Parenti's so-called "imperialism" is anything but. Imperialism incites images of one nation conquering and subduing another, which is clearly not the intent nor the result of capitalist economic outreach to developing areas. By providing meaningful jobs and gainful employment to denizens of these secluded and impoverished regions, capitalism is improving the quality of life in those countries. Economically speaking, the real GDP per capita is the benchmark upon which quality of life is based. By investing in factories and training indigenous peoples, capitalism is greatly augmenting the GDP of nations, which serves to improve the quality of life. Where imperialism is the subjugation of peoples, capitalism is the empowerment of peoples.
Additionally, Parenti's argument regarding capitalism's destruction of indigenous cultures is ludicrous. Asia boasts one of the fastest growing continental economies (nearly all of which is rooted in a capitalistic system), and yet Asian traditions are flourishing. Indeed, capitalism provides opportunity and opens the eyes of previously remote peoples to the wonders of modern technology, and yields incentive for a modern livelihood.
Parenti spends a great deal of time haranguing the west for past imperialistic behavior. Past instances of exploitation are merely the result of mankind's thirst for betterment. Had the contemporary residents of developing nations been powerful enough to prevent European exploitation, they would have. It is nonsensical to chastise European powers for taking that which was so readily available – just as it is silly to scold a child for eating a cookie when you place it well within his grasp. This is the incentive for success – to the victor, goes the spoils. Thus is the nature of mankind - a characteristic neither positive nor negative. Upon observance of British exploitation of American colonies, America rose against the most powerful nation in the world and succeeded in earning independence. Never has there been a greater underdog victory in human history. America's iron and unyielding resolve in the face of ever growing adversity allowed her triumph over the finest military of the time. America succeeded in defeating an entrenched foe - other nations to fall victim to imperialism were simply incapable of defending themselves from outside invasion, an ability that is absolutely fundamental to autonomy.
Parenti further focuses to near exclusivity on Western imperialism, which he then parallels to the Western development of capitalism. He completely disregards the truth that for nearly all of human history, the conquest of one's neighbors has been a crowning glory. He chastises the West for asserting itself over the East, but makes no mention of the imperialism of the Huns and the great Chinese emperors of yore, or that of the Aztecs and the Mayans. Imperialistic behavior is not the exclusive domain of the West over the East as he attempts to declare.
1 comment:
Nehal: Many of your postings are lively and elegantly written. I'm tempted to raise some questions about some of the claims you make about U.S. history, imperialism, and capitalism, but if I were to do that, I'd bore you to tears with the longest of postings. Plus, my training is in philosophy and hence in the analysis of arguments, so I figure I'd do well to focus my comments on the kinds of arguments you employ in the third paragraph of your posting.
I guess my main criticism of that paragraph would be that there are places where you seem to be confusing "is" with "ought"--or, put differently, things as they are (or have been) with things as they ought to be. I think you're right when you say that had "contemporary residents of developing nations been powerful enough to prevent European exploitation, they would have." But would you also want to say--as what you say in that paragraph implies--that it would be okay if, for instance, developing nations all of a sudden developed some fantastical power that enabled them to take over the U.S. using the most violent and vile methods one could imagine (insert here whatever your imagination comes up with)? If such a scenario were to take place, I'm assuming you would do more than just try to resist their attempts; you'd likely say that what they were doing is wrong. However, the way your third paragraph is written, it sounds like you're endorsing the view that "might makes right," that whoever wins a fight somehow deserves to win--regardless of how the fight was conducted and what values/ideals the opposing sides represented.
You also write, "Past instances of exploitation are merely the result of mankind's thirst for betterment." That may be true, but don't you want to distinguish between good and bad ways of satisfying "the thirst for betterment"? What if people could better themselves without exploiting others? What if they could do it through cooperation with others (or at least through more cooperation than we might be accustomed to expecting from people)? I'm well aware that there are major obstacles to getting people to work together rather than against each other. Moreover, I'm not assuming some view of humans as naturally benevolent and excited to cooperate with others. That said, it seems that with some hard work we could do better in the department of satisfying our thirst for betterment--better, at least, than our world's imperialist past might lead one to believe.
Despite the critical remarks I've just made, I want to say again that your postings make for very interesting reading. Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment