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 |