Louis, > Everything is relative. Malaysia is > relatively protectionist, as opposed to Argentina, for example.
Until recently, both had very open markets in most sectors of their economies. I have to say that the Malaysian economy and its politics seem to be poorly understood by people outside the region. The Malaysian car industry _is_ a notable exception, as it is heavily protected. But that too may be changing --- e.g. check this recent article in _Business Week_ magazine: "Since the early 1990s, the world's largest carmakers have spent billions building up a massive manufacturing base in Thailand and Indonesia. Their goal is to dominate in Southeast Asia, where 1 million autos are sold annually. The starting bell rang on January 1, 2003, when member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations dropped tariffs on car imports that have 40% ASEAN local content. "The multinationals still face one obstacle that they just can't seem to steer around: Malaysia, whose sales of nearly 500,000 cars a year make up half the region's market. For the benefit of its two national carmakers, Proton and Perodua, the government has postponed dropping tariffs on cars, which now range from 42% to 300%, until January 1, 2005. At the same time, Malaysia is backtracking on just how far it will lower tariffs, cutting only as far as 20% instead of 5% in the other ASEAN countries. And then, the International Trade & Industry Ministry says it will raise excise taxes on cars assembled in Malaysia to recoup the lost tariff revenue and create a level playing field." "DIGNIFIED WAY OUT? However, the world's big carmakers have an easier, faster, and possibly even cheaper way to challenge Malaysian protectionism: An old-fashioned corporate takeover. This would save big carmakers the tens of millions of dollars and the 5- to 10-year lead time required for a new entrant to build up a sales and service network widespread enough to compete with Proton, which has 60% of the market, and Perodua, which has 20%. "They have the incumbent advantage of a massive presence with an established [nationwide] dealer network," says Graeme Maxton, managing director of Autopolis, an auto-industry consultancy in Singapore." "From the Malaysian government's point of view, divestment could be a dignified way out. When the region's floodgates open, Toyota Corollas, Ford Lynxes, and Honda Streams assembled in Thailand will slowly but surely take market share away from Malaysia's national carmakers. That would be painful for the country to watch. But it would be much easier for the powers that be to stomach the idea of offering the two multinationals that already own equity stakes in Proton and Perodua -- DaimlerChrysler (DCX ) and Toyota, respectively -- an opportunity to take over the national carmakers." http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003027_9711.htm > > State capitalism and state socialism, from the perspective of workers was > > what I was talking about. > > I think that most workers would understand if they were living in a > country where a job was guaranteed and where it isn't. Since state capitalism (in capitalist societies) is _usually_ monopolistic and is the result of market failures and/or the need for the state to stabilise and economic crisis, i.e. to find something to occupy the time of the new relative surplus population, it generally _is_ a guarantee of a job. (I'm not including here examples like Telstra, the Australian multinational phone company, which was a prime example of state capitalism until the late 1980s, but has since been 49% privatised. It now has militant shareholders, who are constantly demanding further layoffs, total privatisation, price hikes and other economies.) > I am reaching the point where after having read John Holloway, Hardt-Negri > and other ivory-tower "communists" that I am ready to disavow the word > communist. In a way, it has become a symbol of disengagement from > political reality and the class struggle. > Over on the aut-op-sys mailing list, which > is jam packed with the most communistic communists you can shake a stick > at, there's never the slightest interest show in what's happening on the > ground in Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba or any other messy place contending with > imperialist oppression. Just because they don't agree with your idea of the best strategy doesn't make them wrong. Only the future will end that argument. > >The question is: what is the best > >development/industrialisation strategy? > > Cuba, Cuba, Cuba, Cuba and Cuba. Obviously Cuba has brilliant social services and so on --- everyone who I know who has been there loves the place. Apart from the threat of invasion/subversion, it could hardly be called _economically_ developed, compared to the OECD countries. Whatever the roots and solution to that underdevelopment, it is an ongoing problem for the PCC in terms of popular support. The Bolivarians do have one huge advantage compared to the PCC, i.e. oil (which I guess will now benefit Cuba as well). It remains to be seen what the Bolivarians actually do with their resources. I am cautiously optimistic about/for Chavez, but not if he allows private capital -- global, local or otherwise --- to hypertrophy under a protectionist umbrella. regards, Grant.
