlords and hung or deported those who tried to "steal" food.
The role of the state under capitalism is to protect private property. That is why the police and army protected the landlords and hung or deported those who tried to "steal" food. The fact is the only thieves were the landlords themselves. The capitalist robber baron will always use coercive methods to dispossess the people and then create laws to legalise their theft.
What Ireland needed in the 1840s was a mass revolution which placed the people in control of the lands. A planned economy could then be formed to produce according to people's needs and not for profit.
It is disgraceful that the history books are constantly being re-written so that capitalism and the capitalist state seem blameless. The revisionists wish us to believe that this was just an accident or an unavoidable tragedy. Maybe the capitalist "historians" will acknowledge the state could have done more to provide relief but that is all. It is inconvienient for the capitalists to acknowledge that the "free market" is the main cause of the saddest and most shameful part of irish history. That is why they will blame the potato. As George Orwell wrote "Those who control the present control the past".
It is also interesting to note that famines in non-capitalist countries are played up for the purposes of propaganda. Take the famine in China circa 1960 which is the greatest famine in history (although proportionately was not as bad as the Irish famine). This famine is exploited by capitalist historians for ideological reasons. While this famine was partly due to bad planning and naive farming practices enforced by the Party, the severe weather that destroyed many crop harvests are never reported by the capitalist historians.
Famines in capitalist countries are caused by natural disasters, famines in "communist" countries are caused by political theory.
07 May 14
1 edit
I thought it interesting to continue your quote and give it in full. It has some very odd arguments.
I completely agree (it is not contentious) that Ireland was producing and exporting food crops for profit throughout the famine. A primary political / economic objective was to simply free up land for the benefit of landowners who would prefer to introduce modern, capitalist farming methods instead of subsistence farming. Feeding the poor was always so inefficient to their minds. The landowners effectively put into effect plans previously considered by Cromwell to depopulate Ireland and plant it with more civilised (capitalist in our terms) farmers.
That said, it is quite bizarre to suggest that in the early 1840s, a solution was available (or could even have been imagined) by which a popular revolution would produce a planned economy based on needs and not profit.
The piece then appears to offer some rational defence or explanation for Mao's great famine. No it was not caused by the inclement weather. That is such idiocy it hardly merits debate. China has always had weather. Famines are not caused by weather or even by food shortages, but by the way governments react.
The evidence on famine is quite simple. It never happens in a democracy because democratic governments take the fairly accessible steps required to avoid its causes or ameliorate its effects. The last famine in India, for example, was the product of a political decision by Churchill, who despised Indians, and it was completely avoidable. Communism and imperialism are both direct causes of famine because both permit political decisions to be taken which directly harm their population.