shalinialisha/ai-for-all · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 305
sense nor sound economics, not even our own experience, is with us in this.
Experiences of other countries that have chosen a different path, a path
of economic reconstruction, is most instructive here. Take North Korea or
Albania. Both these countries were underdeveloped as late as the fifties.
The reason they have been able to register most outstanding economic
progress is that they have decided to opt out of production for the so-called
world market and have diverted their resources toward the development of a
material and technological base internally.
The Pearson Commission’s Report—Partners in Development—has
been hailed, even by the developing countries, as ushering in a new era, a
sort of turning point, in international cooperation for development. Even if
its recommendations were to be adopted and implemented in toto it is
doubtful if it would make any impact on the ever widening gap between the
developed and the developing countries. This is because it has avoided
tackling the most fundamental question, namely, “Can development take
place when our production strategy is influenced by the demands of the
world market which is determined almost exclusively by the pattern of
production and consumption within capitalist Europe and America?” In
other words, in distorting our economies to fit in with the demands of the
world market, the demands of which are not always compatible with the
demands of our own development, are we not, in the process, depriving our
economies of the capacity for a self-sustaining growth which is a
precondition to development?
By posing the question in this style, it is possible to see through the
smokescreen of international do-gooders and begin to understand the real
cause of our underdevelopment. It is, of course, too much to expect Pearson
or people of his liberal inclination to pose the question in this way, since
their training and outlook consider this way of putting the question to be
almost morally sinful and economically subversive.
However, as leaders of the developing countries, we are obliged to adopt
this style of posing the question since we have taken upon ourselves the
responsibility for steering a development course whose success or failure

will affect, one way or another, the well-being of hundreds of million of the
people who comprise more than two-thirds of the human race. For too long
we have left their fate to be determined by the kind of production which is
not based on the satisfaction of their wants but rather on serving external
interests as expressed by the accepted laws of supply and demand of the socalled world market. We have twisted their education in such a way that the
“skills” we direct them to develop are geared towards serving the same ends
of the world market rather than towards development of an internal material
base, with the result that technologically, and in relation to the developed
world, we move backward rather than forward. We have tamely accepted
the so-called international division of labor on behalf of our masses, and in
doing so we have condemned them to specialize in primary commodities
whose production is conducive neither to the development of technological
skills nor to the invention of advanced machinery, both of which are the
preconditions to real economic development.
The significance of Dr. Rodney’s book is that it is addressed, quite
appropriately, to the masses and not to the leaders and one hopes that it will
be instrumental in arousing some mass action by the people. In the absence
of committed leadership, many African countries have fallen prey to
military exploitation, to the extent that today the generals constitute the
majority at the African summit. This is as it should be, because when the
political leadership loses the sense of internal direction, when, in
bewilderment, it gives up its efforts to find solutions to people’s problems
and begins to accumulate wealth for its own individual use, political
leadership tends to get increasingly “commandist” in its state operations.
Logic and rationale become subversive. And when politicians become
commandists, they too become redundant, because who is better fitted to
giving command than the army?
With very few exceptions it is sad to have to admit that Africa is ill
served by the current conglomeration of what passes for leaders throughout
the continent. When Asia and Latin America produce giants, like Mao, Ho,
Ché, who inspire and excite the imagination not only of their compatriots
within their borders, but of the rest of the world, including the developed
world, Africa has produced only one Nyerere and maintained him in power,
while we have murdered Lumumba and have locked up or exiled leaders
like Ben Bella and Nkrumah in response to the wishes of the imperialists—

our donors, our moneylenders, our patrons, our masters, our trading
partners.
With all due respect, it is difficult to imagine, apart from one or two
honorable exceptions, any of the present leaders who is capable of standing
up for the genuine rights of his people, knowing that these rights are of
necessity directly opposed to the interests of imperialism. And yet such a
stand is necessary if we are to really fulfill our obligation as leaders;
otherwise, we have no right to impose our leadership on the people. While
most of the leaders on the continent have no sense of urgency in solving the
problems of people’s misery, since they don’t bear the brunt of their misery,
the masses, who do, cannot wait. That is why one hopes that Dr. Rodney’s
book will be read by as many people as possible because it has come at a
time when it is most needed, for action.
After reading the harrowing account of the brutalities of slavery, of
subjugation, of deprivation and humiliation, when whole civilizations were
crushed in order to serve the imperialist interests of the West; when settled
societies were disintegrated by force of imperialist arms so that the
plantation owners of the “new world” could get their uprooted, and
therefore permanent, labor force to build what is now the most advanced
capitalist economy, it becomes absolutely clear that the only way out of our
current impasse is through a revolutionary path—a complete break with the
system which is responsible for all our past and present misery.
Our future course must be guided dialectically. If by looking into the past
we have known the present, to know the future we must look into the past
and the present. Our action must be related to our concrete experience and
we must not give way to metaphysical hopes and wishes—hoping and
wishing that the monster who has been after us throughout our history will
some day change into a lamb; he won’t. As Engels puts it: “Freedom does
not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws, but in the
knowledge of these laws . . . freedom of the will, therefore, means nothing
but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject.” We

sense nor sound economics, not even our own experience, is with us in this.

Experiences of other countries that have chosen a different path, a path

of economic reconstruction, is most instructive here. Take North Korea or

Albania. Both these countries were underdeveloped as late as the fifties.

The reason they have been able to register most outstanding economic

progress is that they have decided to opt out of production for the so-called

world market and have diverted their resources toward the development of a

material and technological base internally.

The Pearson Commission’s Report—Partners in Development—has

been hailed, even by the developing countries, as ushering in a new era, a

sort of turning point, in international cooperation for development. Even if

its recommendations were to be adopted and implemented in toto it is

doubtful if it would make any impact on the ever widening gap between the

developed and the developing countries. This is because it has avoided

tackling the most fundamental question, namely, “Can development take

place when our production strategy is influenced by the demands of the

world market which is determined almost exclusively by the pattern of

production and consumption within capitalist Europe and America?” In

other words, in distorting our economies to fit in with the demands of the

world market, the demands of which are not always compatible with the

demands of our own development, are we not, in the process, depriving our

economies of the capacity for a self-sustaining growth which is a

precondition to development?

By posing the question in this style, it is possible to see through the

smokescreen of international do-gooders and begin to understand the real

cause of our underdevelopment. It is, of course, too much to expect Pearson

or people of his liberal inclination to pose the question in this way, since

their training and outlook consider this way of putting the question to be

almost morally sinful and economically subversive.

However, as leaders of the developing countries, we are obliged to adopt

this style of posing the question since we have taken upon ourselves the

responsibility for steering a development course whose success or failure

will affect, one way or another, the well-being of hundreds of million of the

people who comprise more than two-thirds of the human race. For too long

we have left their fate to be determined by the kind of production which is

not based on the satisfaction of their wants but rather on serving external

interests as expressed by the accepted laws of supply and demand of the socalled world market. We have twisted their education in such a way that the

“skills” we direct them to develop are geared towards serving the same ends

of the world market rather than towards development of an internal material

base, with the result that technologically, and in relation to the developed

world, we move backward rather than forward. We have tamely accepted

the so-called international division of labor on behalf of our masses, and in

doing so we have condemned them to specialize in primary commodities

whose production is conducive neither to the development of technological

skills nor to the invention of advanced machinery, both of which are the

preconditions to real economic development.

The significance of Dr. Rodney’s book is that it is addressed, quite

appropriately, to the masses and not to the leaders and one hopes that it will

be instrumental in arousing some mass action by the people. In the absence

of committed leadership, many African countries have fallen prey to

military exploitation, to the extent that today the generals constitute the

majority at the African summit. This is as it should be, because when the

political leadership loses the sense of internal direction, when, in

bewilderment, it gives up its efforts to find solutions to people’s problems

and begins to accumulate wealth for its own individual use, political

leadership tends to get increasingly “commandist” in its state operations.

Logic and rationale become subversive. And when politicians become

commandists, they too become redundant, because who is better fitted to

giving command than the army?

With very few exceptions it is sad to have to admit that Africa is ill

served by the current conglomeration of what passes for leaders throughout

the continent. When Asia and Latin America produce giants, like Mao, Ho,

Ché, who inspire and excite the imagination not only of their compatriots

within their borders, but of the rest of the world, including the developed

world, Africa has produced only one Nyerere and maintained him in power,

while we have murdered Lumumba and have locked up or exiled leaders

like Ben Bella and Nkrumah in response to the wishes of the imperialists—

our donors, our moneylenders, our patrons, our masters, our trading

partners.

With all due respect, it is difficult to imagine, apart from one or two

honorable exceptions, any of the present leaders who is capable of standing

up for the genuine rights of his people, knowing that these rights are of

necessity directly opposed to the interests of imperialism. And yet such a

stand is necessary if we are to really fulfill our obligation as leaders;

otherwise, we have no right to impose our leadership on the people. While

most of the leaders on the continent have no sense of urgency in solving the

problems of people’s misery, since they don’t bear the brunt of their misery,

the masses, who do, cannot wait. That is why one hopes that Dr. Rodney’s

book will be read by as many people as possible because it has come at a

time when it is most needed, for action.

After reading the harrowing account of the brutalities of slavery, of

subjugation, of deprivation and humiliation, when whole civilizations were

crushed in order to serve the imperialist interests of the West; when settled

societies were disintegrated by force of imperialist arms so that the

plantation owners of the “new world” could get their uprooted, and

therefore permanent, labor force to build what is now the most advanced

capitalist economy, it becomes absolutely clear that the only way out of our

current impasse is through a revolutionary path—a complete break with the

system which is responsible for all our past and present misery.

Our future course must be guided dialectically. If by looking into the past

we have known the present, to know the future we must look into the past

and the present. Our action must be related to our concrete experience and

we must not give way to metaphysical hopes and wishes—hoping and

wishing that the monster who has been after us throughout our history will

some day change into a lamb; he won’t. As Engels puts it: “Freedom does

not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws, but in the

knowledge of these laws . . . freedom of the will, therefore, means nothing

but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject.” We