Vietnam, Now.
I am reading this book right now, an interesting look at modern day Vietnam by a reporter who was there during the war and has now been living in Hanoi for four years. It is encouraging to see the ways that the country is moving towards more prosperity and (economic) openness. Vietnam provides a great example of my personal struggle with capitalism.
While I hate the capitalist idea that wealth is to be carefully guarded and used in only the most efficient and profitable way based on "the market," I cannot get around the fact that it has also transformed many parts of East Asia, especially Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and most parts of China (and Taiwan).
As far as Vietnam is concerned, the author notes that after the American War (as the Vietnamese call the conflict that lasted from 1965-1975) Vietnam's descent into poverty made them a net importer of rice. Decades later and because of the free market reforms, they are today the second-largest rice exporter in the world. This along with the fact that standards of living are rising all over the country and the average young person's future is now determined more by how hard they work rather than how high up their connections with the Communist Party are.
At the same time, urban unemployment is growing and one can argue that much of Vietnam's culture is being brushed aside in order for multinational companies to do business. This is just a brief look at the conflict I feel about capitalism.
This post, in a way, goes back to my previous post about Iraqi businesses. I think that all along too much faith has been put in the free market to rebuild and "fix" Iraq after years of authoritarian rule. I also think that it is important to note that the Vietnamese were international pariahs before deciding, on their own, that they would begin the process of "doi moi" (renovation) and open up their country for business. Iraq, on the other hand, had the free market forced on them, along with the chaos that came along.
Do you feel any kind of conflict with Capitalism?
While I hate the capitalist idea that wealth is to be carefully guarded and used in only the most efficient and profitable way based on "the market," I cannot get around the fact that it has also transformed many parts of East Asia, especially Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and most parts of China (and Taiwan).
As far as Vietnam is concerned, the author notes that after the American War (as the Vietnamese call the conflict that lasted from 1965-1975) Vietnam's descent into poverty made them a net importer of rice. Decades later and because of the free market reforms, they are today the second-largest rice exporter in the world. This along with the fact that standards of living are rising all over the country and the average young person's future is now determined more by how hard they work rather than how high up their connections with the Communist Party are.
At the same time, urban unemployment is growing and one can argue that much of Vietnam's culture is being brushed aside in order for multinational companies to do business. This is just a brief look at the conflict I feel about capitalism.
This post, in a way, goes back to my previous post about Iraqi businesses. I think that all along too much faith has been put in the free market to rebuild and "fix" Iraq after years of authoritarian rule. I also think that it is important to note that the Vietnamese were international pariahs before deciding, on their own, that they would begin the process of "doi moi" (renovation) and open up their country for business. Iraq, on the other hand, had the free market forced on them, along with the chaos that came along.
Do you feel any kind of conflict with Capitalism?
 | Currently Reading Vietnam, Now: A Reporter Returns By David Lamb see related |
posted by cooper @ 7:18 PM
4 Comments:
At Sunday, January 08, 2006 11:59:00 PM,
Kat said…
The truth is, capitalism only works with when the rule of law is strong, protecting individual rights and when the government of said country can enforce its laws. Further, that it will enforce these laws even to the detriment of a wealthy entity, thereby constricting or at least making it a low probability, that corruption will denigrate these protections.
So, good governance and ability to sustain growth of economy, thus sustain survivability of the state, requires defined law protecting individual rights, property rights and personal wealth, a strong independent judiciary, the ability to enforce those laws AND capitalism or free markets (free markets, not laissez faire, which is what you speak of, laissez faire usually being detrimental to individuals and creating corruption for the sake of wealth).
It is not capitalism that is evil or bad in its self but wherever capitalism meets the lack of law and order that usually creates the evil.
Its like giving a four year old a crayon and a piece of paper and then leaving the room without telling them that they cannot draw on the wall or, upon returning and finding that they have drawn on the wall, not taking the crayon away and putting them in the corner.
When you gave the four year old the crayon and the paper without telling them what they must draw, you gave them the ability to create. By not declaring the limits that will protect against destruction, nor enforcing the punishment for destroying, you give the impression that it is okay to do it again and again. And, as in people, corporations are want to push the limit whenever they are not challenged or given parameters.
For Iraq to prosper in the near future and be able to sustain free markets (at least as we know it), they will need what the US needed within 10 years of its creation, a strong central government, a strong central currency, strong law, independent judiciary and the ability of the central government to enforce these laws.
Recall that the US was near economic disaster within 10 years of its creation because individual states and businessmen were intent on doing business, making contracts and setting taxes for their own individual improvement (this included many an agreement with foreign businesses). This economic disaster left us open to division and invasion in fact.
Iraq will need to do as the US has done and strengthen its central government enough that it is capable of protecting all and not just the ability of individual governates with local militias protecting the few within their regions.
I believe we have a few years to go before the idea sinks in and true liberals who are interested in the protection of their new rights and freedoms come to leadership, which will necessitate protecting individuals even from capitalist laissez faire pirates because this will promote the spread of wealth and decrease the possibility of a populist revolution that results in less freedom, as such populists revolutions often do, being led by those who believe that serving the utopian "greater good" may mean that only the select few who "know the right way" enforce the law, even against the wishes or against the rights of individuals.
So, no, I don't struggle with capitalism, I struggle with the lack of freedom and the rule of law.
At Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:43:00 PM,
lemuel said…
If I can recommend a book for your reading, Tyler Cowen: "Creative destruction" is a very nice treatise on how free exchange via free trade influences, changes, "destroyes" and mixes cultures.
At Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:56:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
I do. Natural capital should be the limiting factor in production. Also, there is no such thing as a "free" market.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060106.htm
http://www.umass.edu/peri/forum/daly.htm
At Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:14:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
yeah, i mentioned this to you earlier. i do have conflictual feelings about capitalism, though they are much simpler concerns.
these other comments sure do seem informative though...!
Post a Comment
<< Home