Imperialism

["RICHARD P.F. HOLT" <holtri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:	MX%"PEN-L%USCVM.BitNet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 24-MAR-1993 06:51:16.73
To:	HOLTRI
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Imperialism

Return-Path: <@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from pucc.PRINCETON.EDU by VAX1.ELON.EDU (MX V3.2) with SMTP; Wed, 24
          Mar 1993 06:51:11 EST
Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with
          BSMTP id 9143; Wed, 24 Mar 93 06:50:29 EST
Received: from PUCC.BITNET (NJE origin LISTSERV@PUCC) by PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU
          (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9499; Wed, 24 Mar 1993 06:50:29 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 06:50:43 -0500
From: HERBERT GINTIS <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

  This disucssion of imperialism has been enlightening to me, but it
leaves me more than a little uncomfortable, for two reasons: I think
the left uses 'imperialism' as a means of explaining economic enequality
among nations, and there is no persuasive evidence that this is the case.
Second, many leftists use 'imperialism' to explain the failure of socialist
development strategies, when the fact is that the left model of Third
World development has been a dramatic and decisive failure in the past
three decades. China is the only success, and it is based on capitalism
plus repression--not something I want to claim for my own. I think we should
spend more time on these two issues and finding cures for them. By contrast,
dwelling on 'imperialism' directs our attention to issues that have less
obvious policy relevance to developing countries.

Cheers,

Herbert Gintis
gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx