Topic: Neo-liberalism and the crisis of Capitalism - page 2. (Read 358 times)

Banged on the point. This is the perfect explanation of why underdeveloped nations remains underdeveloped and poor it's not because of capitalism as we need to think who allowed capitalism? Who is being benefited by it? It's all due to incompetent leaders as they should be held responsible and people should vote for development and you will notice more of ethnic or religion based violence in these nations which is orchestrated by leaders to retain power.

neo-liberalism… it promised a lot, right? Growth, opportunity, that rising tide that lifts all boats. But that tide lifted some yachts and left the rest of us treading water. Everything's a commodity now, even things that shouldn't be. We've got this insane wealth gap, people struggling just to survive, whole communities left behind. That's the reality neo-liberalism can't hide

They talk about fancy economic policies, tweaking things at the margins. And did it fix the fundamental problems in Africa, or anywhere outside the wealthy West? No, because it was never going to. The system's designed to benefit the ones already winning

Think about it: these "underdeveloped" countries, they're not starting from zero. They've got a history of exploitation, resources drained, power stripped away. So, yeah, you can throw some neo-liberal policies at them, but it's like trying to run a marathon with a ball and chain on your ankle. It's not about bad policie; it's about the entire damn system being stacked against them. This isn't just economics; this is about power, and about who gets to write the rules of the game

Colonialism no longer exists, colonialism has been abolished since 1945. Capitalism is a good economic concept but greedy and often miserable. The economic system of communism is utopian, no country has ever arrived at the ideal concept of communism.

If developed countries do not control natural resources such as oil, coal, etc. then that is good, although it cannot be a guarantee that the country will develop after being abandoned by developed countries.

No, I don't blame capitalism, and my dream is to become a capitalist because they often become rich people

This is not capitalism. This is colonialism you are talking about. Colonialism and capitalism were closely connected in the last few centuries, but  I don't believe that colonialism and capitalism are the same thing. You seem like one of the guys, who blame capitalism for everything.
Why don't the African countries build a bunch of communist egalitarian societies with a government owned command driven economy?
Completely removing capitalism out of the equation will solve the problem. Right? What could possibly go wrong?
Do you really believe that African countries will become developed if the western countries suddenly disappear?

I think it’s both. Capitalism is feeding the rich and letting the poor eat off of their scraps and incompetent leaders can’t do anything to support the poor. I believe that capitalism is a way to improve economic conditions of a country but it won’t work if not everyone can participate so a country needs a certain level of capitalism and at the same a government that can make sure that every citizen in the country can keep up with the level of capitalism the country has.

The leaders of a country should instead focus on improving their economies by participating in global trades particularly exporting products instead of constantly importing. This way they can take advantage of capitalism and finally get out of the third world economy.

Agree with you. Their suffering occurs because international capitalism is carried out by developed countries and poor countries become fields that are always exploited by developed countries.

So what keeps poor countries poor is developed countries and they don't want poor countries to get better because it doesn't benefit them.

it is because of capitalism.. its your leaders that chose to favour international capitalism. (they get rich from the international community taking over domestic property, services, land) rather than domestic capitalism where they get rich from their own citizens growth

capitalism was the broken promise that if those at the bottom of the pyramid get better it then enriches those above..
its broken because instead of improving those at the bottom they just syphoned value from those at the bottom

and instead of it being internal(domestically) the leaders allowed international capitalism where majority of the trickle up economics benefitted other countries at the top of the international pyramic, who then gave a small piece to the leaders as a thanks for the deal.. thus didnt allow domestic growth/success as the money didnt stay inside the country or benefit those in the domestic pyramid


    

If you look at those undeveloped continent like Africa and most part of Asia, the suffering and poverty that existed within is not mainly cause by capitalism, socialism or any other form of government being practice by the state, The major cause of suffering in those part of the world is mostly cause by the high level of incompetence by our leaders.


I am a proud African, so I am saying this not as an outsider, I know what's going on within, most natural disasters most countries around the world are complaining about mostly don't happen here, our own disaster is not natural, it's man made, it's only few of our leaders that have the intention of even doing anything tangible for it citizens, they mostly care about their families and how to enrich their selfs through embezzlement of public funds.

so I don't think it's because of capitalism or any other systems that are making the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, it's because of the bad leadership in the state.

The emergence of industrial capitalism which commenced in Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century heralded two social phenomena such as; pervasive commodification ( all productions geared for sale), and monetization (the centrality and  the use of money for transactions). Sequel to this development, the entire human society became polarized into two social classes; the owners of production and labour. The latter became decomposed into different social classes such as; the middle class, working class, lower class, under class and lastly at best, though more often than not is never recond, the peasantry.
Thus, production is organized within these social complexities which is characterized with antagonisms arising from inequality, poverty, unemployment, inflation and hunger. These are the causes of the miseries in the human society in recent times.
The Great Depression in Europe in 1929 is as the results of these macroeconomic indices as stated above. Classical liberalism was not able to address the crisis, so there was a shift for the adoption of the neo- liberal paradigms such as; fiscal policy and monetary policy. These were operationalized to help manipulate aggregate demands as to minimize unemployment and inflation in Europe. It was achieved through Budgetary framework which shows the ratio of recurrent expenditures and capital expenditures and the directives of expenditures are specified accordingly.
Ever since the European countries, the United States of America and other advance countries are helped by this neoliberal permutations.
On the basis of these ideological persuasions, what really is happening to the African continent and other underdeveloped continents. Why are they not been able to liberate their continents from the contemporary crisis of global capitalism.
I would want the users of this forum to comment and contribute to this great debate. Thanks.