Julien Benichou
Tom Laichas
The Other Side of History
The End of the Third World: Transparency and the fake neutrality
At the end of his introduction Prashad writes, “The world was bettered by the attempt to articulate a Third World agenda. Now it is impoverished for the lack of that motion.” (Prashad XIX) Yet I ask what has really changed since the end of the Third World movement? Have all the counties who were in the movement fallen into poverty? And if the movement meant and did so much, why hasn’t the third world attempted to rekindle this old flame which supposedly brought a voice to these countries? The fact remains that cultural divides had ended up becoming more of a factor then leaders like Nehru or Nasser had expected. Pan-Africanism and such ideas have been abandoned today. Independent states are having enough trouble with their own ethnic tribes, why would they trouble themselves with forming an even wider community. Many African countries can’t worry about the first world as they are having enough trouble not going to war with each other (look at Ethiopia and Eritrea). Europe has gone through hundreds of years of war before forming the EU, it feels rushed to try and form a Third World organization which attempted to ignore ethnicity. For these reasons, the failure of the Third World passed quietly and unnoticed on the world stage, as all the countries involved had already abandoned the cause as illegitimate and useless.
Though Prashad notes that Third World nations are impoverished, we can see tremendous growth in one of the Third World’s founding nations: India. Jawaharlal Nehru’s dream was to bring the world together to with his five principles for peaceful coexistence:
1. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty
2. Mutual non-aggression
3. Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
4. Equality and mutual benefit
5. Peaceful co-existence
Having coined the term “non-Alignment” Nehru can be considered the father of the Third World and such powerful movements as the “Non-Aligned” movement. Yet today we see an India which has not held up the torch which Nehru left. Whether it was Indira Gandhi who changed Nehru’s politics, or a need to focus on more local issues, India fell out of the Third World game. And yet, the end of the Third World has not impoverished India. On the contrary, India is now seeing more growth then it ever has with an 8.5% GDP real growth rate in 2007 (CIA World Fact Book) (compare that to the US’ 2% GDP real growth rate). Common criticism of Nehru has stated that while Nehru was off trying to unite the world, he had forgotten about India. Nehru’s will to fix everything had gotten in the way of his fiscal policies. With food shortages a common occurrence in Nehru’s time, his Socialist policies had limited production in both the factories and the agricultural communities. Serious strikes occurred in places like Bihar, yet Nehru wasn’t there to see them. Other countries and leaders, disheartened by the local economic problems India had under Nehru, choose to focus on themselves before trying to enter the world stage.
Burma, a major supporter of the Bandung Conference, turned into the military Junta while the Third World was still strong. Pre-Military Junta Burma, led by U Nu, was a country which completely agreed with Nehru’s policies for non-alignment. They had rejected most foreign aid, refused to join SEATO, and tried to remain impartial in world affairs. Such a country, I’m sure, was applauded to a certain extent by the leaders at Bandung. U Nu, was seen at the time as one of the great heroes of the Third World Movement. In fact U Nu has been mentioned by Prashad quite a few times as a hero. Yet, U Nu wasn’t able to hold on to his Burma. As his party split, a harsh military Junta took advantage and began its tyrannical reign over Burma. Near the beginning of the Junta’s reign or what it called “Burmese Way to Socialism”, a peaceful student protest against the government had arisen on Rangoon University Campus. The military crushed the protest and killed at least 100 students. Brutalities like this characterized the military junta in Burma. Yet where was the rest of the Third World which had promised to protect peaceful co-existence and justice? Had the powerful Nehru and the Third World, supposed advocates of human rights, turned a blind eye to Burma? Leaders like Ne Win abruptly cut off Burmese third world views in an attempt to focus on domestic socialist policies. A once powerful Third World player fell, and the Third World, even at the height of its power, could do nothing.
The fall of the Soviet Union brought a logical finale for the Third World project. As the Third World Project and its spawns were heavily based on Non-Alignment politics, it makes sense that the organization came to evaporate from the world stage with the fall of the USSR. The Bi-Polar world of the cold war disappeared and left only the United States and Western Europe in charge, a Uni-Polar world. The Third World, already divided, had lost its main tactic for improvement and a common bond: neutrality. The fall of the USSR meant that the second world was going to join the first world, and many satellite countries of the USSR threw off Socialism in favor of Democracy. The fall of the USSR also dealt the final blow to the illusion of neutrality which existed in the Third World. With many changes happening in the third world in quick succession after the fall of the Soviet Union, it became transparent that neutrality had been a myth which had been destroyed long ago. Countries in the Third World, like Yugoslavia, which had bolstered non-alignment, fell or dramatically changed without the aid of the soviets to keep them afloat (Ethiopia’s loss of Eritrea is one example). Religious wars broke out in numerous places as many socialist governments lost funding. The dissolution of a bi-polar world led to the final death rattle for non-alignment. Countries in the Third World failed to withstand from entering first and second world politics and even the most involved countries came to lose faith in their own movement
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Curtin chapter 14 (forgot to post)
Chapter 14 of the world and west deals with Ghanian independence. Ghana started as an area with 4 separate kingdoms. This remained until the Ashanti Empire came to be and brought each kingdom under its rule. For a long time Ghana was used as a trade diasporas. Until in 1870 Britain took over. Britain created Ghana out of the Ashanti Empire, British TogoLand, and the Gold Coast. Under the leadership of Kwame Nkrumah, in 1957 Ghana gained independence from Britain. The country supposedly became a Democratic nation (I have my doubts). What is extremely relevant about Ghana, is that it was the first Democratic country to gain its independence in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Great Leaders
Julien Benichou
December 22nd, 2007
Tom Laichas
The Other Side of History
Great Leaders
Vijay Prashad and I both share similar goals and values when it comes to the Third World. However, I differ from Prashad when discussing the great third world leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement: Sukarno of Indonesia, Nasser of Egypt, Nehru of India, Tito of Yugoslavia, Nkrumah of Ghana. Prashad honors these leaders as revolutionaries fighting the 1st and 2nd world powers in order to help their nation and other third world nations around them to find their place in the world. Though this may be the case, Prashad chooses to ignore the shady aspects of all the leaders mentioned and how many eventually seized power as rulers for life. At the Bandung conference ten points were created based off of the U.N. charter and Nehru’s Five Principles for Peaceful Co-existence for all the states of the non-alligned movement to honor (Prashad never mentioned this at all, maybe because he knew that none of the countries even came close to following them and might have never had any intention to follow them):
1.Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes
and principles of the charter of the United Nations.
2.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3.Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all
nations large and small
4.Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs
of another country
5.Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or
collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
6. a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence
to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
7.Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
8.Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as
negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as
other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with
the charter of the united nations
9.Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10. Respect for justice and international obligations.
The state which attended the Bandung conference agreed unanimously to follow these points. Ironically, though leading the Bandung conference and dramatically helping in the creation of these points, the powerful third world leaders mention above failed to follow these points themselves. Prashad never discusses how these influential political leaders had domestically harsh despotic regimes, refusing to share power with anybody ( it can be argued that, though I think so, Sukarno and Nehru were quite good about respecting the opposition parties and the rights of all human beings). The eventual foundering of the third world or Non-Aligned Movement (which still exists), stems from the mishaps and failures of these great leaders to follow their own points.
Gamel Abdul Nasser, one of the most well known third world leaders, broke many of the points agreed upon during the Bandung conference. Nasser’s involvment in the Yemen War alone proves his disobedience to most of the points agreed upon. Malcontent with the regime in Yemen, and convinced that Yemen had helped bring the downfall of the pan-arab union of Syria and Egypt (in hopes of one day having an even bigger pan-arab union), Nasser siezed his chance to occupy Yemen in 1962. The invasion proved disastrous, and though Nasser had not intended to send many troops to Yemen (thinking it would be easy), each consecutive year that Egypt stayed in Yemen, he kept sending more and more troops. We can see blatantly that Nasser broke both point 7 and 8 with his careless invasion of Yemen. His later Six Day War and War of Attrition (though probably sparked by Israel’s attempt to grab the Suez Canal), also marked a distance from the points which he created and swore to follow. Domestically, Nasser’s habit of crushing opposition parties and communists (starting with his brief time as Prime Minister right after Naguib’s original resignation, where he actively threw out military personnel who supported Neguib) can be seen as disrespect for justice or human rights (as he un-lawfully imprisoned many communists).
Kwame Nkrumah, named Africa’s man of the century by the BBC, also made major mistakes in his time as leader of Ghana. In 1954 when the price of cocoa shot up, Nkrumah made the mistake of trying to further tax the cocoa farmers in order to take some of the extra revenue and use it for the state. This caused him to quickly fall into disfavor with a group which had helped him win the election. In 1958 he introduced the Trade Union Act which made strikes illegal, this might have been created from the gold minors strikes of 1955. In 1961, when the railway workers went on strike, he imprisoned them all. Also in 1958 the preventive detention act was legalized, this act allowed anybody deemed a traitor to be imprisoned without going through the court system. Many viewed this as a means of imprisoning innocent people who opposed Nkrumah’s rule. Their fears may have been confirmed when in 1964 Nkrumah proclaimed himself President for life of both Ghana and his party. Nkrumah, in his blind attempt for fast industrialization, forgot to protect the rights of his people and treat them fairly. His building of the Akosombo Dam also plunged the country into deep debt. On a side note, it was well known how Nkrumah was making attempts to modernize Ghana’s army. In a test for how much Ghana’s military had improved, Nkrumah sent military support to rebels fighting the Smith Administration in Southern Rhodesia or modern day Zimbabwe.
The point of this essay was not to demonize Nkrumah or Nasser, both have had great accomplishments for their countries which I obviously have not mentioned. History writing can never be objective, I take this as a fact. However, Prashad’s blatant bias for these leaders allows for his text to be diluted. Showing the leaders in a good light is understandable, but never referring to their political mishaps or their disregard for the principles agreed upon at the Bandung conference (or even mentioning the principles) seems highly sophomoric. What I mean by this is that Prashad couldn’t get over his respect for these leaders enough to show the reader everything that happened at the Bandung conference. This means that he is committing an injustice to the reader in favor of keeping the leaders’ prestige intact in his own mind. In some sense, he values the leaders more then the readers. Though some may argue that the leaders’ mishaps have nothing to do with the overall meaning of the Bandung conference, I would argue very much to the contrary. The leaders of the Bandung conference represented the values of the conference. Disregard by one of the main leaders showed all the other states which attended the Bandung conference the illegitimacy of the conference and the points agreed upon. As I’ve experienced in my travels in France, people characterize the United States by the mishaps of George W. Bush. They completely ignore the fact that 49% percent (if that number is correct) of the country voted against him in the 2000 elections. By agreeing to be involved and further to take a leadership role in the Bandung conference, these leaders agreed to be symbols of the Bandung conference and even the Non-Aligned Movement as a whole. Prashad’s book focuses on the failures of the Non-Aligned Movement or “third world”, and yet he fails to ever mention any of these facts. As of yet in the book, Prashad has yet to blame any of the failures of the Non-Aligned Movement on the countries involved (instead of the first or second world).
December 22nd, 2007
Tom Laichas
The Other Side of History
Great Leaders
Vijay Prashad and I both share similar goals and values when it comes to the Third World. However, I differ from Prashad when discussing the great third world leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement: Sukarno of Indonesia, Nasser of Egypt, Nehru of India, Tito of Yugoslavia, Nkrumah of Ghana. Prashad honors these leaders as revolutionaries fighting the 1st and 2nd world powers in order to help their nation and other third world nations around them to find their place in the world. Though this may be the case, Prashad chooses to ignore the shady aspects of all the leaders mentioned and how many eventually seized power as rulers for life. At the Bandung conference ten points were created based off of the U.N. charter and Nehru’s Five Principles for Peaceful Co-existence for all the states of the non-alligned movement to honor (Prashad never mentioned this at all, maybe because he knew that none of the countries even came close to following them and might have never had any intention to follow them):
1.Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes
and principles of the charter of the United Nations.
2.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3.Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all
nations large and small
4.Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs
of another country
5.Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or
collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
6. a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence
to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
7.Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
8.Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as
negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as
other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with
the charter of the united nations
9.Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10. Respect for justice and international obligations.
The state which attended the Bandung conference agreed unanimously to follow these points. Ironically, though leading the Bandung conference and dramatically helping in the creation of these points, the powerful third world leaders mention above failed to follow these points themselves. Prashad never discusses how these influential political leaders had domestically harsh despotic regimes, refusing to share power with anybody ( it can be argued that, though I think so, Sukarno and Nehru were quite good about respecting the opposition parties and the rights of all human beings). The eventual foundering of the third world or Non-Aligned Movement (which still exists), stems from the mishaps and failures of these great leaders to follow their own points.
Gamel Abdul Nasser, one of the most well known third world leaders, broke many of the points agreed upon during the Bandung conference. Nasser’s involvment in the Yemen War alone proves his disobedience to most of the points agreed upon. Malcontent with the regime in Yemen, and convinced that Yemen had helped bring the downfall of the pan-arab union of Syria and Egypt (in hopes of one day having an even bigger pan-arab union), Nasser siezed his chance to occupy Yemen in 1962. The invasion proved disastrous, and though Nasser had not intended to send many troops to Yemen (thinking it would be easy), each consecutive year that Egypt stayed in Yemen, he kept sending more and more troops. We can see blatantly that Nasser broke both point 7 and 8 with his careless invasion of Yemen. His later Six Day War and War of Attrition (though probably sparked by Israel’s attempt to grab the Suez Canal), also marked a distance from the points which he created and swore to follow. Domestically, Nasser’s habit of crushing opposition parties and communists (starting with his brief time as Prime Minister right after Naguib’s original resignation, where he actively threw out military personnel who supported Neguib) can be seen as disrespect for justice or human rights (as he un-lawfully imprisoned many communists).
Kwame Nkrumah, named Africa’s man of the century by the BBC, also made major mistakes in his time as leader of Ghana. In 1954 when the price of cocoa shot up, Nkrumah made the mistake of trying to further tax the cocoa farmers in order to take some of the extra revenue and use it for the state. This caused him to quickly fall into disfavor with a group which had helped him win the election. In 1958 he introduced the Trade Union Act which made strikes illegal, this might have been created from the gold minors strikes of 1955. In 1961, when the railway workers went on strike, he imprisoned them all. Also in 1958 the preventive detention act was legalized, this act allowed anybody deemed a traitor to be imprisoned without going through the court system. Many viewed this as a means of imprisoning innocent people who opposed Nkrumah’s rule. Their fears may have been confirmed when in 1964 Nkrumah proclaimed himself President for life of both Ghana and his party. Nkrumah, in his blind attempt for fast industrialization, forgot to protect the rights of his people and treat them fairly. His building of the Akosombo Dam also plunged the country into deep debt. On a side note, it was well known how Nkrumah was making attempts to modernize Ghana’s army. In a test for how much Ghana’s military had improved, Nkrumah sent military support to rebels fighting the Smith Administration in Southern Rhodesia or modern day Zimbabwe.
The point of this essay was not to demonize Nkrumah or Nasser, both have had great accomplishments for their countries which I obviously have not mentioned. History writing can never be objective, I take this as a fact. However, Prashad’s blatant bias for these leaders allows for his text to be diluted. Showing the leaders in a good light is understandable, but never referring to their political mishaps or their disregard for the principles agreed upon at the Bandung conference (or even mentioning the principles) seems highly sophomoric. What I mean by this is that Prashad couldn’t get over his respect for these leaders enough to show the reader everything that happened at the Bandung conference. This means that he is committing an injustice to the reader in favor of keeping the leaders’ prestige intact in his own mind. In some sense, he values the leaders more then the readers. Though some may argue that the leaders’ mishaps have nothing to do with the overall meaning of the Bandung conference, I would argue very much to the contrary. The leaders of the Bandung conference represented the values of the conference. Disregard by one of the main leaders showed all the other states which attended the Bandung conference the illegitimacy of the conference and the points agreed upon. As I’ve experienced in my travels in France, people characterize the United States by the mishaps of George W. Bush. They completely ignore the fact that 49% percent (if that number is correct) of the country voted against him in the 2000 elections. By agreeing to be involved and further to take a leadership role in the Bandung conference, these leaders agreed to be symbols of the Bandung conference and even the Non-Aligned Movement as a whole. Prashad’s book focuses on the failures of the Non-Aligned Movement or “third world”, and yet he fails to ever mention any of these facts. As of yet in the book, Prashad has yet to blame any of the failures of the Non-Aligned Movement on the countries involved (instead of the first or second world).
Buenos Aires
In 1949, Raul Prebish wrote "The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems." (Prashad 62) After centuries of Imperialism the new nations were left with economies which relied on the exportation of raw materials at low prices. At the same time they were importing high priced industrially manufactured goods. This was called the major trade deficit in the third world. What we saw in the third world was a popular rising of many Socialist economies and economists. There was also a main problem with selling raw materials, "If raw material prices dropped, it would not mean an increase in demand for them." (Prashad 63) Prebish concluded that the new nations had to move from producing raw material to industrial products (genius?). The United States and Europe at the same time felt as though the leaders of the third world had no idea what they were doing while searching for Utopias.
The most compelling question of the age was: "How can sufficient capital be harnessed to do the important work of reconstruction for economies battered not just by the world depression of the 1930s and the wars of the 1940s but by the centuries of colonial depredation?" (Prasha 64) "Policy-makers in the US and Western Europe held that modest aid and some technology transfer alongside minimal state interference would help engender growth in the new nations" (Prashad 65) (There are some great quotes in this passage) Modernization theory came to be, which stated that the problem of the colonized world was not its poverty but its traditions. It needed to lose traditional culture and gain political stability and growth in science. Marxist theorists like Max Weber thought that modernization theory was just another way of saying that Western culture was better the that of the darker nations'. Basically the West told the Dark Nations that it needed to gain the spirit of Capitalism.
Other economists felt that raw material producers should not attempt to industrialize, instead specializing in the production which it does best. Prebish rejected this because he thought each nation had the possibility of modernization if they just follow certain paths.
Many talks occurred in the UN and other ares about tariffs, which proved to be a central element to third world economic agenda. The third world accused the first world of having a tariff system which only benefitted the first world, and called for a reversal of such policies. "At the UN in 1963, the Third World states pushed through a resolution for "more adequate financial resources at favorable terms" to facilitate the Prebish agenda. " (Prashad 71) At hte same time, the US government and its nonprofit satellites were offering funds for development to third world nations, but not without carefully calibrated rats of return for the US.
At the same time an aid war began between the US and the USSR. If one country began to aid one country, the other had to also aid that country. Especially non-aligned states were playing these two countries against each other for their own advantage. Though if we are honest, the USSR did not have as much of a capability to give aid as the US did because they simply didn't have the capital (look at my critical analysis). But Prashad argues that Third World economies had developed into monopoly capitalism, and that aid only helped the capitalists instead of being used for social development (see my crit). Prebish later recognized that money was not the only thing needed but also "changes in the social structure...a completely social transformation" (Prashad 73) If you ask me, Prashad misunderstands Prebish in the next part of the chapter. "Development theory and public policy emphasized economic growth as an end in itself without a built-in consideration for equity" (Prashad 74).
The most compelling question of the age was: "How can sufficient capital be harnessed to do the important work of reconstruction for economies battered not just by the world depression of the 1930s and the wars of the 1940s but by the centuries of colonial depredation?" (Prasha 64) "Policy-makers in the US and Western Europe held that modest aid and some technology transfer alongside minimal state interference would help engender growth in the new nations" (Prashad 65) (There are some great quotes in this passage) Modernization theory came to be, which stated that the problem of the colonized world was not its poverty but its traditions. It needed to lose traditional culture and gain political stability and growth in science. Marxist theorists like Max Weber thought that modernization theory was just another way of saying that Western culture was better the that of the darker nations'. Basically the West told the Dark Nations that it needed to gain the spirit of Capitalism.
Other economists felt that raw material producers should not attempt to industrialize, instead specializing in the production which it does best. Prebish rejected this because he thought each nation had the possibility of modernization if they just follow certain paths.
Many talks occurred in the UN and other ares about tariffs, which proved to be a central element to third world economic agenda. The third world accused the first world of having a tariff system which only benefitted the first world, and called for a reversal of such policies. "At the UN in 1963, the Third World states pushed through a resolution for "more adequate financial resources at favorable terms" to facilitate the Prebish agenda. " (Prashad 71) At hte same time, the US government and its nonprofit satellites were offering funds for development to third world nations, but not without carefully calibrated rats of return for the US.
At the same time an aid war began between the US and the USSR. If one country began to aid one country, the other had to also aid that country. Especially non-aligned states were playing these two countries against each other for their own advantage. Though if we are honest, the USSR did not have as much of a capability to give aid as the US did because they simply didn't have the capital (look at my critical analysis). But Prashad argues that Third World economies had developed into monopoly capitalism, and that aid only helped the capitalists instead of being used for social development (see my crit). Prebish later recognized that money was not the only thing needed but also "changes in the social structure...a completely social transformation" (Prashad 73) If you ask me, Prashad misunderstands Prebish in the next part of the chapter. "Development theory and public policy emphasized economic growth as an end in itself without a built-in consideration for equity" (Prashad 74).
The Two Stage theory: Socialism in the Third World
Julien Benichou
Critical Analysis
Tom Laichas
The Lone Socialist State:
Marxists forgetting Marx: The Two Stage Theory and Socialism in the Third World
The U.S.S.R was not a Communist state, at least not how Marx described a Communist state. It seems foolish to me when somebody says that we have seen Communism fail in the modern world. We have never seen true Communism the way Marx described it. Marx described the Communist state arriving at a certain synthesis of the workers of the world and the revolution; a leve en masse of the proletariat around the world to throw off the chains of the bourgeoisie. What would form after this would be a classless utopian society where money has disappeared and people would what they need as well as certain extra comforts. The state as well would be controlled by a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, not former middle class bourgeoisie attempting to help the worker remove his chains, to Marx the bourgeoisie could never understand the chains of the worker. But the idea of Communism has taken on a new connotation: dictatorial states with social program intended to equalize all, usually riddled by corruption and mismanagement. But if we described the U.S.S.R accurately, it might be better described as a leftist dictatorship with socialist tendencies. Many third world states which adopted socialism directly from a agrarian feudal based society, missed a crucial step in Marx’s plan for the Communist state to arise: a capitalist society.
Marx designated two steps which had to be completed before the creation of a communist state could be possible: industrialization in a capitalist society and a socialist society with semi-capitalist tendencies. This theory was called the Two Stage Theory. Marx might have been a humanist, but he was also an economist. He understood that manufactured goods would cost more then the raw materials used to make them (this can be easily found by reading his passages on use value and exchange value). Marx’s dream wasn’t for industrial societies to return to simpler times where agriculture and bartering were prominent. In fact, Marx fully appreciated technology and notes that technology would help in the eventual formation of a communist state. He understands that the development of that technology requires capital (hence his main work was called Capital, most of what I am saying comes from his theories in Capital). Capital which had to be in the hands of the people and the upper middle class bourgeoisie in order to create an industrial base strong enough to support the socialism to come. Though Marx detested the bourgeoisie and the capitalist societies which they created, he accepted it as a useful transition period before socialism. To Marx, a direct switch from an agrarian society to a socialist society (like the U.S.S.R) was bound to fail purely from an economic standpoint, it would never achieve enough capital. Prashad, though he likes socialism, proves my point, “When the first world moved into the business of foreign aid, the USSR despite its disadvantages could not be far behind.”(Prashad 72). Russia’s lack of capital made it difficult to provide aid help third world socialist countries make the push into what they called “Communism” . Instead they hoped that the ideology of equity alone would push them to make that leap. As Trotsky said, a socialist state in a world full of capitalist states cannot survive. Instead the socialist revolution can only begin when the rest of the world (or a good portion) is also on the verge of revolution.
Marxist socialist third world states, such as Ethiopia, needed to focus more on their own economies then the equity of their people. As Prashad said, “development theory... emphasized economic growth as an end in itself without a built in consideration for equity.” (Prashad 74) Prashad seems to find t his as the main negative value which should be attributed to development theory. However, the Marxist is forgetting Marx; he is forgetting the Two Stage Theory. As Prashad discusses throughout most of the Buenos Aires chapter, failure of the third world state came in the form of economic “sanctions” from the first world. From stopping tariffs in favor of the third world from entering into world policy, the first world would not allow the third world to grow on its own terms at the expense of first world money. So the question remained “how can sufficient capital be harnessed to do the important work of reconstruction for economies battered not just by the world depression of the 1930s and the wars of the 1940s but by the centuries of colonial depredation?” (Prashad 64) According to true Marxist values, socialism was not the answer. Equity had to take the back seat until a more firm economic base could be achieved. Take Ethiopia for example, the Marxist/Leninist socialist regime of the Derg devastated the countries in ways which can still be felt in modern Ethiopia today. As Prashad put it, “the Third World economies had developed to the stage of monopoly capitalism, and therefore, that aid would only strengthen the capitalist and not enable any social development.” (Prashad 73) In Ethiopia we saw monopolies, but not in the form of capitalism. The Derg, motivated by property ideas put forth by Marx, centralized all the land in Ethiopia and distributed it equally. The Derg also created marketing boards which ended up having something like a monopoly over the land, causing extreme strain on the economy and peasants. Like other countries, Ethiopia attempted to play the two super powers against each other and gain aid from both the USSR and the U.S. It used this aid to attempt to sustain healthcare programs, welfare programs, and these agricultural marketing boards... Meanwhile Ethiopia was falling deeply in debt with the trade deficit of exporting cheap raw goods while importing more expensive industrial products. Ethiopia, the only country in Africa to have not been colonized, had known from a very early point in its history that it needed to modernize quickly. The Derg attempted quick industrialization in order to start exporting industrial goods created from the numerous raw materials the country had. What they quickly found out was that all the capital in the country had been used up in equitable programs, land reform, and debt payment (I’m not even including military spending). At the end of the day, the country had no capital. It was losing money from the marketing boards having swallowed the land and the social programs, which brought meager aid, ended up costing the government a good fortune. After the fall of the Derg, privatization has proven extremely difficult (especially with the remnants of the marketing boards). The extra debt created by the Derg has proven to be another major issue for Ethiopia which basically spends all of its foreign aid on repaying its debts. Had Ethiopia taken another path instead of socialism, it might be interesting to see the results. Countries like Sweden, which have more socialist governments which work, have already gone through their capitalist stage. Had socialist development come second for Ethiopia and other many third world countries, as stated in the Two Stage Theory, we might be seeing a much richer third world.
Prashad fails to understand that socialist regimes, having failed in the past, cannot be implemented in the third world again with hopes of success. Prashad blatantly states his desire for a certain social equity to arise in these third world countries which does not exist in most first world countries. As the Third World/non-aligned movement as defined by Nehru valued many social benefits which the west found superfluous, Prashad hopes that those benefits would be automatically implemented. Prashad, instead of blaming the socialist regimes for their own monetary issues, blames the first world for its failure to let the third world have its tariffs for development. The first world obviously wronged the third world, but the third world needed to adapt out of its expensive socialist tendencies in order to survive in the unfair world created by the first world. Though the third world was right in continually pushing for tariffs to come into place, its socialist regimes should have assumed they would never come to be. When Marxists fail to follow Marx’s Two Stage Theory, what we see is the failure of the state to gain enough capital to exist and support proper and efficient social programs.
Critical Analysis
Tom Laichas
The Lone Socialist State:
Marxists forgetting Marx: The Two Stage Theory and Socialism in the Third World
The U.S.S.R was not a Communist state, at least not how Marx described a Communist state. It seems foolish to me when somebody says that we have seen Communism fail in the modern world. We have never seen true Communism the way Marx described it. Marx described the Communist state arriving at a certain synthesis of the workers of the world and the revolution; a leve en masse of the proletariat around the world to throw off the chains of the bourgeoisie. What would form after this would be a classless utopian society where money has disappeared and people would what they need as well as certain extra comforts. The state as well would be controlled by a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, not former middle class bourgeoisie attempting to help the worker remove his chains, to Marx the bourgeoisie could never understand the chains of the worker. But the idea of Communism has taken on a new connotation: dictatorial states with social program intended to equalize all, usually riddled by corruption and mismanagement. But if we described the U.S.S.R accurately, it might be better described as a leftist dictatorship with socialist tendencies. Many third world states which adopted socialism directly from a agrarian feudal based society, missed a crucial step in Marx’s plan for the Communist state to arise: a capitalist society.
Marx designated two steps which had to be completed before the creation of a communist state could be possible: industrialization in a capitalist society and a socialist society with semi-capitalist tendencies. This theory was called the Two Stage Theory. Marx might have been a humanist, but he was also an economist. He understood that manufactured goods would cost more then the raw materials used to make them (this can be easily found by reading his passages on use value and exchange value). Marx’s dream wasn’t for industrial societies to return to simpler times where agriculture and bartering were prominent. In fact, Marx fully appreciated technology and notes that technology would help in the eventual formation of a communist state. He understands that the development of that technology requires capital (hence his main work was called Capital, most of what I am saying comes from his theories in Capital). Capital which had to be in the hands of the people and the upper middle class bourgeoisie in order to create an industrial base strong enough to support the socialism to come. Though Marx detested the bourgeoisie and the capitalist societies which they created, he accepted it as a useful transition period before socialism. To Marx, a direct switch from an agrarian society to a socialist society (like the U.S.S.R) was bound to fail purely from an economic standpoint, it would never achieve enough capital. Prashad, though he likes socialism, proves my point, “When the first world moved into the business of foreign aid, the USSR despite its disadvantages could not be far behind.”(Prashad 72). Russia’s lack of capital made it difficult to provide aid help third world socialist countries make the push into what they called “Communism” . Instead they hoped that the ideology of equity alone would push them to make that leap. As Trotsky said, a socialist state in a world full of capitalist states cannot survive. Instead the socialist revolution can only begin when the rest of the world (or a good portion) is also on the verge of revolution.
Marxist socialist third world states, such as Ethiopia, needed to focus more on their own economies then the equity of their people. As Prashad said, “development theory... emphasized economic growth as an end in itself without a built in consideration for equity.” (Prashad 74) Prashad seems to find t his as the main negative value which should be attributed to development theory. However, the Marxist is forgetting Marx; he is forgetting the Two Stage Theory. As Prashad discusses throughout most of the Buenos Aires chapter, failure of the third world state came in the form of economic “sanctions” from the first world. From stopping tariffs in favor of the third world from entering into world policy, the first world would not allow the third world to grow on its own terms at the expense of first world money. So the question remained “how can sufficient capital be harnessed to do the important work of reconstruction for economies battered not just by the world depression of the 1930s and the wars of the 1940s but by the centuries of colonial depredation?” (Prashad 64) According to true Marxist values, socialism was not the answer. Equity had to take the back seat until a more firm economic base could be achieved. Take Ethiopia for example, the Marxist/Leninist socialist regime of the Derg devastated the countries in ways which can still be felt in modern Ethiopia today. As Prashad put it, “the Third World economies had developed to the stage of monopoly capitalism, and therefore, that aid would only strengthen the capitalist and not enable any social development.” (Prashad 73) In Ethiopia we saw monopolies, but not in the form of capitalism. The Derg, motivated by property ideas put forth by Marx, centralized all the land in Ethiopia and distributed it equally. The Derg also created marketing boards which ended up having something like a monopoly over the land, causing extreme strain on the economy and peasants. Like other countries, Ethiopia attempted to play the two super powers against each other and gain aid from both the USSR and the U.S. It used this aid to attempt to sustain healthcare programs, welfare programs, and these agricultural marketing boards... Meanwhile Ethiopia was falling deeply in debt with the trade deficit of exporting cheap raw goods while importing more expensive industrial products. Ethiopia, the only country in Africa to have not been colonized, had known from a very early point in its history that it needed to modernize quickly. The Derg attempted quick industrialization in order to start exporting industrial goods created from the numerous raw materials the country had. What they quickly found out was that all the capital in the country had been used up in equitable programs, land reform, and debt payment (I’m not even including military spending). At the end of the day, the country had no capital. It was losing money from the marketing boards having swallowed the land and the social programs, which brought meager aid, ended up costing the government a good fortune. After the fall of the Derg, privatization has proven extremely difficult (especially with the remnants of the marketing boards). The extra debt created by the Derg has proven to be another major issue for Ethiopia which basically spends all of its foreign aid on repaying its debts. Had Ethiopia taken another path instead of socialism, it might be interesting to see the results. Countries like Sweden, which have more socialist governments which work, have already gone through their capitalist stage. Had socialist development come second for Ethiopia and other many third world countries, as stated in the Two Stage Theory, we might be seeing a much richer third world.
Prashad fails to understand that socialist regimes, having failed in the past, cannot be implemented in the third world again with hopes of success. Prashad blatantly states his desire for a certain social equity to arise in these third world countries which does not exist in most first world countries. As the Third World/non-aligned movement as defined by Nehru valued many social benefits which the west found superfluous, Prashad hopes that those benefits would be automatically implemented. Prashad, instead of blaming the socialist regimes for their own monetary issues, blames the first world for its failure to let the third world have its tariffs for development. The first world obviously wronged the third world, but the third world needed to adapt out of its expensive socialist tendencies in order to survive in the unfair world created by the first world. Though the third world was right in continually pushing for tariffs to come into place, its socialist regimes should have assumed they would never come to be. When Marxists fail to follow Marx’s Two Stage Theory, what we see is the failure of the state to gain enough capital to exist and support proper and efficient social programs.
Cairo
Cairo in the 1950s was ready to defy the first world with guns of rhetoric if necessary. In Egypt, Gamel Nasser had created the Free Officers party to face the monarchy. Nasser had realized that it would take people from the wafd party, muslim brotherhood, communists, and aristocrats to take down the monarchy. After the coup, Nasser became the hopes of many Egyptians and Arab. Nasser transformed Cairo into a city which opened its doors to Afro-Asian solidarity organization. It also became the headquarters of movements such as the Non-Aligned movement, as well as a meeting place for many Arab nationalists across North Africa and West Asia.
In 1957, Cairo hosted the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Conference, the next major event after Bandung. A big change that this conference had over the Bandung conference was that many women attended and even spoke. The most remarkable figure was Aisha Abdul-Rahman who came from Egypt. Abdul-Rahman was one of the first women in Egypt to attend Cairo university and get her PhD in Arabic literature. But she was also well known for her consistent columns in the newspaper Al-Ahram for her striking criticism of both the Monarchy and Nasser’s regime. During her speech at the conference she pointed out that many liberation movements left out the central roll of women, and at the same time the liberation of women. Women used the assumption that many liberation movements took about women having to be liberated to push for social dignity and political rights.
Most of the anti-colonial movements required the help of women (look at Algeria’s). We see many examples of Women being leading forces in revolutions. Many of the organized women feminists came from old social classes which were able to retain their aristocratic position through imperialism. Higher up women such as Abdul-Rahman took their inspiration from the mass movements against imperialism as well from European feminists who were in the middle of trying to attain suffrage.
Two women Sha’rawi and Nabaraoui fought to win the franchise for Egyptian women. The three women in Latin America mirrored the same work. Amalia Caballero de Castillo Ledon, Minerva Bernardino, and Bertha Lutz. All three of these women insisted that the phrase “the equal rights of men and women” be inserted into the UN charter. These three also pushed for the creation of the Commission on the Status of Women in the UN. The commission adopted the guidelines to “raise the status of women irrespective of nationality, race, language, or religion to equality of men in all fields of human enterprise...” (Prashad 56)
At the Afro-Asian Solidarity Organization conference, the Afro-Asian Federation for Women was created. In 1961, again in Cairo, the federation hosted a conference. Participation in the Anti-Colonial movements would change the status and relationship between men and women in many of these countries. Women had not only fought in the street protests, but also aided by healing the injured, supplying food, and filling the streets in protest.
Though these conferences showed that even the new states which achieved independence did not give women the equal rights they sought. What we also see at these conferences is attempts to get social programs for pregnant women and marriage. To third world women, the state was more inclusive then the family so it was “within the horizon of anti-colonial nationalism that they dreamed and acted. What we find is that the Nasser era created women independent of the family but who needed the state for employment and important social services. The state feminists made progress in the state, and hoped the state would be an adequate vehicle for creating equality in the nation. Unfortunately even the progressive state was prone to conservatism. The state, as women later found out, turned out not to be the best vehicle they could have chosen.
In 1957, Cairo hosted the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Conference, the next major event after Bandung. A big change that this conference had over the Bandung conference was that many women attended and even spoke. The most remarkable figure was Aisha Abdul-Rahman who came from Egypt. Abdul-Rahman was one of the first women in Egypt to attend Cairo university and get her PhD in Arabic literature. But she was also well known for her consistent columns in the newspaper Al-Ahram for her striking criticism of both the Monarchy and Nasser’s regime. During her speech at the conference she pointed out that many liberation movements left out the central roll of women, and at the same time the liberation of women. Women used the assumption that many liberation movements took about women having to be liberated to push for social dignity and political rights.
Most of the anti-colonial movements required the help of women (look at Algeria’s). We see many examples of Women being leading forces in revolutions. Many of the organized women feminists came from old social classes which were able to retain their aristocratic position through imperialism. Higher up women such as Abdul-Rahman took their inspiration from the mass movements against imperialism as well from European feminists who were in the middle of trying to attain suffrage.
Two women Sha’rawi and Nabaraoui fought to win the franchise for Egyptian women. The three women in Latin America mirrored the same work. Amalia Caballero de Castillo Ledon, Minerva Bernardino, and Bertha Lutz. All three of these women insisted that the phrase “the equal rights of men and women” be inserted into the UN charter. These three also pushed for the creation of the Commission on the Status of Women in the UN. The commission adopted the guidelines to “raise the status of women irrespective of nationality, race, language, or religion to equality of men in all fields of human enterprise...” (Prashad 56)
At the Afro-Asian Solidarity Organization conference, the Afro-Asian Federation for Women was created. In 1961, again in Cairo, the federation hosted a conference. Participation in the Anti-Colonial movements would change the status and relationship between men and women in many of these countries. Women had not only fought in the street protests, but also aided by healing the injured, supplying food, and filling the streets in protest.
Though these conferences showed that even the new states which achieved independence did not give women the equal rights they sought. What we also see at these conferences is attempts to get social programs for pregnant women and marriage. To third world women, the state was more inclusive then the family so it was “within the horizon of anti-colonial nationalism that they dreamed and acted. What we find is that the Nasser era created women independent of the family but who needed the state for employment and important social services. The state feminists made progress in the state, and hoped the state would be an adequate vehicle for creating equality in the nation. Unfortunately even the progressive state was prone to conservatism. The state, as women later found out, turned out not to be the best vehicle they could have chosen.
Bandung
Bandung
Prashad begins by describing a little bit the history of Java and Indonesia as a whole. What we see after WWII is the beginning of a bunch of countries trying to achieve independence. These countries came together in Bandung, with little in common except colonialism. Sukarno fully understood the limited amounted of unity which could come from this between the countries in Bandung. However, he still hoped that this unity from struggle could undermine the social differences.
What we see is emerging middle class locals who were willing to take advantage of all the educational advantages created from European colonialism. This system of emergence led to such great leaders as Nehru, U Nu, and Sukarno.
Prashad continues talking about Indonesian independence. Sukarno and the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) attempted a coup against the Dutch but failed. Sukarno and others around him then came to create the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI). The PNI favored a vague nationalism which attracted many classes to the movement. The middle class joined, the peasantry, the educated youth... Sukarno was imprisoned by the Dutch until the Japanese invasion. 2 days after the Japanese surrender, Sukarno and his movement declared independence for Indonesia, even though he still didn’t have mass support. In 1949, Indonesia got its formal freedom. Sukarno made sure to put money into education and state industries (taking some theories from the Communist party), while still keeping the communist party under wraps. In 1965, a U.S. backed coup overthrew Sukarno. “He had moved closer to the Communists than he would have imagined when he entered politics.” (Prashad 36)
But Sukarno’s message wasn’t the only one at Bandung, Zhou En Lai also came from China. Zhou was very well liked as he had tried as hard as he could to befriend everybody. Zhou had come and had attempted to meet with everybody. Zhou respected the nationalists from certain countries and had hoped to gain international ties with these places. As China had clashed with the USSR in the 30s (it’s natural ally), and was disliked by the U.S. for its Communist state, it found itself abandoned on the world stage. Hence this conciliatory attitude towards all these places where it might be able to gain ties.
But of the 29 delegates, 6 had already made strong economic ties with the United States: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, New Zealand, and Australia. As the Bandung conference was basically based on non-alignment, these countries had to fiercely argue their points and rights to enter into these pacts. The First world cheered at the leaders who were fighting that their pacts with the first world were good, and that instead it was Communism which must be dealt with. But, “These pro first world states shared at least one thing in common: they were ruled by weak national bourgeoisies that had militant mass movements within which threatened their own legitimacy and power” (Prashad 38) (yet I asked how many anti first world countries were really so different).
Prashad continues by stating examples of places where communist coups had attempted to overthrow a government, but a U.S. backed military held them off. Communist insurgencies around the Third World had led governments to come under the U.S. umbrella for protection. Pax Americana was instilled. Of course, according to Prashad Pax Americana was too hard economically for most of these third world nations to cooperate with. This above all else is why many of the great third world leaders spoke out against pacts with the super powers. Nehru fought bravely against the objections of pro-pact third world countries. At the same time we saw that many countries were not invited for numerous reason. For example, Israel was not invited because it was too friendly with the United States.
What did Bandung accomplish? “Bandung did created the format for what would eventually become the Afro-Asian and then Afro-Asian-Latin American group in the United Nations. This bloc would be the only alternative, as well as Socialism, to dollar imperialism and as well as offering an alternative for development. Other things were created by the third world such as the Disarmament Sub-Committee initiated by Indian initiative to try and free up resources which could be used in reconstruction and development instead of defense. The four point plan of the Disarmament Sub-Committee was (though they all failed) 1. the USSR and the United States had to stop all experimental explosions. 2. The powers should begin dismantling a few bombs and begin the process of total dismantling of the bombs. 3. These countries should come to the U.N. general assembly and declare their renunciation of atomic weapons. 4. All countries must publish their military budgets to make sure they weren’t spending too much on the military instead of social programs.
After the death of Stalin, the USSR came to embrace (at least they said so) the theory of non-alignment. The U.S. had outright disdain for it. The U.S. viewed it as a “shortcut to suicide” and a way for the USSR to push the non-communist countries to deny resources to the West.
The third world remained vulnerable on two counts, “the Bandung states continued to hoard weapons, causing many to charge them with hypocrisy. India and Pakistan were in arms race. Nasser, a great leader at Bandung, returned to Egypt afterwards raving about the meeting. Nasser believed that the independence described at Bandung needed to be defended with arms, a major perversion of the agenda created by Nehru (an agenda which wanted peace).
Prashad begins by describing a little bit the history of Java and Indonesia as a whole. What we see after WWII is the beginning of a bunch of countries trying to achieve independence. These countries came together in Bandung, with little in common except colonialism. Sukarno fully understood the limited amounted of unity which could come from this between the countries in Bandung. However, he still hoped that this unity from struggle could undermine the social differences.
What we see is emerging middle class locals who were willing to take advantage of all the educational advantages created from European colonialism. This system of emergence led to such great leaders as Nehru, U Nu, and Sukarno.
Prashad continues talking about Indonesian independence. Sukarno and the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) attempted a coup against the Dutch but failed. Sukarno and others around him then came to create the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI). The PNI favored a vague nationalism which attracted many classes to the movement. The middle class joined, the peasantry, the educated youth... Sukarno was imprisoned by the Dutch until the Japanese invasion. 2 days after the Japanese surrender, Sukarno and his movement declared independence for Indonesia, even though he still didn’t have mass support. In 1949, Indonesia got its formal freedom. Sukarno made sure to put money into education and state industries (taking some theories from the Communist party), while still keeping the communist party under wraps. In 1965, a U.S. backed coup overthrew Sukarno. “He had moved closer to the Communists than he would have imagined when he entered politics.” (Prashad 36)
But Sukarno’s message wasn’t the only one at Bandung, Zhou En Lai also came from China. Zhou was very well liked as he had tried as hard as he could to befriend everybody. Zhou had come and had attempted to meet with everybody. Zhou respected the nationalists from certain countries and had hoped to gain international ties with these places. As China had clashed with the USSR in the 30s (it’s natural ally), and was disliked by the U.S. for its Communist state, it found itself abandoned on the world stage. Hence this conciliatory attitude towards all these places where it might be able to gain ties.
But of the 29 delegates, 6 had already made strong economic ties with the United States: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, New Zealand, and Australia. As the Bandung conference was basically based on non-alignment, these countries had to fiercely argue their points and rights to enter into these pacts. The First world cheered at the leaders who were fighting that their pacts with the first world were good, and that instead it was Communism which must be dealt with. But, “These pro first world states shared at least one thing in common: they were ruled by weak national bourgeoisies that had militant mass movements within which threatened their own legitimacy and power” (Prashad 38) (yet I asked how many anti first world countries were really so different).
Prashad continues by stating examples of places where communist coups had attempted to overthrow a government, but a U.S. backed military held them off. Communist insurgencies around the Third World had led governments to come under the U.S. umbrella for protection. Pax Americana was instilled. Of course, according to Prashad Pax Americana was too hard economically for most of these third world nations to cooperate with. This above all else is why many of the great third world leaders spoke out against pacts with the super powers. Nehru fought bravely against the objections of pro-pact third world countries. At the same time we saw that many countries were not invited for numerous reason. For example, Israel was not invited because it was too friendly with the United States.
What did Bandung accomplish? “Bandung did created the format for what would eventually become the Afro-Asian and then Afro-Asian-Latin American group in the United Nations. This bloc would be the only alternative, as well as Socialism, to dollar imperialism and as well as offering an alternative for development. Other things were created by the third world such as the Disarmament Sub-Committee initiated by Indian initiative to try and free up resources which could be used in reconstruction and development instead of defense. The four point plan of the Disarmament Sub-Committee was (though they all failed) 1. the USSR and the United States had to stop all experimental explosions. 2. The powers should begin dismantling a few bombs and begin the process of total dismantling of the bombs. 3. These countries should come to the U.N. general assembly and declare their renunciation of atomic weapons. 4. All countries must publish their military budgets to make sure they weren’t spending too much on the military instead of social programs.
After the death of Stalin, the USSR came to embrace (at least they said so) the theory of non-alignment. The U.S. had outright disdain for it. The U.S. viewed it as a “shortcut to suicide” and a way for the USSR to push the non-communist countries to deny resources to the West.
The third world remained vulnerable on two counts, “the Bandung states continued to hoard weapons, causing many to charge them with hypocrisy. India and Pakistan were in arms race. Nasser, a great leader at Bandung, returned to Egypt afterwards raving about the meeting. Nasser believed that the independence described at Bandung needed to be defended with arms, a major perversion of the agenda created by Nehru (an agenda which wanted peace).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)