3 ms·
I’m no expert on this (don’t know if I believe it) but the argument I’ve heard framed is that the neo-liberal approach is a direct reaction to colonialism. So i
by kasey_junk 4y ago
I’m no expert on this (don’t know if I believe it) but the argument I’ve heard framed is that the neo-liberal approach is a direct reaction to colonialism. So in that sense sure it’s a precondition. Like being sick is a precondition for getting cured.
The idea being that global trade should act as a mutually beneficial agreement without needing force of arms, trade protection or extractive colonial policies. Rather than 1 party sucking all the resources from another in a zero sum way.
- brnaftr361 4y agoI can't look at it from that perspective. It's "extractive colonial policies" obfuscated through tools of finance, where force of arms has been a reality in some cases, in others there are different but nonetheless serious coercive threats, sometimes a little bit of both (plausible deniability, nice). As far as determining whether or not it's single sided, if you're calculating with something as primitive as Pareto efficiency or something equally hamfisted, yes, sure, everyone benefits, some by literal pennies and others by many millions of dollars. It's very much one sided from any [reasonable] moral perspective, at least any moral perspective that hopes to treat humans with any semblance of dignity. A lot of the pretenses developed nations use to intervene in the affairs of the "Global South" have their roots in colonialism as evinced by the grandparent.