Thailand & China

Peter K. peterk at enteract.com
Thu Feb 17 17:33:33 PST 2000


Daniel Davies:
>>My
>>retort would
>>be that what looks to exploiters' apologists as development is often far
>>worse
>>than the alternative.


>As a matter of logic, exploitation under capitalism is always better than
>the alternative, because people with better alternatives can't be
>exploited. The point is to ask why _that_ alternative is _the_
>alternative.

Crimeny, I don't get it. Admittedly, my statement (above) wasn't very clear or well-put. I wasn't referring to Krugman's alternative - no development whatsoever - but rather to "sustainable development" or to some kind of kinder, gentler, democratic development.

Doug sez: "But Krugman will never ask that, or he wouldn't have a NYT column. To him the only two choices are exploitation or marginalization."

What's the other choice or alternative?

alternatively confused, Peter



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list