Charles: Seems to me you leave out that capitalism has generated the biggest wars in recorded history and archeaology. . . . >>> I left out that and a whole lot more, including whether or not capitalism is a great system. I was asking about something more specific, namely, are there summary, quantitative indicators that debunk the notion that capitalism afforded much of the non-industrialized world some expansion in aggregate income or output. What conclusions might be drawn from the answer are another matter. One is that it doesn't matter in the sense that there are enough other reasons to end or drastically transform capitalism, and enough crises and political dissatisfaction to make such results plausible. Another is the lack of such evidence supports the premise that capitalism is sustainable for the indefinite future, so coping gets some elevated relevance. But I was really asking something simpler and suggesting some economic inferences. >> . . . Given this record and clear and PRESENT danger, I am not at all willing to "give capitalism a chance". . . . >> Except it's not up to you or me. >>> . . . Charles: In this case, Brad's taking only some of the periphery (samples) as an example is the wrong approach. You have to take the WHOLE periphery , the whole world, the bad with the good , to get the total effect of capital today. You have to take ALL of Africa. If it pulls down the average, then your development in some of the periphery is not a good measure of imperialism's overall record today. . . . >> Nobody has really questioned or contradicted Brad's capsule finding, except rhetorically. Off the top of my head, I might concede that Africa has gone nowhere but down. But in respect of my admittedly simple version of an essential-exploitation thesis, namely that capitalism requires aggregate or average economic decline in the Third World for survival, then the isolation of Africa as a negative example means that world capitalism surivives by virtue of its exploitation of Africa alone. Which I doubt. >>> . . . Charles: I don't quite follow. Are you saying there ARE summary measures that indicate a *widespread lack of development in the periphery over the last 50 years" ? In other words, there is proof of imperialism causing widespread lack of development around the world ? >>> I was asking, not saying. And apparently there aren't any such measures. And this means that there is no evidence of a lack of development, something that renders problematic the existence of imperialism. Of course, you can have mass violence and genocide without imperialism; the former predates the latter. >>>> . . . Charles: Well, what about Doug's idea that we just might not know ? Maybe your indicators are wrong, but our not having any better one's doesn't make yours right. We just don't know. >>>> Exactly my point, tho the imperfect measures we have according to Brad suggest otherwise. Come up with measures that are no worse that go in the other direction, then you have an empirical case. >> . . . Furthermore, I don't think you have the concept of superprofiteering correct. The superprofits don't have to be large relative to the total values produced. They just have to make a small elite superrich so that they can control through holding systems and pyramids. You know a large minoirity holding can control many times its size. >>> I'd go further. You can have control with no profits at all, such as under really-existing communism. And if the material needs of the elite are so easily satisfied, you don't even need imperialism. But neither control nor the material requirements of the elites are in question. What is, is whether economic stagnation in the periphery is a necessary condition for the sustenance of the center. If it is not, then we could say the main thing wrong with capitalism is distribution, not growth, and this substantially narrows the case for socialism. There is still a lot left, I grant you, but much less then envisioned in some variants of marxism. >> . . . Also, they can be based on "developing" a small percentage of the whole number of countries in the world, and "developing" a small fraction of the population within those few countries. In other words, imperialist relations can work by "developing" a very small part of the total "periphery", and leaving the vast majority of the people poor and poorer. In fact , it depends on most of the other people being poor so they can't make a revolution and they serve as fearful example of what the "lucky" ones could fall into. \>>>> This could be so, but nobody seems to have any numbers to support it, and Brad has some to debunk it. >>>> Charles: Why do you assume said growth is permanent ? Couldn't it drop in the future ? >>> Sure, I presume that the Laws of Motion could change. But my best indicator of the future is the past. >> . . . at about the growth in crime and other things that lower the quality of life that have accompanied it ? Isn't there a sort of diminishing returns to the " reality " of real growth ? Don't we have to scrutinize more critically these "summary measures of well-being" ? . . . Note that I am made clear my openness to a variety of indicators, not merely GDP. But the only ones proposed were RELATIVE measures, hence not on point. Cheers, mbs
