reparations

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

>People in almost all regions of the world are living longer now than
>they did 20, 50, or 100 years ago. To say that isn't to say
>imperialism isn't horrible. But it is entirely within the Marxian
>tradition to say that capitalism has brought with it certain social
>benefits.
>
>Doug

No, it is not within the Marxian tradition to say that "capitalism has
brought with it certain social benefits." This is instead a typical bromide
of the Second International of the late 19th century. The Second
International was torn by a violent heated debate between the so-called
"revisionists" and the revolutionary wing of the movement. Edward Bernstein
and Rosa Luxemberg were the main antagonists. Bernstein argued that
capitalism would bring social benefits overall, no matter how cruel it was
in the process. This led him to support interventions in Morocco, for
example. He argued that unless the backward monarchy was overthrown, the
people would not be able to enjoy the social benefits that capitalism could
bring.

As far as improvements in living standards are concerned, the yardstick
should not be the capitalism of 1900 versus the capitalism of 2000. It is
of very little interest to people seeking justice that the Congolese have a
average life expectancy of 52 rather than one of 42 that was the case under
King Leopold. We have to consider the possibility that the pre-existing
system might have actually delivered a higher average. The proper
chronology to make sense of these questions has to be geared to the social
systems under consideration. If Doug has figures for the Yoruba or Asante
dynasties, I'd love to see them.

A tributary system, which characterized Africa in general prior to the
European conquest, had its own economic laws. A peasant in the Congo would
certainly have fared better under local elites than the Belgian mining
bosses and their gun thugs. Read "Heart of Darkness" and then read any of
Basil Davidson's books for a useful comparison. This longing for a
pre-colonial past is rooted in political economy. The disenfranchised
peasant does remember when things were better. This explains the outburst
of the Tupac Amaru movement in 18th century Peru. The Incas, no matter how
domineering their empire, were not governed by the logic of capitalism.

Take another example. The Hawaiian anti-imperialist struggle of the late
1800s was led by their Queen. They were resisting capitalism, which took
the specific form of the Dole Corporation. Does anybody think that native
Hawaiians experienced "social benefits" due to capitalism? Does the
plantation system mark progress over the pastoral and fishing mode of
production that preceded it?


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/