Capitalist boycott of non complying countries

ZSplash Forums AskAlbert Capitalist boycott of non complying countries

This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by avatar Michael Albert 7 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #722724

    Louis Desribes
    Participant

    Capitalist countries have accumulated capital that they choose to distribute to complying countries. The boycott of Cuba has been effective to keep the standard of living down. South Africa had to keep the big capitalists in place after the abolition of apartheid to attract capital & stop capital leaving the country. China economic progress is due to capital flowing there for maximum profits. So the question is can any alternative system produce the accumulation of capital that can then be used to create more jobs?
    When a system is egalitarian there is no accumulation & nothing to redistribute. Would Parecon address this problem?

    #722743
    avatar
    Michael Albert
    Participant

    “When a system is egalitarian there is no accumulation & nothing to redistribute. Would Parecon address this problem?”

    This is actually not the case. Whether a particular country with a particular type of economy decides to invest, or not, and I think that is what you are referring to here, though I am not sure, is partly determined by the type of economy, partly by the country’s state of development, and partly by actual choices people make, more or less freely.

    Take the same country, and consider it with a capitalist economy, or with a parecon – and ignore, for the moment, hostility from without (or within). In the former accumulation is literally compelled by the institutions – meaning a very large part of the social product goes to a very small portion of the population, who in turn invest it. In a parecon, what part of the social product is put to investing in changes, new means of production, etc. etc., is a freely made social choice. And there is another difference. In capitalism, the point of the investment will be generating more profits and maintaining the system of profit making, whereas in parecon the point of the investment will be improving people’s lives while maintaining the conditions of classlessness, equity, etc.

    The issue you raise of external counries interfering with efforts at progressive much less pareconish change is real, to be sure. But there is no special issue, much less a negative issue, regarding generating investments, other than those mentioned above.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

The forum ‘AskAlbert’ is closed to new topics and replies.