4 ms·

I will admit my inability to carry through with such a debate on an informed basis. This is my last response on this thread. There are clearly contrasting poi

I will admit my inability to carry through with such a debate on an informed basis. This is my last response on this thread. There are clearly contrasting points of view about the benefits colonization of Africa. Those POVs which I've found insightful, as opposed to dogmatic or culturally biased, point out the assumption that modernization should be desirable to lesser developed nations is only an assumption, and not always one shared mutually. cf. http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/articles/gen/neocolonialismhtml.html http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/articles/gen/neocoloni...

politicalist 16y ago
On China, Martin Hart-Landsberg had a couple informative articles on Monthly Review. (I didn't know Lenovo came from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.) http://monthlyreview.org/100201hart-landsberg.php http://monthlyreview.org/100201hart-landsberg.php http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/mhlpb300705.html http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/mhlpb300705.html I agree that China "makes capitalists giddy", even though it developed with intense government planning. The Communist Party controls the unions, which the Washington Post said that Wal-Mart loves, in contrast to its hatred of more democratic US unions. (I'm sure that more corporations than just Wal-Mart are so giddy.) Workers capture very little of the GDP, compared to China's wealthy elite, and have lost much of their social support. And GDP is itself an ideological measure for many reasons; for example, it doesn't track systematic costs (so people getting cancer from pollution raises GDP).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]