I don't know about the other NICs, but here in Taiwan there is no clash between the "developmentalists" and the "neoliberals." No one challenges the market, and there's little left of the developmental state.
I'm as befuddled as Rakesh about why you would seem to suggest that the only choice for the third world is either "Brazilian-underdevelopment" or bureaucratic, state-managed, hyper-exploitative, gendered capital accumulation.
Surely people's responses to the contradictions of global capitalism have been more creative, no?
Jonathan Lassen
PS And how do you solidarize with a contradiction?
-----ì©l¶l¥ó----- ±H¥óªÌ: Dennis R Redmond <dredmond at oregon.uoregon.edu> ¦¬¥óªÌ: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> ¤é´Á: 2000¦~4¤ë7¤é PM 07:50 ¥D¦®: Sowing Dragons
>On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>> post Cold War the protection lent to the favored NICS. At any rate,
>> Dennis, I am just baffled about how you can be such an enthusiast for
that
>> Frankfurt critic of technology and the totally administered society and
at
>> the same celebrate the worse kinds of capital accumulation from the
>> perspective of labor and the environment.
>
>Worse compared to what? You'd rather, then, that South Korea be
>consigned to Brazilian-style underdevelopment? My point would be that the
>developmental state is to the global Left what the Soviet Union was to the
>20th century Left: the limit-point of Third World praxis, which you have
>to creatively engage, push in a radical direction, etc. To fight the total
>system, you solidarize with its global contradictions, and one of its
>biggest is the clash between the neoliberals and the developmental states
>they would like to annihilate.
>
>-- Dennis
>
>