I say, it does matter, very much, but I agree it is not all that matters. But who said it is all that matters?! Of course, the point is to change it. But understanding it very much matters in terms of changing it. It matters in principle, and it matters as a matter of politics and policy. I for one am for reparations/restitution. Will that change evrything? No, but I am still for that and for changing it so more doesn't happen again. But who said we can only choose one? But there is something else going on here. The fact of the matter is that "progressive" groups in the industrialized nations have historically suffered from racism, sexism, eurocentrism that marginalize so-called Third World peoples. (Is there sexism in those nations, too? Yes, but that's not what was being discussed.) This could go on and on but I don't have the time or energy at the moment. mf -----Original Message----- From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10985] RE: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist >. . . Come on, >"progressive economists"! I'd love to sponsor a debate between Darity and >Brad, or between Darity and Wojtek for that matter. . . . >>>>>>>>>>> > >I agree it is worth knowing the extent to which >rents from resource extraction or unfair trade >subsidized the rise of the "West" or the "North," >both retrospectively and currently. > >Whether you get a result currently that is big >or small, the disposition of it depends on politics >in the U.S., EU, Japan, and OZ, not on our own >conclusions about measured exploitation. > >Politically the implications can go both ways. >Talk of our dependence on exploitation, the need >for truth notwithstanding, could easily have the >effect of hindering the case for aid in assorted >forms. I say this not to discourage discussion, >but to point out the implied political ambiguities. > >Whether the amount is big or small, the indubitable >fact is that US/EU/Japan/OZ are rich and many other >countries are economically and militarily helpless. >Aid and the removal of oppressive institutions are >the right thing to do. > >You can scream at, say, Americans all you like about >the atrocities committed in our name. Some will be >sympathetic to moral appeals, however weak their >power. Some will take pity and buy some South >American child a year's worth of meals. Most people >are immersed in their own problems, and a crisis >here may elevate that concern to one for the >broader working class or "the people" in some >formulation. But it's hard to see how a crisis >connects people's thinking with the plight of >the underdeveloped countries, nor how the latter >effectively escape the implications of capitalist >hegemony in its present form. > >The extent to which capitalism depends on the >misery of certain areas of the world is less >important than how this may be changed. The >truth will not set anyone free, no matter how >many times it is repeated. The other side >can convey their own brand of internationalism >a hundred times louder and more frequently. >People who are repelled by this have been >going right to Buchanan more often than left. > >So let me repeat that the question is interesting, >but its importance from a political standpoint (not >a moral one) seems to be prone to overstatement. > >mbs >
