![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dreamville-bg.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOnce upon a time, many, many centuries ago... people waged war on each other. One tribe would attack the other, steal whatever they could carry, and then set off.
In time, states were formed. They had territories that people inhabited. One country would attack another, and the winner would take part of the loser's territory, along with the population.
But why would they need to wage war at all?
Firstly, in order to steal and loot, of course. Just as their ancestors had done in tribal times. But why would they need to take territories along with the population? Well, so that the inhabitants of the conquered territory would work for the winners. Whether in the form of slaves, or dependent serfs, or workers - that varied, according to the particular economic form of production and mode of political organization. The main thing is that the losers would produce goods, part of which the winners would then take for themselves. They took only part of the goods of course, else the losers would soon starve to death, and there would be no one to work and produce anything.
Along came the times of the great geographic discoveries. New territories, new opportunities for some to produce goods, and others to take part of them. It was a time when the coastal countries of Europe were at their peak, because the sea gave them easy access to those remote territories. So they traveled far and wide, taking new territories, enslaving their population, and making them work for the metropoly. Of course, they took only part of the goods. Not that they didn't want it all for themselves - they sure did. But they knew from experience that when you have a donkey, you better toss some scraps to it, else it would soon die of starvation, and there would be no one to work and produce anything. And thus, the global colonial system was established.
Years, decades and centuries passed. The times were changing. On the one hand, the large countries (the so called Great Powers) started fighting for dominance. They'd wage the occasional war between themselves. On the other hand, the world didn't stop developing in the meantime. Revolutions came and passed, forms of governance changed, the time of constitutional monarchies alternated with republics; social-economic systems substituted one another, and capital became the dominant force in the process. But one thing remained the same. Colonies, semi-colonies and dependent countries would produce goods, and the Great Powers would take part of them for themselves.
Then the 20th century came. A time of terrible turmoil. WW1, and a major reshuffling of territory and influence. Then WW2, and yet another, even bigger reshuffling. The so called capitalist and communist bloc were created, the so called Cold War began. But there was one thing that didn't change. The dependent countries, the colonies and semi-colonies were producing goods, and part of those goods were being taken by the new masters of the world.
Yeah, but the world wasn't the same any more. The colonies started rebelling. They wanted independence. The colonial system started crumbling. Newer, more flexible and subtle methods for economic and political subordination were necessary. The time of neo-colonialism was at hand.
In terms of foreign policy, neo-colonialism is characterized by the striving of former colonies in transition towards building a state, while emancipating themselves from the metropoly. In the meantime, the metropolies were trying to gradually transfer the power in their former colonies to a select segment of the local intelligentsia and bureaucracy, which was conveniently trained and prepared for friendly cooperation with the metropoly itself.
Indeed, the process of keeping the metropoly's political and economic influence was achieved through various elaborate methods, but here I'd rather focus on the economic ones, because we all know that It's Always The Economy, Stupid.
First and foremost, there was the desire of the metropoly to maintain its positions in the dominant sectors of the local economies, like oil production, or energy production, arms production, etc. But there were already new aspects as well: like the competition with other metropolies (Great Powers), and international companies (transcending national borders), who saw the newly formed states as delicious pieces of pie, territories that begged being re-occupied and re-distributed - especially if the respective metropoly that used to previously dominate them was now temporarily weakened (like the post-Soviet space in the 90s). So what did those Great Powers do this time? Did they wage wars to conquer those territories? No, given the advanced weaponry, that would be insanely self-destructive. That was so 20th century. War was now an option only as a last resort, and even so, preferably a war by proxy, not by a direct stand-off. Not that any pretext couldn't be invented, even a false one (like Iraq). And preferably, it was to be done after the International Body of Bullies, a.k.a. UN Security Council, would explicitly sanction such an action. But not necessarily.
The more subtle way, as per the Economic Hit-man doctrine, was the so called "investment". That is, exporting capitals, where the capital was initially exported, but then would be returned back, with profit of course - because it wouldn't have been capital if there wasn't profit. So where would the bulk of those investments go? Maybe in sectors that needed a lot of capital and would help for the betterment of the local populations and the long-term sustained development of the local economies at the cost of a lot of capital? Nah... that's rather naive.
No, of course the bulk of the money was invested in sectors with high short-term profit, where you could get the most capitals back with the least effort possible. Like in the financial sector (all those balloons), natural monopolies (especially in the energy sector), domestic trade (various foreign trade chains taking over the local economy and pushing the local small and middle businesses into oblivion; and now the interstate trade treaties), etc.
Now granted, there was "aid", too. Most of the economic aid was meant for sustaining the state budgets and money flow in these neo-colonies, under the form of state loans, or loans from international financial institutions (here the trick was to take part of the colony's capital back in the form of interest). Another form of aid was by financing the import of common goods from the Great Powers (of course, using interconnected banks controlled by the metropoly), while little finance is given for the local industry and social services - no self-respecting Great Power would want real competition to emerge from their serfs, would they?
All in all, the Great Powers would use this aid to channel the economic and political development of these lesser countries in the "right" direction, so that the newly established serfs (be they of the Western or Eastern bloc, or just some Third-World banana republics) could proceed in the desired direction. Most often, the aid through loans and credits would aim to clear the path to the export of goods and capitals from the Great Powers to those lesser markets, in exchange for a steady flow of raw materials and cheap labor, while sustaining some kind of semi-vegetative state of existence for the local economy, just so that no social turmoil would erupt there and blow the whole thing up. After all, good business is best done in muddy waters - but not too torrential waters, right? Although you do need the occasional stir-up, because that's the moment where zones of influence are best re-shuffled, and the best profit is made.
Anyway. We're now in the 21st century, and we've got this thing that we call "modern civilization". But how much has the world really changed through the centuries? Maybe not so much, at least not at a fundamental level. Because one thing remains the same. The dependent countries, the colonies and semi-colonies keep producing goods cheaply, and part of those goods are still being taken by the new masters of the world. Be it in the form of "investment" and "return", or through loans with interest, or through other elaborate modern methods - the dependent countries would always relinquish part of what they've produced to their masters. So, which side of this divide do you figure you are at? Do you think you, in case you're a citizen of a Great Power, benefit from this situation in a direct or indirect way? Well, tell you what. The only true winner here is those who hold the big capital. And unless you're a billionaire ruler of an international company, chances are that you ain't one of those.
So, can we ordinary folks from ordinary lesser countries do much about all this? I doubt it, at this point - after all, the world is already too interconnected, and everyone is too dependent on something or somebody. But what we could at least try doing is what depends on us, as consumers. We could use our knowledge of the current state of affairs, and encourage our own economies. We could shop domestic goods at our domestic shops, so that our local economy could develop, and our own labor force could have jobs, and our domestic capital could increase, and our local currency be sustained. There are ways we could help ourselves, because in truth, no one would help us - they'd all just want to exploit us. Can we do that? Sure, why not! We do have heads on our shoulders, and some brains within - so we could use them for what they were meant to be used, as opposed to just being a place to hang our hats on.
In time, states were formed. They had territories that people inhabited. One country would attack another, and the winner would take part of the loser's territory, along with the population.
But why would they need to wage war at all?
Firstly, in order to steal and loot, of course. Just as their ancestors had done in tribal times. But why would they need to take territories along with the population? Well, so that the inhabitants of the conquered territory would work for the winners. Whether in the form of slaves, or dependent serfs, or workers - that varied, according to the particular economic form of production and mode of political organization. The main thing is that the losers would produce goods, part of which the winners would then take for themselves. They took only part of the goods of course, else the losers would soon starve to death, and there would be no one to work and produce anything.
Along came the times of the great geographic discoveries. New territories, new opportunities for some to produce goods, and others to take part of them. It was a time when the coastal countries of Europe were at their peak, because the sea gave them easy access to those remote territories. So they traveled far and wide, taking new territories, enslaving their population, and making them work for the metropoly. Of course, they took only part of the goods. Not that they didn't want it all for themselves - they sure did. But they knew from experience that when you have a donkey, you better toss some scraps to it, else it would soon die of starvation, and there would be no one to work and produce anything. And thus, the global colonial system was established.
Years, decades and centuries passed. The times were changing. On the one hand, the large countries (the so called Great Powers) started fighting for dominance. They'd wage the occasional war between themselves. On the other hand, the world didn't stop developing in the meantime. Revolutions came and passed, forms of governance changed, the time of constitutional monarchies alternated with republics; social-economic systems substituted one another, and capital became the dominant force in the process. But one thing remained the same. Colonies, semi-colonies and dependent countries would produce goods, and the Great Powers would take part of them for themselves.
Then the 20th century came. A time of terrible turmoil. WW1, and a major reshuffling of territory and influence. Then WW2, and yet another, even bigger reshuffling. The so called capitalist and communist bloc were created, the so called Cold War began. But there was one thing that didn't change. The dependent countries, the colonies and semi-colonies were producing goods, and part of those goods were being taken by the new masters of the world.
Yeah, but the world wasn't the same any more. The colonies started rebelling. They wanted independence. The colonial system started crumbling. Newer, more flexible and subtle methods for economic and political subordination were necessary. The time of neo-colonialism was at hand.
In terms of foreign policy, neo-colonialism is characterized by the striving of former colonies in transition towards building a state, while emancipating themselves from the metropoly. In the meantime, the metropolies were trying to gradually transfer the power in their former colonies to a select segment of the local intelligentsia and bureaucracy, which was conveniently trained and prepared for friendly cooperation with the metropoly itself.
Indeed, the process of keeping the metropoly's political and economic influence was achieved through various elaborate methods, but here I'd rather focus on the economic ones, because we all know that It's Always The Economy, Stupid.
First and foremost, there was the desire of the metropoly to maintain its positions in the dominant sectors of the local economies, like oil production, or energy production, arms production, etc. But there were already new aspects as well: like the competition with other metropolies (Great Powers), and international companies (transcending national borders), who saw the newly formed states as delicious pieces of pie, territories that begged being re-occupied and re-distributed - especially if the respective metropoly that used to previously dominate them was now temporarily weakened (like the post-Soviet space in the 90s). So what did those Great Powers do this time? Did they wage wars to conquer those territories? No, given the advanced weaponry, that would be insanely self-destructive. That was so 20th century. War was now an option only as a last resort, and even so, preferably a war by proxy, not by a direct stand-off. Not that any pretext couldn't be invented, even a false one (like Iraq). And preferably, it was to be done after the International Body of Bullies, a.k.a. UN Security Council, would explicitly sanction such an action. But not necessarily.
The more subtle way, as per the Economic Hit-man doctrine, was the so called "investment". That is, exporting capitals, where the capital was initially exported, but then would be returned back, with profit of course - because it wouldn't have been capital if there wasn't profit. So where would the bulk of those investments go? Maybe in sectors that needed a lot of capital and would help for the betterment of the local populations and the long-term sustained development of the local economies at the cost of a lot of capital? Nah... that's rather naive.
No, of course the bulk of the money was invested in sectors with high short-term profit, where you could get the most capitals back with the least effort possible. Like in the financial sector (all those balloons), natural monopolies (especially in the energy sector), domestic trade (various foreign trade chains taking over the local economy and pushing the local small and middle businesses into oblivion; and now the interstate trade treaties), etc.
Now granted, there was "aid", too. Most of the economic aid was meant for sustaining the state budgets and money flow in these neo-colonies, under the form of state loans, or loans from international financial institutions (here the trick was to take part of the colony's capital back in the form of interest). Another form of aid was by financing the import of common goods from the Great Powers (of course, using interconnected banks controlled by the metropoly), while little finance is given for the local industry and social services - no self-respecting Great Power would want real competition to emerge from their serfs, would they?
All in all, the Great Powers would use this aid to channel the economic and political development of these lesser countries in the "right" direction, so that the newly established serfs (be they of the Western or Eastern bloc, or just some Third-World banana republics) could proceed in the desired direction. Most often, the aid through loans and credits would aim to clear the path to the export of goods and capitals from the Great Powers to those lesser markets, in exchange for a steady flow of raw materials and cheap labor, while sustaining some kind of semi-vegetative state of existence for the local economy, just so that no social turmoil would erupt there and blow the whole thing up. After all, good business is best done in muddy waters - but not too torrential waters, right? Although you do need the occasional stir-up, because that's the moment where zones of influence are best re-shuffled, and the best profit is made.
Anyway. We're now in the 21st century, and we've got this thing that we call "modern civilization". But how much has the world really changed through the centuries? Maybe not so much, at least not at a fundamental level. Because one thing remains the same. The dependent countries, the colonies and semi-colonies keep producing goods cheaply, and part of those goods are still being taken by the new masters of the world. Be it in the form of "investment" and "return", or through loans with interest, or through other elaborate modern methods - the dependent countries would always relinquish part of what they've produced to their masters. So, which side of this divide do you figure you are at? Do you think you, in case you're a citizen of a Great Power, benefit from this situation in a direct or indirect way? Well, tell you what. The only true winner here is those who hold the big capital. And unless you're a billionaire ruler of an international company, chances are that you ain't one of those.
So, can we ordinary folks from ordinary lesser countries do much about all this? I doubt it, at this point - after all, the world is already too interconnected, and everyone is too dependent on something or somebody. But what we could at least try doing is what depends on us, as consumers. We could use our knowledge of the current state of affairs, and encourage our own economies. We could shop domestic goods at our domestic shops, so that our local economy could develop, and our own labor force could have jobs, and our domestic capital could increase, and our local currency be sustained. There are ways we could help ourselves, because in truth, no one would help us - they'd all just want to exploit us. Can we do that? Sure, why not! We do have heads on our shoulders, and some brains within - so we could use them for what they were meant to be used, as opposed to just being a place to hang our hats on.
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/15 13:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/10/15 19:22 (UTC)Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, as they say. Human nature doesn't change.
Do you think you, in case you're a citizen of a Great Power, benefit from this situation in a direct or indirect way? Well, tell you what. The only true winner here is those who hold the big capital. And unless you're a billionaire ruler of an international company, chances are that you ain't one of those.
Well, I am a citizen of a Great Power. Are you seriously telling me that because I am not a billionaire and don't have a controlling interest in GM, I haven't benefited from the cultural, economic and military strength of the West over the span of my life? I think that claim is ridiculous on its face.
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/15 19:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/10/15 20:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/10/15 20:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/10/15 01:29 (UTC)