I think I agree with the Vozhd.
"Wojtek is our battle glory, Wojtek is the flight of our youth."
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Dwayne:
>
>
> If you were given Stalin-esque authority over one of
> the impoverished, underdeveloped African countries
> you
> visit every year or so, what steps would you take to
> improve things...to spur modernization?
>
>
> [WS:] Before I answer this question, let me make a
> brief comment on the
> environmental concerns that you mentioned earlier.
> The problem with
> environment is not technology, but the choice of
> technology. Most of the
> pollution is caused by burning oil and coal - and
> that energy choice was for
> a large part politically motivated. Hydroelectric
> or even nuclear energy
> does not pollute nearly as much - but it requires a
> very different
> institutional arrangement - from rail based transit
> system rather than
> individual autos, to building construction
> regulations, international
> cooperation in sharing surplus energy etc. which
> may be politically opposed
> by various interest groups. So if I had Stalinesque
> authority - the
> lobbyists, lawyers and leaders of those interest
> groups opposing more
> efficient and less polluting energy sources would be
> digging ditches for
> hydroelectric dams in Siberia :)
>
> Now your African question. Brace yourself for what
> you will hear will
> ruffle some feathers.
>
> The main cause of African development is the
> structural inability of African
> states to provide that kind of investment in fixed
> and human capital that
> European and Asian states provided. The reason for
> that is timing. The
> European and Asian development occurred when the
> issues of intra-national
> hegemony and international sovereignty of the
> nation-states in question had
> been already settled. That is to stay, by the 19th
> century, most European
> states already passed the internal strife and civil
> conflicts with a
> relatively stable national government as undisputed
> sovereign ruler of the
> land. These governments did not have to fight for
> their existence with
> rival groups. Consequently they could invest in
> large scale national
> development project without the fear of those
> investment being captured by
> the rival gang and turned against them.
>
> Russia is probably a good illustration. Its major
> development occurred only
> after the Bolsheviks took power and suppressed all
> rivals by brute force.
> Other European governments had no rivals at that
> time all - challengers, yes
> (e.g. organized labor) but not rivals. The battle
> for intra-national
> European hegemony was for the most part over by the
> 18th century.
>
> This, however, is not the case of Africa. African
> states are basically a
> creation of colonial powers with little regard for
> local identities and
> power structures. The main form of local power
> structure, reinforced by the
> British colonial rule, is along the tribal lines.
> To maintain allegiance of
> their supporters, tribal chiefs had to give
> something in return i.e. buy
> that support with tangible goods.
>
> Now, if you have an artificially created state with
> multiple tribal
> identities within its borders, you have a
> prescription for perpetual
> internal conflicts, not dissimilar to internal
> strife in Europe during the
> Reformation. In that situation, no group holding
> the state power is going
> to invest in national development. They will use
> the available resources to
> solidify their power by buying allegiances the
> traditional way - by paying
> off their supporters. That is the only rational
> thing to do. Otherwise,
> they would be giving the resources to people who
> will shoot them during the
> next putsch.
>
> So with that in mind, my solution - or think of it
> more like a though
> experiment because it cannot possibly be implement
> under the current
> political conditions, involves two steps.
>
> Step 1. Abolish the existing African states, and
> replaced them with
> pan-African structure of territorial administrative
> units based on tribal
> and ethnic affiliations. The federal government
> would have the power
> comparable to the US fed - control of the military,
> legislative, fiscal and
> the power to override all local decisions. This
> move would reduce the level
> of internal strife currently under way in Africa.
> BTW, pan-Africanism is
> not a new idea in that continent.
>
> Step 2. "Re-colonize" African economy by selling
> development rights to
> outside investors, in the same way former Soviet
> block countries sold their
> aging plants to Western or Asian companies. This
> would provide development
> capital and training that would boost local capacity
> and develop skilled
> labor. Of course the central/federal Pan-African l
> government would
> regulate that development with an iron first and
> would not allow any
> neo-liberal nonsense of individual companies doing
> as they please.
> Individual companies would be guaranteed stability
> and the protection of
> their investment in exchange of their acceptance of
> strong regulation. This
> arrangement would not only build local capacity, but
> also integrate Africa
> to the global economy.
>
> Of course, this only a thought experiment, which
> will probably be fiercely
> opposed by nationalists and populist of all stripes.
> But I think it is
> something that, if implemented correctly, would work
> much better than
> current haphazard development policies of wild goose
> chasing and following
> managerial fads.
>
> Wojtek
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Lyubo, bratsy, lyubo, lyubo, bratsy, zhit!
ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ËÞÁÎ, ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ÆÈÒÜ!
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265