Originally posted by Velociryx
* The less-developed a nation is, the less likely a communist revolution is to succeed (on the thinking that, per Marx, only mature capitalist nations with vast infrastructure capable of providing for everyone's wants and needs meets the criterion)
* The less-developed a nation is, the less likely a communist revolution is to succeed (on the thinking that, per Marx, only mature capitalist nations with vast infrastructure capable of providing for everyone's wants and needs meets the criterion)
This is true, but when opportunity presents itself, you don't turn it down. As a budding capitalist, you should know that.
* Capitalism is hugely good at building the aforementioned infrastructure (implication: better than a communist-state-before-it's-ready-for-prime-time....I think this has been demonstrated adequately, historically).
In the metropoles (the imperial cores), yes, but in the periphery (colonial world), this has not necessarily been the case. Only a handful of 3rd world countries have made the transition to 1st world nations.
According to the theory of underdevelopment (developed by 3rd world theorists in the lates 60s and early 70s), it isn't that the colonies or neo-colonies aren't developed, but that they are developed for the markets of the metropoles. Most of the development, then, is not for the purpose of building wealth, but for extracting wealth. Thus, as long as the economy of the periphery remains tied to that of the metropole, it will be unable to provide for its own people or develop an economy.
The question, then, is which way forward. Clearly the IMF/World Bank method of "development" has been an unmitigated disaster for those counties that have tried it. The only successful model in the 20th Century has been that of the Asian tigers, and that requires considerable government interference as well as an authoritarian state, and certain cultural factors which I'd say are lacking in Latin America and Africa.
Now, with abundent hydorcarbons, it might be possible for Bolivia to make a successful socialist economy if it can avoid corruption, authoritarianism, and uses its mineral wealth to build its national infrastructure and educate its people. I don't know if they can do it, but it's far less certain that the Bolivian elite can or even would.
Comment