Sam Pawlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>How are they [poor countries as they develop] to pay for it [limiting
>environmental damage]? World Bank loans? I try not to assume anything,
>but it's safe to say that LDC countries will follow the path of least
>resistance (i.e. the cheapest) towards industrialization. That's what has
>and is happening. I mean, why import natural gas for 'clean' power boilers
>when you have lots of domestic coal? Most LDC's are already heavily in debt
>to the North and will (and should) try to keep an independent energy
>policy.
>
The premise is that they will grow and become richer countries. By
definition, richer countries have more opportunities and resources to, among
other things, limit environmental damage. Of course, wealth is not a
sufficient condition. But my question was, why should we think that poor
countries -- as they grow -- won't develop the will and mechanisms to use
these additional opportunities and resources in a way that limits
environmental damage?
>Ha. Maybe in the 19th century [Marx's dictum that undeveloped capitalist
>countries will tend to develop capitalistically], but it will not happen as
>long as imperialism
>and capitalism are hegemonic in the world system.
>
Imperialism (extra-economic forms of exploitation of workers in poor
countries by capitalists from rich countries) certainly has a negative
influence on the development of capitalism in the poor countries. To put it
mildly, colonial plunder didn't help the poor countries to grow. But,
important as it is, the relative role of imperialist exploitation in the
overall exploitation of workers in the Third World tends to decline as
capitalist production proper expands. And I'm talking about capitalist
development in the Third World. IMO, the main obstacle to the development
of capitalism in the Third World is not imperialism.
>We would expect the poor countries to pollute like hell as the rich
>countries have done.
Why would that be the case? Why should we not believe in the great wisdom
of the old man: "One nation can and should learn from others"? Not that the
learning process is smooth and straightforward.
>Some leftists (Bello,Martin K.K.Peng) argue that rich
>countries setting environmental standards for poor ones constitutes a form
>of imperialism since env. standards are a barrier to economic growth.
>Northern environmentalism is just another means of keeping the South under
>the boot. I am sensitive to that argument.
>
If higher environmental (and labor) standards are the weapon of choice of
capitalists from rich countries to compete against capitalists in poor
countries, why should we oppose them? I'd let the capitalists in the poor
countries take care of themselves. Higher environmental and labor costs
imposed on capitals that operate in poor countries put these capitals at a
disadvantage, but they are not -- by far -- the main obstacles to capitalist
growth in these countries.
If you imply that, in the long run, capitalist growth is a necessary
condition for the living and working conditions of workers in the Third
World to improve, I agree. Of course, things would change if a union of
rich socialist countries showed up to assist the poor ones.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
