It is almost 20 years old and notes that industrialization and modernization is a process. It doesn't really work for a country to get rich without climbing it [edit: except free money, like with oil], including simple jobs in the beginning -- and now China is doing it.
In my book, it is good for humanity with a billion less horribly poor people. It doesn't feel bad to be on the other side of that, because of ideology?
I really wish we would all just spend more time focusing on our countries and improving our quality of life through trade and the free exchange of ideas. Other countries don't have to listen to our lessons or advice, or our experience, but being critical gets us nowhere.
It's also incredibly Euro-centric to be thinking that other countries ought to be following the path Europe and the US took to capitalism, and then to say that these countries should be implementing it in such a way that there's the same worker exploitation everywhere.
Worker exploitation isn't some thing in the past. It doesn't just happen in China, it's happening all the time and everywhere. But the case of it is so readily apparent in China it ought to be a case against worker exploitation as a whole. Yet some people still say "nevermind these countries, they're just on their way to being like us". We do not stop to question whether being like Europe is actually beneficial?
Other countries like Soviet Union or Maoist China have tried other paths with not exactly stellar results.
I think countries should be free to choose their own paths and for those countries to find their own unique implementations of economic policy and whatnot is fascinating, and we can always learn from them and implement the good things while eschewing the bad. As long as they don't interfere with what my country wants to do, they can do whatever they want.
They are going through the same thing as us, but we still have people saying that capitalism will move us "forward". No, capitalism in these countries simply means that their exploitation isn't as readily obvious. It's "friendly". This is why there are pool tables in offices for example, it's there to placate you while your wages fail to represent the work you do. The discrepancy between the value of what is produced and the wages given in return is most visible in countries like China in these factories. It's less readily obvious when your boss lets you play pool in the office.
As far as I can tell, the only "indistrialization and modernization" that's going on is workers being treated better, while retaining the idea that it's fine to do certain things that, say, damage the environment and it's fine to maintain the discrepancy between the labour applied and the wages.
I think it ought to be abandoned as a whole, and this concept of "limits to what capitalists can do is better than stopping them from doing it" is abandoned. That's my two cents anyway.
Please note that experiments with alternative societal models often have failure modes like dictatorships and/or a large part of the population dying in horrible ways and/or... It is not something to experiment with lightly.
It is a pity that you proponents of alternative models are so full of hot air, good research and analysis would be needed; there ought to be better ways. Most of you guys sound like you are paid to discredit everything but the status quo.
I agree it's not something to be taken lightly, but saying that there have been failures in the past is not an argument against trying to fix those failures by systematically identifying them. The modern Marxist movement is focused on finding the failures of the 20th century attempts at Socialism.
Besides that, calling out capitalism for the exploitative system that it is by no means implies I'm supporting any particular societal model, nor that I approve of other's societal model. It only means that I disapprove of capitalism.
And you know, I'm sure that during feudalism there were lords, barons and peasants all saying the exact same thing you are saying right now. You can't simply dismiss every other model that society may be fitted to by pointing out that atrocities were committed in the past. That's painting with a brush that is too thick.
>nice and democratic countries And you're even assuming democracy is something inherently good. There is also the distinction between 'pure' democracy and 'bourgeois' democracy that's worth knowing about, as Engels wrote about.
The article doesn't even make sense! He's actually arguing that low wages are better than zero wages, while low wages are also better than high wages, and that the wealth creation whose impact he boasts about isn't even having a subsantial impact!
> First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.
He doesn't even think to consider that, for example, a tax+entitlements scheme, that every civilized nation has, could stave off this "labor aristocracy". Nor does he explain why a Western labor aristoracy is OK, but an Eastern labor aristocracy is not.
The article is thin logically-bankrupt apologetics.
Krugman himself has walked back his old claims, he calls it "hyper-globalization" (~5minute mark). https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/paul-kr...
Can you transcribe exactly what support your extreme claims (without taking it out of context from where Krugman said he supports globalization and why he do that.)
Did Krugman EVER talk about any other way of countries to start getting rich and going towards becoming nice societies (democratic, high education, taking care of people, etc)?
If he can show that, I'd guess he'll get another Nobel... at least. :-)
(Krugman discussed income inequality inside societies a bit, not relevant here. And a bit about US politics.)
Bali went straight from having an agrarian economy to a service-based economy without ever going through an industrial period. It can happen given the right conditions, but it isn't common.
