As far as I can tell, it goes like this...western Europe, around the late 15th early 16th century, spurred on by economic need at home and by the profound human desire to expand and exploit to fullest potential, and justified by it's missionary belief that it had to save the savages of the "new world" from themselves, set out to steal other people's land by force.

Eventually, between us, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands ruled what we now call the third world, in fact pretty much everywhere excluding parts of China (much of which was effectively an economic colony), Japan, and the rest of Europe.

We used these lands entirely for our own economic gain. The whole infrastructure of these country's was dedicated to finding the quickest ways to export the goods which we wanted at the time to our lands, and development of any other goods and services, infrastructure, or socio-economic structure was severely limited.

When these country's eventually gained independence (often after a devastating struggle which in itself left them even more backwards) they were, inevitably, in no fit state to function as coherent nation states. In many cases (ie the Arab world) they were simply in existence because of lines we had drawn in the sand, and had populations who largely had no wish to form any part of such a country. So, in order to take the first steps towards developing as nation states, they had to turn to the west. We had the money to provide loans, and the expertise, capital, and technological advancements they needed in order to develop the infrastructure needed to survive as nation states. A large part of the reason we had all these advantages over them in the first place was because of the wealth we had accumulated by colonising them. So they began their stint as nation states dependent on, and indebted, to us. Ever since, they have not had the chance to develop any sort of socio-economic structure or political reforms which serve the interests of the majority of their people, because they have been simply fighting for day to day survival and the need to please the foreign investors and money lenders who have deliberately made themselves indispensable since these nations came into being and have used this power to make sure these country's governments serve their interests when at all possible..

I feel, therefore, that it is impossible to judge the third world by first world standards when it has always been forced to be dependent on more established economies. Furthermore,the industrialization which occured in much of the third world between the 1930s and 1960s came at a time when many of these country's exports were declining in value, and therefore the money earned to buy much needed technology from the first world was getting less every time. Exporting more was not an option as it would only further depress prices, and exporting less was not a possibility when they were depndent on foreign capital and therefore unwilling to take on it's interests. Also, even when this was not the case, the industrialization which did take place came at a time when fairly advanced technology had already made industry much-less labour intensive, therefore denying the third world the chance to enjoy high employment and wages and a growing domestic market such as that which was enjoyed by European countries at a similair stage of their development, therefore allowing a large middle class and a strong working class to establish itself.

This lack of an established middle class has also made liberalism in the third world unviable. This is because such an ideology depends on a large middle strata which is economically powerful and with interests which clash with the traditional elites, a middle strata which has faith in itself as the guardians of the country's future and which has faith in the country itself. In the third world, this middle strata has been firstly too small, and secondly, where it has existed, it's interests have, as a result of the middle strata being made up largely of the urban population which lives off the trade generated by the export of commodities to and the import of commodities from the first world, been dependent on the established economies of the US and western Europe and the traditional third world elites who guard those interests. Liberalism has only appeared to be viable when the middle strata has believed itself to have interests different to the traditional elites and overseas economies, but in times of crisis this has been exposed as a lie, and their lack of faith in their own countries - often expressed in racist terms - has become apparent. In this instance, they have tended to form alliances with the representatives of the elites and foreign capital.

The first challenge I think is to make sure that people in the third world are given access to these ideas. It seems to me that because the traditional elites of the third world, backed by the west, fear the left so much, they have tolerated and even encouraged religious fundamentalism and nationalism as a way to divert the masses away from the leftism which they have invested all their energy into crushing. This same fascism (not saying that western imperialism is not fascism in itself) which the ruling classes have tolerated, and even encouraged, in order to keep the masses from turning to the left, be it for example white supremacism amongst the white working classes of Europe and North America/Oceania, or Islamofascism, has often come back to hurt them strongly, and in many cases they have lost control of it completely. But, ultimately, it is a result of the current system we live under, and is just a symptom - and the only way to cure this is to fight the root cause - imperialism (which I believe to be more of a class issue than a nationalism issue, seeing as it can benefit the elites and some of the middle classes in exploited country's and harm the working classes in imperialist country's).

So, like I was saying, we need to first make sure that disenfranchised people, whether they are racist whites in the west, or muslims, or africans, Asians, Latin Americans, whatever, are no longer allowed to live in a vacuum of ideas and be forced to turn to the only available reaction against (as they see it) the system which disenfranchises them - and often they will not even be targetting this system but another percieved enemy. We hav to make sure that they realise who the real enemy is, and to stop people fighting each other based on religion, race or nationalism.

After this has been acheived, I think the result will be an eventual, much needed, overthrow of this corrupt, exploitative system.

Call me idealistic, but this society we live in is no more "concrete" than the Roman or Aztec or Egyptian civilisations, and when historians look back on it they will marvel at the carefully designed social structure of our time, and how it was upheld through various deliberate and tenuous counter-balances, compromises and lies. There is no reason why it cannot change (or, conversely, fall into a smoking wreck), and although it would be impossible and stupid to put any sort of timespan on this, I think we should start to make a serious effort to change it now, if only so that when we view ourselves from history's eyes we need no longer be embarrassed by our uselessness and stupidity. I see no reason why a better world is not possible other than our own refusal to believe in it's possibility.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
This lack of an established middle class has also made liberalism in the third world unviable.

---

in the space of 2 generations, Taiwan, S.Korea, Malaysia and Singapore jumped from wretched states to solidly prosperous

in the late 1950s, S. Korea was the per capita economic equal of Ghana and Bangladesh, but then leaped way ahead very quickly

so while many states HAVE failed to prosper, your argument is inconclusive

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:

in the space of 2 generations, Taiwan, S.Korea, Malaysia and Singapore jumped from wretched states to solidly prosperous

in the late 1950s, S. Korea was the per capita economic equal of Ghana and Bangladesh, but then leaped way ahead very quickly

so while many states HAVE failed to prosper, your argument is inconclusive

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

---

Yes,these few were the Asian"tigers". However, I think there's a different explanation. After WWII, with the world strongly divided between Communist and Western blocs, USA needed a quick market for its booming economy.

While certainly Japan's economy took a while to recover, they were economically advanced already.
However, Taiwan and South Korea were strategic allies against perceived communist expansion.
Its natural that by 1960's the Yanks would have pumped investment into them and offer better trade deals.
Once again,this makes sense because half of Europe,USSR and China were out of bounds for US capitalism. Therefore, Japan, Taiwan and other "tigers" were chosen and cultivated as industrialized economies. Their goods and purchases from US would be a big boost.
The Asians are naturally industrious people, but its unlikely that they would grow if they have received the same treatment from the tycoons as other 3rd world countries.

Those who think that economic take-off is available to everyone have to explain how it will be possible for EVERYONE to have PREFERENTIAL access to the richest markets, as Japan and Korea had.

However, I still think that it is wrongto say, as poster IMQP does, above, that we should not impose the same standards of behaviour on Third World countries as on first-world ones.

For the most fundamental values, ie. no torture, access to an independent court system, etc. there should be an insistence that these standards be adhered to.

Obviously, insisting on these things is not the same as invading countries that fail the test. But every third world rebel I know wants more adherence to these values, not less.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: jeff house ]

But that's different than supporting universal values such as those adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and supporting the strengthening of multilateral insitutions to safeguard those rights.

A copy of the UN Declaration is available here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Western values are available to everyone at the closest dollar store. They contain the same durability and are of the same quality as the rest of the merchandise. But do read the safety precautions as they will kill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Alternatives?

First of all I would question the whole idea that "values" are shared within any discreet social group.

---

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Do you have any evidence for the existance of such "values"?

---

You have shifted the frame. My statement includes the potential for general human "vaules", on a universal level.

As an example, much of what is under discussion these days about the differences between Islam as an "eastern" moral conceptual frame work, and Christianity as a "western" moral conceptual framework, misses completely the fact that they are both from the same liniage of monotheastic moral conceptions.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

As an example, much of what is under discussion these days about the differences between Islam as an "eastern" moral conceptual frame work, and Christianity as a "western" moral conceptual framework, misses completely the fact that they are both from the same liniage of monotheastic moral conceptions.

---

If you assert that the "west" is responsible for the inability of the rest of the world to develop egalitarian manners of governance, essentially that the "west" is responsible for all bad things, aren't you also asserting that the "west" must also be responsible for all good, since it is the only force to which you ascribe agency.

The "third world" is passive in this paradigm.

You might want to check out a book called "The Race to Fashoda," by David Levering Lewis, a book about imperialism in 19th century Africa. An interesting survey for a lot of reasons, one of them being that he presents a case where we can see how the politics of the colonized often had a powerful impact on the colonizers.

Certainly, in many cases, "third world" political movements are junior partners in the power struggles that shape our world, but they are not entirely without power.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Il Morto Qui Parla:
To the people who talk about human rights and "relativism" let me point out that the only reason that the third world is underdeveloped and therefore unable to implement liberalism and more prone to abuse of human rights in the west is because of the fact that the west gains it's prosperity from sucking the third world dry and can therefore afford to buy itself a veneer of civilisation. To promote human rights within this framework is impossible as it is western imperialism which is the root cause of the problem, even in cases when the government in question is nominally anti-western. Therefore, it is simply pointless to condemn human rights abuses in the third world whilst global capitalism exists as a tool for first world imperialism, becayse the problem cannot be solved by condemnation, only by the overhaul of this corrupt and exploitative system.

---

Definately factors, but you may want to look into the likes of Mobutu, Taylor, Mugabe and the likes of other leaders that have been less than innocent bystanders in their country's underdevelopment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
There is certainly some value in that assesment, but simple dualisms also fail, even on the level of principle.

If you assert that the "west" is responsible for the inability of the rest of the world to develop egalitarian manners of governance, essentially that the "west" is responsible for all bad things, aren't you also asserting that the "west" must also be responsible for all good, since it is the only force to which you ascribe agency.

The "third world" is passive in this paradigm.

You might want to check out a book called "The Race to Fashoda," by David Levering Lewis, a book about imperialism in 19th century Africa. An interesting survey for a lot of reasons, one of them being that he presents a case where we can see how the politics of the colonized often had a powerful impact on the colonizers.

Certainly, in many cases, "third world" political movements are junior partners in the power struggles that shape our world, but they are not entirely without power.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Obviously in a direct sense individuals are "responsible" for their own actions. But my point is that everything that happens in the world, whether good or bad, happens within the socio-economic framework of western dominance and exploitation of third world nations. This does not mean that a small group of evil conspirators is constantly and deliberately planning against the development of the third world - in fact a lot of the harm in the world is done by people like Tony Blair who genuinely seem to believe that what they are doing is for the best. The problem is not one group of malicious-minded individuals, rather a whole system, and as the west is the benefactor from and upholder/imposer of this system, the best people to overturn it would be us in the west. If we fail to do this then we are simply wasting our time in condemning atrocities in the third world, because as long as this system remains in place the third world will remain backwards in a socio-economic and political sense. I am not interested in moralising, seeking revenge on anyone, or guilt-tripping, I am simply interested in resolving the problem - we could fight Mugabe, yes, but we would be doing so within the framework that created him and therefore simply add to the problem in the long run. The only solution is an end to global capitalism in it's current form.