Open KnowledgeコミュのYukko:Is development possible under capitalism?

開発のdiscussion paper

Is development possible under capitalism?





Liberalists advocate capitalism and believe it provides a positive incentive for development.
On the other hand, there is the underdevelopment position which claim capitalism to be the harbinger of development.

Whichever the position, both recognize the dominant influenece capitalism has on the systematic structure of the world.

To question which side is more preferable for development seems to digress from the gist of the argument in a way.
And this is because both sides already recognize and comprehend that capitalism is inevitable.

Socialism, capitalism...whatever the mode of production, they all exist within one another.
They all came to be from one another.

It is not the mode of production that molds the structure of a society.
It is the structure of the society itelf that changes the mode of production.

And so the most appropriate question to bring forward would be to ask,
How is development possible under capitalism?

We do not even need to call it capitalism.
because capitalism is here now and was here beofore too.
it was always here.

Wallerstine realizes this and says,
It is not only the elements within the system which change.
the system itself is historically bounded.

Is it really necessary to say that liberalists and the underdevelopment position have different claims?
Arent they just investigating one thing from different platforms?
Don't their claims come together to form one whole?

It is the integration of these realizations that matter.
Not how one segregates the other from one another.

Examining the temporal dimensions,

there is the North and the South
the core and the periphery
and possibly the comprador

high tariffs or low tariffs
trade is being practiced

no one state exists in itself
and it never will

even socialist states trade
although it may not be at a global level

globalization is no recent phenomenon

Structuralists may claim free trade leads to underdevelopment
but it leads to both development and underdevelopment

an ebb and flow of monetary power is inevitable

there can be no absolute equity

a balance,
although it is still veiled within our minds,
is possible
but not absolute equity

and so going back to the question of whether development is possible under capitalism,
it is taken for granted that liberalists and the underdevelopment position are making two different claims
when actually its like reading from a history textbook and flipping to the next page







i have yet to consider this question further
とりあえず、今回はこんな感じで