Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Argentina: Lessons for Anarchism
Since winter inhabitants of Argentina are attacking the State, holding its
accomplices from left and extreme left to ridicule. They challenge
capitalism, create general assemblies to a large scale never seen since
1936 Spain; and all that without any leader coming on the stage.....
accomplices from left and extreme left to ridicule. They challenge
capitalism, create general assemblies to a large scale never seen since
1936 Spain; and all that without any leader coming on the stage.....
Since winter inhabitants of Argentina are attacking the State, holding its
accomplices from left and extreme left to ridicule. They challenge
capitalism, create general assemblies to a large scale never seen since
1936 Spain; and all that without any leader coming on the stage. They chose
to struggle freely against state and capitalist terrorism. In Buenos Aires
the inhabitants are organizing themselves in neighbourhood general
assemblies and are trying to control their lives.
Whatever will the result be, this movement has already broken the old
ideological moulds trough the praxis of two new assets (that will be now
those of the internationalist class struggle): Direct democracy, the
refusal of state institutions. [1]
This new situation of the international revolution should make anarchists
happy. But, in France, as elsewhere, anarchist movement is too often
trapped in practices showing its vulnerability toward mainstream ideology:
participation to antiglobalization spectacle, reformism in the workplace in
the name of "efficient syndicalism", pathetic alliances, here with
nationalist-regionalist, there with leftists? It's time, if we really want
to pro-pose and participate to the building of another society, free and
just, to come back to our sources, praxis coherent with our ideas, an
horizontal praxis, autonomous and non-spectacular. Events in Argentina are
giving to worldwide anarchists a lesson.
Surprising position of some left libertarians [anarchists]
On December 20th 2001 the population is fighting against the state and
there's an alliance of the
poorest with middle class. This alliance is mainly the result of a failed
political scheming.
At the beginning, middle class wanted only to get their investments back and
didn't care about others' misery. At the same time the poorest, starving,
were looting for several weeks. The government, to preserve interests of
international capitalism, prepared a new coup and was ready to present
itself as the defender of order against "anarchy". The government thought
that the middle class would stay on the right side, accepting that deal: to
be ruined but without insecurity. The cornerstone of the strategy,
promulgation of state of emergency, had the opposite effect: it sealed
alliance of all the discontented. The cause is simple: in Argentina, an
incredible number of people understood how the system works and decided to
end with it and all that it represents. That's why, as soon as December
20th, there has been a rejection of political parties and labour unions.
This rejection will bring astonishing declaration by parts of the anarchist
movement. Argentina OSL declared: "But curiously, one of the distinctive
attitude of the demo (of 02/12/20) was the complete refusal of political
parties. This attitude, promoted by medias, was playing in favour of
disorganization and fragmentation, favourable to the right". That position
was published, without commentaries, by OSL Switzerland, and by other
anarchists' medias such as "Alternative Libertaire" in France and "Tierra y
Libertad" in Spain.
It is an appalling defence of parlementarism. It supports the
counter-revolutionary idea that without politician apparatus and labour
unions, the popular movements cannot exist!
What happened on the 20th of December? The crowd is in the streets, the
state is overwhelmed,
parties and labour unions are rejected, police kills thirty-one persons,
there's a lot of confusion. Should we be afraid of that confusion? All
revolutionary movement is forced to organize with the contradictions of
those who are doing revolution. It is the role of each anarchist militant to
work hard, to use all its potential to clarify and unify, with
communist-libertarian perspective, the oppressed classes fighting against
the state and capitalism.
How could parties and the unions play a role in that revolutionary task?
What does it mean to pose the problem in terms of "right" or "left" when it
is clearly in terms of "revolution" or
"counter-revolution"? On the contrary we thanks argentina insurgents for
having accomplished this first necessary step, this truly revolutionary
step.
Clarifications
There is in argentina, some "anarchist militants" who joined the way of
thinking of leftists groups in their will to sabotage all attempt of popular
self-organization.
On the other side, argentina anarchist federation, F.O.R.A (argentina
section of IWA) and other
militants acknowledged positive aspects of that struggle. As soon as
January 2000, "Organizacion
Obrera" (Workers Organization) the paper of F.O.R.A explained the main
aspects of the fight.
Labour unions and left and extreme-left politicians were clearly denounced
as enemies of the
workers. Their rejection by the population is an encouraging sign. Then
"Organizacion Obrera"
insists on the definition of anarchists' concepts and their methods. It is
remind that if the state and the institutions are denouncing situation for
now in Argentina as anarchy, it is not anarchy in the country! What is
happening is a step toward the decay of power. In fact the chaos in
argentina is caused by the state and capitalism, not by anarchists ideals.
Argentina's anarchosyndicalists know that the period is important but that
the people has a lot to do to organize a society with social and libertarian
bases. That's why they insist to make their project real. "We F.O.R.A
activists are a worker organization who has for social finality anarchist
communism and that do not mean that we spend all day breaking windows. This
is what the liars are saying to protect their economic well-being and their
political power. Anarchism, on the contrary, means a new society with
horizontal structure, without benefices for ones against others, where
everyone can decide in free assemblies of economic and daily orientations.
That society is only possible in a framework of social and economic equality
for all persons in the society?" In the same paper, an article proposes the
creation of general local assemblies, one assembly of neighbourhood
delegates, mandated and removable, some local, regional and international
delegates, always removable, and the control of production and consumption
by these assemblies.
Lessons for the future
These contributions are not only coherent with our ideas, they reflect
reality. Here is the proof. At the very time when resources of F.O.R.A allow
only a confidential diffusion of its ideas, argentina population,
rediscover, invent practices similar to the propositions of FOR A. As soon
as mid February, an article in Le Monde (02/02/20) notes that "In Buenos
Aires the residents are organizing in neighbourhood assemblies (?) "they
must all go!" This slogan designates politicians, judges, bankers or labour
unionists (?) Every Sunday the different neighbourhood delegations have
general meetings where the speakers are informing of the work in each
neighbourhood and propose new struggles instructions?All decisions are taken
with a vote by show of hands, no speaker can speak in the name of a
political party, there's a systematic turnover of delegates positions?"
Other testimonies shows the difficult position for politicians and unionists
leaders, who are forced to disguise themselves to be able to go in the
street, Of course we can imagine all the pain it inflicts on wanna be
leaders!
Argentina population is having an amazing struggle. But one should temper
its optimism. For many
reasons. The main one is that those who are strong enough to usually
present themselves as the
supporter of the oppressed, but who are only the pimps, are already trying
to penetrate, infiltrate, corrupt the bases structures by stressing the many
contradictions and difficulties they have to deal with daily. Because praxis
of direct democracy is not easy. Above all when the social conditions, such
as collective re-appropriation of the means of production, are not carried
out. Scoundrels of bourgeoisie, politics and unionism are having hard times.
They're waiting. If the struggle weakened, if those who have to work to live
are getting tired, if they go back to earn their daily food, then the
scoundrels will be able to seize power and restart capitalism. Until the day
when all world proletarians, inspired by the events in argentina, will take
necessary measures in order to abolish economic slavery.
Yvon
Combat Syndicaliste # 73 - April/May 2002
(1) These events reminds those in Algeria in April 2001 following the
assassination of a young man by the police " The most outstanding aspect of
the Algerian insurrection is its self-organisation. The hostility toward
political parties and "any proximity with power", the distrust with any
uncontrolled representation, the refusal to be, once more, rank and file for
political schemes; all that resulted in the spreading and coordination of
villages and neighbourhood assemblies, rapidly recognized by everybody as
the only authentic expression of the movement." Jaime Semprun, "Plaidoyer
pour l'insurrection algerienne", Encyclopedie des nuisances.
http://bibliolib.net/Semprun-Algerie.htm
L'actualité de l'Anarcho-syndicalisme http://cnt-ait.info
contact [at] cnt-ait.info
accomplices from left and extreme left to ridicule. They challenge
capitalism, create general assemblies to a large scale never seen since
1936 Spain; and all that without any leader coming on the stage. They chose
to struggle freely against state and capitalist terrorism. In Buenos Aires
the inhabitants are organizing themselves in neighbourhood general
assemblies and are trying to control their lives.
Whatever will the result be, this movement has already broken the old
ideological moulds trough the praxis of two new assets (that will be now
those of the internationalist class struggle): Direct democracy, the
refusal of state institutions. [1]
This new situation of the international revolution should make anarchists
happy. But, in France, as elsewhere, anarchist movement is too often
trapped in practices showing its vulnerability toward mainstream ideology:
participation to antiglobalization spectacle, reformism in the workplace in
the name of "efficient syndicalism", pathetic alliances, here with
nationalist-regionalist, there with leftists? It's time, if we really want
to pro-pose and participate to the building of another society, free and
just, to come back to our sources, praxis coherent with our ideas, an
horizontal praxis, autonomous and non-spectacular. Events in Argentina are
giving to worldwide anarchists a lesson.
Surprising position of some left libertarians [anarchists]
On December 20th 2001 the population is fighting against the state and
there's an alliance of the
poorest with middle class. This alliance is mainly the result of a failed
political scheming.
At the beginning, middle class wanted only to get their investments back and
didn't care about others' misery. At the same time the poorest, starving,
were looting for several weeks. The government, to preserve interests of
international capitalism, prepared a new coup and was ready to present
itself as the defender of order against "anarchy". The government thought
that the middle class would stay on the right side, accepting that deal: to
be ruined but without insecurity. The cornerstone of the strategy,
promulgation of state of emergency, had the opposite effect: it sealed
alliance of all the discontented. The cause is simple: in Argentina, an
incredible number of people understood how the system works and decided to
end with it and all that it represents. That's why, as soon as December
20th, there has been a rejection of political parties and labour unions.
This rejection will bring astonishing declaration by parts of the anarchist
movement. Argentina OSL declared: "But curiously, one of the distinctive
attitude of the demo (of 02/12/20) was the complete refusal of political
parties. This attitude, promoted by medias, was playing in favour of
disorganization and fragmentation, favourable to the right". That position
was published, without commentaries, by OSL Switzerland, and by other
anarchists' medias such as "Alternative Libertaire" in France and "Tierra y
Libertad" in Spain.
It is an appalling defence of parlementarism. It supports the
counter-revolutionary idea that without politician apparatus and labour
unions, the popular movements cannot exist!
What happened on the 20th of December? The crowd is in the streets, the
state is overwhelmed,
parties and labour unions are rejected, police kills thirty-one persons,
there's a lot of confusion. Should we be afraid of that confusion? All
revolutionary movement is forced to organize with the contradictions of
those who are doing revolution. It is the role of each anarchist militant to
work hard, to use all its potential to clarify and unify, with
communist-libertarian perspective, the oppressed classes fighting against
the state and capitalism.
How could parties and the unions play a role in that revolutionary task?
What does it mean to pose the problem in terms of "right" or "left" when it
is clearly in terms of "revolution" or
"counter-revolution"? On the contrary we thanks argentina insurgents for
having accomplished this first necessary step, this truly revolutionary
step.
Clarifications
There is in argentina, some "anarchist militants" who joined the way of
thinking of leftists groups in their will to sabotage all attempt of popular
self-organization.
On the other side, argentina anarchist federation, F.O.R.A (argentina
section of IWA) and other
militants acknowledged positive aspects of that struggle. As soon as
January 2000, "Organizacion
Obrera" (Workers Organization) the paper of F.O.R.A explained the main
aspects of the fight.
Labour unions and left and extreme-left politicians were clearly denounced
as enemies of the
workers. Their rejection by the population is an encouraging sign. Then
"Organizacion Obrera"
insists on the definition of anarchists' concepts and their methods. It is
remind that if the state and the institutions are denouncing situation for
now in Argentina as anarchy, it is not anarchy in the country! What is
happening is a step toward the decay of power. In fact the chaos in
argentina is caused by the state and capitalism, not by anarchists ideals.
Argentina's anarchosyndicalists know that the period is important but that
the people has a lot to do to organize a society with social and libertarian
bases. That's why they insist to make their project real. "We F.O.R.A
activists are a worker organization who has for social finality anarchist
communism and that do not mean that we spend all day breaking windows. This
is what the liars are saying to protect their economic well-being and their
political power. Anarchism, on the contrary, means a new society with
horizontal structure, without benefices for ones against others, where
everyone can decide in free assemblies of economic and daily orientations.
That society is only possible in a framework of social and economic equality
for all persons in the society?" In the same paper, an article proposes the
creation of general local assemblies, one assembly of neighbourhood
delegates, mandated and removable, some local, regional and international
delegates, always removable, and the control of production and consumption
by these assemblies.
Lessons for the future
These contributions are not only coherent with our ideas, they reflect
reality. Here is the proof. At the very time when resources of F.O.R.A allow
only a confidential diffusion of its ideas, argentina population,
rediscover, invent practices similar to the propositions of FOR A. As soon
as mid February, an article in Le Monde (02/02/20) notes that "In Buenos
Aires the residents are organizing in neighbourhood assemblies (?) "they
must all go!" This slogan designates politicians, judges, bankers or labour
unionists (?) Every Sunday the different neighbourhood delegations have
general meetings where the speakers are informing of the work in each
neighbourhood and propose new struggles instructions?All decisions are taken
with a vote by show of hands, no speaker can speak in the name of a
political party, there's a systematic turnover of delegates positions?"
Other testimonies shows the difficult position for politicians and unionists
leaders, who are forced to disguise themselves to be able to go in the
street, Of course we can imagine all the pain it inflicts on wanna be
leaders!
Argentina population is having an amazing struggle. But one should temper
its optimism. For many
reasons. The main one is that those who are strong enough to usually
present themselves as the
supporter of the oppressed, but who are only the pimps, are already trying
to penetrate, infiltrate, corrupt the bases structures by stressing the many
contradictions and difficulties they have to deal with daily. Because praxis
of direct democracy is not easy. Above all when the social conditions, such
as collective re-appropriation of the means of production, are not carried
out. Scoundrels of bourgeoisie, politics and unionism are having hard times.
They're waiting. If the struggle weakened, if those who have to work to live
are getting tired, if they go back to earn their daily food, then the
scoundrels will be able to seize power and restart capitalism. Until the day
when all world proletarians, inspired by the events in argentina, will take
necessary measures in order to abolish economic slavery.
Yvon
Combat Syndicaliste # 73 - April/May 2002
(1) These events reminds those in Algeria in April 2001 following the
assassination of a young man by the police " The most outstanding aspect of
the Algerian insurrection is its self-organisation. The hostility toward
political parties and "any proximity with power", the distrust with any
uncontrolled representation, the refusal to be, once more, rank and file for
political schemes; all that resulted in the spreading and coordination of
villages and neighbourhood assemblies, rapidly recognized by everybody as
the only authentic expression of the movement." Jaime Semprun, "Plaidoyer
pour l'insurrection algerienne", Encyclopedie des nuisances.
http://bibliolib.net/Semprun-Algerie.htm
L'actualité de l'Anarcho-syndicalisme http://cnt-ait.info
contact [at] cnt-ait.info
For more information:
http://www.ainfos.ca/ainfos13021.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Argentina should dollarize. Had the Argentinian government done this instead of hinting it would devalue the Peso, this whole macroeconomic crisis could have been averted.
While Argentina still has significant economic issues to address, it does not need the burden of trying to pay dollar-denominated debt in devlaued Pesos.
It is not too late for Argentina to dollarize. Moreover, if the macroeconomic crisis is not worked out shortly, the country will have 10 years or more of time when no one anywhere will invest there due to the bank deposit freezes ordered by the government. Kurt Schuler said it best:
Argentina's currency crisis and economic depression have been caused by the bad policies of its government—not by banks, speculators, the International Monetary Fund (despite the bad advice it has given), or other scapegoats. The De la Rúa and Duhalde governments have made several gigantic blunders, namely,
increasing tax rates,
freezing bank deposits,
devaluing the peso, and
forcibly converting dollar bank deposits and contracts into pesos ("pesofication").
At present, all property is potentially subject to government control or confiscation. There is little reason for anybody to produce, save, or invest in Argentina. The country is returning to the failed economic model that caused so much trouble in the 1980s and had to be jettisoned from 1989 to 1991.
Fixing Argentina's currency and economy requires reversing those blunders and returning to policies that respect private property and encourage the private saving, investment, and initiative that create economic growth. The main steps necessary in the short term are:
officially dollarize, converting all peso assets, liabilities, and prices into dollars;
to the extent possible, reverse the damage done by pesofication of deposits;
reconstruct the financial system; and
drastically reduce tax rates."
While Argentina still has significant economic issues to address, it does not need the burden of trying to pay dollar-denominated debt in devlaued Pesos.
It is not too late for Argentina to dollarize. Moreover, if the macroeconomic crisis is not worked out shortly, the country will have 10 years or more of time when no one anywhere will invest there due to the bank deposit freezes ordered by the government. Kurt Schuler said it best:
Argentina's currency crisis and economic depression have been caused by the bad policies of its government—not by banks, speculators, the International Monetary Fund (despite the bad advice it has given), or other scapegoats. The De la Rúa and Duhalde governments have made several gigantic blunders, namely,
increasing tax rates,
freezing bank deposits,
devaluing the peso, and
forcibly converting dollar bank deposits and contracts into pesos ("pesofication").
At present, all property is potentially subject to government control or confiscation. There is little reason for anybody to produce, save, or invest in Argentina. The country is returning to the failed economic model that caused so much trouble in the 1980s and had to be jettisoned from 1989 to 1991.
Fixing Argentina's currency and economy requires reversing those blunders and returning to policies that respect private property and encourage the private saving, investment, and initiative that create economic growth. The main steps necessary in the short term are:
officially dollarize, converting all peso assets, liabilities, and prices into dollars;
to the extent possible, reverse the damage done by pesofication of deposits;
reconstruct the financial system; and
drastically reduce tax rates."
For more information:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-445es.html
The last comment may provide ways to mitigate the disaster of capitalism, which is truly to blame here. A better answer would be to abolish private property, put human need before human greed, and eliminate the problems of capitalist alienation, starvation, homelessness, and a brutal government which has always served the interests of the international ruling elite .... even if it does make a few policy errors which upset the masters.
Mao's China (10's of millions dead), North Korea (millions dead), Cuba (hundreds of thousands risk death to escape), Ethiopia (government owned land ensures eternal poverty), Zimbawe (Mugabe's political buddies get land, others starve)....the list goes on and on.
You really can't change the laws of economics. Free markets are a reality. They've been around since before recorded time. They work because price signals drive production of what people need.
They also work because both buyer and seller benefit from a free transaction. Buyers get more for a transaction than they think the item is worth (else, they wouldn't sell it for less than what it is worth). Sellers get the item for less than they think it is worth (else, they wouldn't buy it for more than they think it is worth). Both benefit, and the item goes to the person with the most need, as signalled by price. The price signals producers to produce as it is needed by consumers.
Centralized "planning" of economies has always failed to match need and production, leading often to starvation, and also almost always leads to DICTATORIAL CONTROL from the Center by whoever can grab it, even if the path to economic dictatorial control was begun by democracy. It is too much power for any politican to wield....which brings us to the screw ups of the Argentinian government in freezing bank accounts...
Free markets are decentralized systems. They encourage freedom because attempts to reduce freedom distort price signals in the economy. The most economically free countries have the best functioning economies (and you and I can play on the Internet together). There is also a significant correlation between politically free and economically free countries, for reasons that are also linked to the avoidance of market distortion.
There is a reason why the poorest 10% of economically free countries do much better than the poorest 10% of economically unfree countries.
Anyway, if you want Argentina to be like Cuba, you may have some trouble selling that to the people down there...
You really can't change the laws of economics. Free markets are a reality. They've been around since before recorded time. They work because price signals drive production of what people need.
They also work because both buyer and seller benefit from a free transaction. Buyers get more for a transaction than they think the item is worth (else, they wouldn't sell it for less than what it is worth). Sellers get the item for less than they think it is worth (else, they wouldn't buy it for more than they think it is worth). Both benefit, and the item goes to the person with the most need, as signalled by price. The price signals producers to produce as it is needed by consumers.
Centralized "planning" of economies has always failed to match need and production, leading often to starvation, and also almost always leads to DICTATORIAL CONTROL from the Center by whoever can grab it, even if the path to economic dictatorial control was begun by democracy. It is too much power for any politican to wield....which brings us to the screw ups of the Argentinian government in freezing bank accounts...
Free markets are decentralized systems. They encourage freedom because attempts to reduce freedom distort price signals in the economy. The most economically free countries have the best functioning economies (and you and I can play on the Internet together). There is also a significant correlation between politically free and economically free countries, for reasons that are also linked to the avoidance of market distortion.
There is a reason why the poorest 10% of economically free countries do much better than the poorest 10% of economically unfree countries.
Anyway, if you want Argentina to be like Cuba, you may have some trouble selling that to the people down there...
Cuba has the highest per capita GNP of all Carribean nations.
If centralized economies didn't work I'd like for you to explain why the Russian economy was able to compete with the American economy under communism, but is now, under capitalism, pretty much a joke.
Perhaps you could also explain why, when Nazi Germany moved to a system of state enterprise, the economy became a powerhouse.
Face it: America is a land of enormous natural wealth, with no aggressors on its borders. This is the reason it does well, not because of any ideological dogma about economy. In any case the American economy is not free market.
The American gov't has a massive prison labour corporation known as UNICOR. This is just one example I will give you. UNICOR operates completely on tax money for the setup of its facilities, in the jails, paying no rent for that space. It pays workers as low as 23 cents per hour. Now, so far, you might be thinking, so what. But if you're a capitalist you might want to think about this.
UNICOR's profits from its huge variety of products - pretty much everything from brushes to office furniture - do not get returned to the government but rather are claimed as profit by UNICOR, which uses it to expand. UNICOR competes with private companies in the private sector with added advantages over and above the ones I have already mentioned (virtually free labour and totally free facilities). UNICOR can force by law any government agency, when purchasing goods, to obtain them from UNICOR. See http://www.niehs.nih.gov/omamb/unicor.html
There can be no appeal, and the price need not be reasonable (as an example UNICORs riding mowers are about $17000). It is known as a "mandatory source". But it doesn't only compete with private firms for the government market - UNICOR also sells product on the open market as well, competing directly with private industry. Is this a free and open market place when the government has a thing like that going? Hardly. There really isn't much difference between that and Chinese prisoner labour or state enterprise in the old Soviet gulags.
UNICOR is no recent invention. Newly renamed, it used to exist under the name "Federal Prison Industries Inc." and has been around over 6 decades.
A few good links on the subject:
http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1693
http://www.jubilee-newspaper.com/maynard_94.htm
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw33/pgs_10-19/prison-labor.html
Now if you really do support capitalism, this is something you ought to oppose. And this isn't something the left thought up. This is a cherished Republican project. Which is why I say these issues are never so simple as they appear in the first place. The Republicans, and the Democrats for that matter - the ruling elite in short - speak "free enterprise" but what they DO is another matter entirely, and always has been.
If centralized economies didn't work I'd like for you to explain why the Russian economy was able to compete with the American economy under communism, but is now, under capitalism, pretty much a joke.
Perhaps you could also explain why, when Nazi Germany moved to a system of state enterprise, the economy became a powerhouse.
Face it: America is a land of enormous natural wealth, with no aggressors on its borders. This is the reason it does well, not because of any ideological dogma about economy. In any case the American economy is not free market.
The American gov't has a massive prison labour corporation known as UNICOR. This is just one example I will give you. UNICOR operates completely on tax money for the setup of its facilities, in the jails, paying no rent for that space. It pays workers as low as 23 cents per hour. Now, so far, you might be thinking, so what. But if you're a capitalist you might want to think about this.
UNICOR's profits from its huge variety of products - pretty much everything from brushes to office furniture - do not get returned to the government but rather are claimed as profit by UNICOR, which uses it to expand. UNICOR competes with private companies in the private sector with added advantages over and above the ones I have already mentioned (virtually free labour and totally free facilities). UNICOR can force by law any government agency, when purchasing goods, to obtain them from UNICOR. See http://www.niehs.nih.gov/omamb/unicor.html
There can be no appeal, and the price need not be reasonable (as an example UNICORs riding mowers are about $17000). It is known as a "mandatory source". But it doesn't only compete with private firms for the government market - UNICOR also sells product on the open market as well, competing directly with private industry. Is this a free and open market place when the government has a thing like that going? Hardly. There really isn't much difference between that and Chinese prisoner labour or state enterprise in the old Soviet gulags.
UNICOR is no recent invention. Newly renamed, it used to exist under the name "Federal Prison Industries Inc." and has been around over 6 decades.
A few good links on the subject:
http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1693
http://www.jubilee-newspaper.com/maynard_94.htm
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw33/pgs_10-19/prison-labor.html
Now if you really do support capitalism, this is something you ought to oppose. And this isn't something the left thought up. This is a cherished Republican project. Which is why I say these issues are never so simple as they appear in the first place. The Republicans, and the Democrats for that matter - the ruling elite in short - speak "free enterprise" but what they DO is another matter entirely, and always has been.
If you are totally urged to respond - it took me awhile to learn this - then simply title your post "troll alert" and write "The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
yelling "troll alert" is a copout. the poster made points. those points deserve a response.
to the "troll": what's going on in argentina is not state communism. it's almost the opposite. rather than central control, you have neighborhoods rising up and making decisions for themselves.
to the "troll": what's going on in argentina is not state communism. it's almost the opposite. rather than central control, you have neighborhoods rising up and making decisions for themselves.
If you are totally urged to respond - it took me awhile to learn this - then simply title your post "troll alert" and write "The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
"If centralized economies didn't work I'd like for you to explain why the Russian economy was able to compete with the American economy under communism"
Please provide documented evidence.
Please provide documented evidence.
for website with articles on the argentina assembly movement, check out
http://argentinanow.tripod.com.ar
http://argentinanow.tripod.com.ar
If I really need to document the Cold War and the arms race and space race to you, I don't think there is much chance of us having a logical discussion. I should think you would be aware of these events.
On Cuba: up until 1990, Cuba received $4-$6 billion each year from the USSR. That's $400-$600 per Cuban per year! When this came to an end, Cuba's economy went into a deep reccession that it has not yet recovered from.
Moreover, to survive, Cuba is experimenting in FREE MARKET experiments, as China is doing. Liberalized farmers markets were introduced in 1994 to sell above quota produce at MARKET PRICES. 25% of the Cuban labor force is now in non-state industries.
After a 35% GDP drop from 1990-1995, there is now some single-digit per year GDP growth in Cuba. Thanks to the free market. But Castro's dictatorship keeps strict limits on this, so don't expect things to get much better soon.
I don't know where you get your facts. GDP purchasing power parity per capita in Cuba is about $1,700 per year. This compares with $1,800 in a country that has been truly fucked up by dictatorship as well, Haiti. Jamaica's is $3,700. Compare Cuba with Islands whose governments and economies are similar to developed nations. Martinique's is $11,000. Puerto Rico's is $10,000.
One more issue: private property. Most land in South America is NOT private property as we know it in the US. In Peru, for instance, only 20% of farmland has legal title. The rest is basically "unowned" or owned by the government, despite the fact that poor farmers live and work the land. The land beneath their feet cannot be sold, and cannot be used as collateral for a loan. It is what economists call "dead capital."
The poor of the developing world should own hundreds of times the total amount of all foreign aid ever given. But due to a combination of poor private land laws, corruption, government land ownership, and government red tape, the poor on small farms and living in shanty towns are kept from owning the land beneath them.
If they owned their land, the poor could put their capital to work. They could get loans. Their children could sell the land when a parent dies to divide its value or to buy each other out, instead of simply subdividing a farm of a reasonable size into several that are too small.
Land ownership also encourages the development of utilities such as sewers, telephones, and running water, since people are far more answerable to debts when they own land.
Moreover, to survive, Cuba is experimenting in FREE MARKET experiments, as China is doing. Liberalized farmers markets were introduced in 1994 to sell above quota produce at MARKET PRICES. 25% of the Cuban labor force is now in non-state industries.
After a 35% GDP drop from 1990-1995, there is now some single-digit per year GDP growth in Cuba. Thanks to the free market. But Castro's dictatorship keeps strict limits on this, so don't expect things to get much better soon.
I don't know where you get your facts. GDP purchasing power parity per capita in Cuba is about $1,700 per year. This compares with $1,800 in a country that has been truly fucked up by dictatorship as well, Haiti. Jamaica's is $3,700. Compare Cuba with Islands whose governments and economies are similar to developed nations. Martinique's is $11,000. Puerto Rico's is $10,000.
One more issue: private property. Most land in South America is NOT private property as we know it in the US. In Peru, for instance, only 20% of farmland has legal title. The rest is basically "unowned" or owned by the government, despite the fact that poor farmers live and work the land. The land beneath their feet cannot be sold, and cannot be used as collateral for a loan. It is what economists call "dead capital."
The poor of the developing world should own hundreds of times the total amount of all foreign aid ever given. But due to a combination of poor private land laws, corruption, government land ownership, and government red tape, the poor on small farms and living in shanty towns are kept from owning the land beneath them.
If they owned their land, the poor could put their capital to work. They could get loans. Their children could sell the land when a parent dies to divide its value or to buy each other out, instead of simply subdividing a farm of a reasonable size into several that are too small.
Land ownership also encourages the development of utilities such as sewers, telephones, and running water, since people are far more answerable to debts when they own land.
By the way, I do not support prison labor. Nor do I support the War on Drugs, which is inherently against free global trade, and imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans who should instead be free and a part of the free market. And I don't vote demopublican. Or Green.
I believe in freedom. OTOH, economics is a science. I feel that believing in unlimited socialism is like believing in creationism. Unlimited socialism goes against all the economic science we have.
Free markets have won. China, Cuba, and even now North Korea are trying out market experiments. The problem, of course, is that you need freedom for free markets to do well, and all of those three countries will recognize this in your lifetime.
What we need to do now for the world's poor is to ensure that there are private property rights, and that privatization is done equitably (which is tough). In countries with no history of modern capitalism, it will take a while. Russia only this year voted to allow the private sale of farms. But the revolution is happening.
At the same time, we have spoiled Westerners who have lived with 150 years of modern property laws, hundreds of years of free markets, and 50-200 years of political freedom depending on your sex and race. Wsterners don't realize the cause of our prosperity and hyperpower status. We need to understand this, and learn how to communicate this to the world's poor, not just the developing world's elites.
I believe in freedom. OTOH, economics is a science. I feel that believing in unlimited socialism is like believing in creationism. Unlimited socialism goes against all the economic science we have.
Free markets have won. China, Cuba, and even now North Korea are trying out market experiments. The problem, of course, is that you need freedom for free markets to do well, and all of those three countries will recognize this in your lifetime.
What we need to do now for the world's poor is to ensure that there are private property rights, and that privatization is done equitably (which is tough). In countries with no history of modern capitalism, it will take a while. Russia only this year voted to allow the private sale of farms. But the revolution is happening.
At the same time, we have spoiled Westerners who have lived with 150 years of modern property laws, hundreds of years of free markets, and 50-200 years of political freedom depending on your sex and race. Wsterners don't realize the cause of our prosperity and hyperpower status. We need to understand this, and learn how to communicate this to the world's poor, not just the developing world's elites.
No Shit 4 Brains!!!! I want you to document that "the Russian economy was able to compete with the American economy under communism" as you stated. Give me some GDP figures to back up your claim. I'm confident you can't Mr. "logic fails me". You lie and now you can't produce evidence to back up your lie. Copy and paste this for future reference everyone. You're washed up, son. Not like you weren't before.
I have to dispute your reasoning about the cause of our prosperity. I think it has alot more to do with being able to use our more powerful military to force markets open where they might not otherwise be opened. We inherited this from the British and, it would seem, we continue this behaviour.
As far as centralized economies go, you have to remember that in 1913 Russia's GNP per capita was about one-twelfth that of the USA. By 1937, just over 20 years into Communism, Soviet per capita GNP rose to about one third of the American equivalent. Despite the ravages of the war, by the 1970s the Soviet economy, alone in the world, was able to compete directly with the American economy and per capita GNP had risen to about half that of the Americans. Not only that but it was competing with America technologically in the space race and in fact scored quite a few victories there.
Of course you might well ask, well, what happened then? The same thing, basically, as what happenned to the Germans in WW2, who had a very similar type of thing known as "state enterprise". Political problems brought them down, which led to economic problems. The fault wasn't with the economics, it had much more to do with the geopolitcal situation combined with the arms race. Permanently occupying a quarter of the planet costs alot of money. America, which is proposing occupation of numerous Middle Eastern nations on a long-term basis may indeed learn this lesson soon enough.
In my humble opinion, Cuba's situation again is not so much a question of economics as it is one of geopolitics. The money loaned by the USSR didn't even cover the money lost by the trade embargo (which, by the way, is in direct violation of free market theory - which states government should not interfere in trade).
China's millions of dead, as you pointed out, were the result of civil war, not bad economics. The Chinese economy is growing VERY fast. One thing you seem to fail to remember is that these countries all started out very poor before they switched to centralized economies, and aren't going to catch up any time soon. The only centralized economy I can think of that didn't start out in extreme poverty was Nazi Germany, and even then, it was in the midst of a fairly serious depression. This economy as an example didn't just catch up, it overshot the British Empire - which was unimaginable at the time - in the space of a few short years.
Of course all of these economies practice some degree of free enterprise. And the more they do, usually the better, to a point. The two most succesful of those that I have mentioned - China and Germany - practice(d) a fair bit of it.
I'm not saying that centralized economies are better than free markets. Its more complex than that, its not black and white. Centralized economies are very good at managing large territories with scattered resources, or at repairing a devastated economy. They offer some stability. They have also many faults, primarily the politics involved. Its more like the right wing and the left wing. You don't want to go too far in either direction. Extremism is dangerous and all too often backfires. In the 30s in the capitalist world we saw this happen; the economy, an extremist free market, collapsed in hyperinflation, because there were no checks and balances. War resulted and afterwards, it was learned that some centralization of the economy was indeed desirable (Keynesian economics). Alot of very wealthy people, however, were untouched by the Depression and in fact made alot of money by the policies which caused the collapse. They were able to further better their situation by acquiring capital at undervalued prices during the depression. I'm not talking about the moderatly rich here, who were jumping out of windows on Wall Street or begging for food at farms after the collapse, I'm talking about the very very wealthy and powerful.
Now, they feel, the lessons of the war have been forgotten and they can use their power to effect political changes to the same policies as before, and again reap a harvest. This is what is happening in my humble opinion.
A really great site on this is at http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/THE_GREAT_DEPRESSION.htm
Be sure to check the timeline they have there, it is very informative.
As far as centralized economies go, you have to remember that in 1913 Russia's GNP per capita was about one-twelfth that of the USA. By 1937, just over 20 years into Communism, Soviet per capita GNP rose to about one third of the American equivalent. Despite the ravages of the war, by the 1970s the Soviet economy, alone in the world, was able to compete directly with the American economy and per capita GNP had risen to about half that of the Americans. Not only that but it was competing with America technologically in the space race and in fact scored quite a few victories there.
Of course you might well ask, well, what happened then? The same thing, basically, as what happenned to the Germans in WW2, who had a very similar type of thing known as "state enterprise". Political problems brought them down, which led to economic problems. The fault wasn't with the economics, it had much more to do with the geopolitcal situation combined with the arms race. Permanently occupying a quarter of the planet costs alot of money. America, which is proposing occupation of numerous Middle Eastern nations on a long-term basis may indeed learn this lesson soon enough.
In my humble opinion, Cuba's situation again is not so much a question of economics as it is one of geopolitics. The money loaned by the USSR didn't even cover the money lost by the trade embargo (which, by the way, is in direct violation of free market theory - which states government should not interfere in trade).
China's millions of dead, as you pointed out, were the result of civil war, not bad economics. The Chinese economy is growing VERY fast. One thing you seem to fail to remember is that these countries all started out very poor before they switched to centralized economies, and aren't going to catch up any time soon. The only centralized economy I can think of that didn't start out in extreme poverty was Nazi Germany, and even then, it was in the midst of a fairly serious depression. This economy as an example didn't just catch up, it overshot the British Empire - which was unimaginable at the time - in the space of a few short years.
Of course all of these economies practice some degree of free enterprise. And the more they do, usually the better, to a point. The two most succesful of those that I have mentioned - China and Germany - practice(d) a fair bit of it.
I'm not saying that centralized economies are better than free markets. Its more complex than that, its not black and white. Centralized economies are very good at managing large territories with scattered resources, or at repairing a devastated economy. They offer some stability. They have also many faults, primarily the politics involved. Its more like the right wing and the left wing. You don't want to go too far in either direction. Extremism is dangerous and all too often backfires. In the 30s in the capitalist world we saw this happen; the economy, an extremist free market, collapsed in hyperinflation, because there were no checks and balances. War resulted and afterwards, it was learned that some centralization of the economy was indeed desirable (Keynesian economics). Alot of very wealthy people, however, were untouched by the Depression and in fact made alot of money by the policies which caused the collapse. They were able to further better their situation by acquiring capital at undervalued prices during the depression. I'm not talking about the moderatly rich here, who were jumping out of windows on Wall Street or begging for food at farms after the collapse, I'm talking about the very very wealthy and powerful.
Now, they feel, the lessons of the war have been forgotten and they can use their power to effect political changes to the same policies as before, and again reap a harvest. This is what is happening in my humble opinion.
A really great site on this is at http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/THE_GREAT_DEPRESSION.htm
Be sure to check the timeline they have there, it is very informative.
The USSR did manage to creat large industries, military, and space.
What it failed in was making products that the Russian people themselves wanted. That is the difference between a consumer-oriented free market and central planning.
USSR agriculture itself had many failures. In 1932-1933, 5-10 million peasants starved to death. In 1953, Krushchev publicly aknowledged that Soviet agriculture policies had failed. The only saving grace was produce from private plots of land, representing 3% of the area under cultivation, but produced 40% of milk and meat, 60% of potatoes, and 73% of eggs. But the state directed farms never approached the productivity of US farms.
In 1980, you may remember the grain embargo on the USSR for invading Afghanistan. Without imports, many would have starved in the USSR even into the 80's.
Soviet Economic development:
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/stalin/lectures/EconDev.html
Moreover, millions in China did not die from "civil war," tens of millions of Chinese died from starvation due to the failure of centrally planned agriculture.
I admit that there does need to be some regulation of the economy. In particular, I am a believer in stable currency. In the last 20 years, the US Federal Reserve has done a great job. I believe that the gold standard played a major role in the Great Depression, as did massive tariffs put into place early in the crisis. But I also admit that the Security and Exchange Commission is probably a good idea.
Unfortunately, socialist politics have been destorying South American currency values for most of the last 50 years. Hyperinflation was a fact of life in many countries there, as it is in Argentina now.
The point is ARGENTINA SHOULD DOLLARIZE as Ecuador, Panama, and El Salvador have. The Peso-Dollar link was a nice idea, but we saw what happened, at the first sight of political risk it was broken. Full Dollarization is reall the best hope for most South American countries until their economies come into a truly modern state.
What it failed in was making products that the Russian people themselves wanted. That is the difference between a consumer-oriented free market and central planning.
USSR agriculture itself had many failures. In 1932-1933, 5-10 million peasants starved to death. In 1953, Krushchev publicly aknowledged that Soviet agriculture policies had failed. The only saving grace was produce from private plots of land, representing 3% of the area under cultivation, but produced 40% of milk and meat, 60% of potatoes, and 73% of eggs. But the state directed farms never approached the productivity of US farms.
In 1980, you may remember the grain embargo on the USSR for invading Afghanistan. Without imports, many would have starved in the USSR even into the 80's.
Soviet Economic development:
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/stalin/lectures/EconDev.html
Moreover, millions in China did not die from "civil war," tens of millions of Chinese died from starvation due to the failure of centrally planned agriculture.
I admit that there does need to be some regulation of the economy. In particular, I am a believer in stable currency. In the last 20 years, the US Federal Reserve has done a great job. I believe that the gold standard played a major role in the Great Depression, as did massive tariffs put into place early in the crisis. But I also admit that the Security and Exchange Commission is probably a good idea.
Unfortunately, socialist politics have been destorying South American currency values for most of the last 50 years. Hyperinflation was a fact of life in many countries there, as it is in Argentina now.
The point is ARGENTINA SHOULD DOLLARIZE as Ecuador, Panama, and El Salvador have. The Peso-Dollar link was a nice idea, but we saw what happened, at the first sight of political risk it was broken. Full Dollarization is reall the best hope for most South American countries until their economies come into a truly modern state.
Did you actually read the link you gave, fred?
Its extremely interesting. However, it does not discuss anything beyond 1963.
Its extremely interesting. However, it does not discuss anything beyond 1963.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$180.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network