IMHO, the difference that David misses is that between exchange-value (and surplus-value) and use-value. Markets and capitalism serve the lust for money revenues (exchange-value) and profits (surplus-value) and not what's good for people (use-value). If you don't have the cash up front, the system won't serve you, so you can starve. As Louis suggests, state (non-market) intervention is the only way around this barrier. As he also suggests, the powers that be resist such solutions with bloody force.
On 3/29/07, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would like to understand your point, but I am not getting it. Why >do you think Africa is different than all of the positive regions >you mentioned? At one point you are saying too little capitalism, >and at the other point too much capitalism. > >David Shemano Well, it is not just Africa. It is most of Latin America as well. And most of Asia also. The overwhelming majority of the world is underemployed. The fact that Goldman-Sachs has a billion dollar computer system that can match investor to investment possibilities is utterly irrelevant to somebody in the Congo. Or in Uganda. Or in the Philippines. Or Pakistan. Or Indonesia. Etc., etc., etc. These places are in a permanent slump and the only way that jobs can be created is through state investments. But when the state takes that responsibility, it becomes denounced as "radical" or "Communist" and gets overthrown and the people get killed. 500,000 in Indonesia for example. That is a big, big problem.
-- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
