Model Of Capitalist Development Research Articles

Global Governance and Sustainable Development: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

This manuscript explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global governance, highlighting the significant weaknesses in both democratic and authoritarian regimes. The crisis exacerbated social inequalities and exposed the limitations of the current capitalist development model. Democratic countries faced challenges in balancing public health measures with individual freedoms, while authoritarian regimes used the crisis to consolidate power. The pandemic also intensified discrimination against minority groups and widened wealth disparities. This commentary advocates for a shift towards a sustainable development model that prioritizes social equity and environmental sustainability, addressing the ecological impact of current consumption patterns and the necessity for systemic change.

Strategie kulturowe i wspólnotowe wobec ekstraktywistycznego przemysłu krewetkowego na wyspie Puná w Ekwadorze

This article discusses the conflicts created by the expansion of the shrimp industry on the island of Puná in Ecuador and its consequences: the destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of mangroves and the landlessness of the island’s communities. The purpose of the text is to show how the principle of community in this particular context becomes a strategy for defending the territory, and thus an alternative to the island’s current extractivist, capitalist development model. Key-words: Puná Island, shrimp industry, extractivism, Ecuadorian communities, mangroves

CONFLICTOS SOCIOAMBIENTALES Y DEFENSA DEL TERRITORIO EN MÉXICO

La locución “conflictos socioambientales” sirve para designar a una serie de problemáticas y pugnas que involucran, como su nombre lo indica, a las sociedades humanas y el medio ambiente o el contexto natural en el que habitan o con el que tienen alguna relación económica o simbólica. Parte de una noción de iniquidad y una crítica al modelo de económico que castiga a ciertos grupos de la sociedad que están más expuestos a los riesgos y costos –sin obtener beneficios– de la globalización del modelo de desarrollo capitalista hegemónico, que en los últimos tres siglos, siguiendo la ley general de la acumulación capitalista ha revolucionado incesantemente la ciencia y la tecnología para aumentar la extracción de plusvalor mientras concentra y centraliza como nunca antes el capital. Esta ley es expresión de otra ley más profunda que opera en el plano de la producción; la ley del proceso de subsunción formal y real del proceso de trabajo bajo el capital; que busca alinear bajo la dictadura implacable del capital el proceso de trabajo, el desarrollo de la técnica y la ciencia, y sostiene una guerra permanente contra los pueblos indígenas y campesinos para ampliar sus límites geográficos en un proceso de colonización de nuevos territorios.

Soviet Researchers on the Middle East: Ahead of Their Time

In the mid-1950s-1960s the Soviet Orientalists were facing serious challenges. The collapse of the colonial system, the growth of national liberation movements, the entry of new forces that did not fit into the rigid framework of the Communist ideas about the revolutionary process, demanded realistic explanations of what was happening. The article attempts to consider some breakthrough ideas and assessments of historical events in the Middle East put forward by the Soviet experts. The review is primarily based on the publications of Soviet specialists published in the 1970’s. Among those who studied the new trends and tried to explain their further development were Soviet Arabists. At that time their circle was small. Among those who were engaged in political problems of the Arab world, one can name I.P. Belyaev, E.M. Primakov, G.I. Mirsky, A.M. Vasilyev. They had different backgrounds, but all had managed to form in their studies a fairly complete picture of political trends and state-building in the Arab world. Despite the domination of the official dogmas the leading Soviet researchers were able to present a realistic picture of the region, although their «untimely meditations» were presented in a form acceptable to the Communist ideology.The primitive division of society into the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, peasantry and landlords and the hopes for eventual development of communist parties worldwide both did not reflect the realities in the Third World countries and did not leave room for the Soviet Union there. Due to ideological reasons the USSR could not support nationalist movements abroad. Nevertheless, the Soviet leadership passed the first test for the ability to reassess their ideological stereotypes in the early 1950s, when the leaders of the Egyptian revolution turned to the USSR for military assistance. In order to justify the pragmatic choice in favor of supporting the new Arab nationalist leaders, the Soviet scholars developed the concept of three consecutive and co-dependent revolutionary flows: first, the national liberation movement overthrowing the colonial system; second, the world labor movement overthrowing the capitalist system politically; and, third, the world communist movement overthrowing the capitalist system in economic terms.It was also important for the Soviet leaders to explain the orientation of the young decolonized nationalist regimes towards the USSR, without using the argument of just political expediency. Such an explanation was the theory of the non-capitalist path of development or socialist orientation. It posed that capitalism cannot solve any of the problems of developing countries. Their interest in rapid overcoming of backwardness and maintaining national sovereignty cannot be combined with the choice of a capitalist development model. The theory of socialist orientation was based on original ideas of Marxism founders and further developed by Lenin who insisted that economically underdeveloped countries can with the help of the proletariat from advanced countries go directly to socialism bypassing capitalism.The reality of revolutions without the proletariat and the desire to take advantage of the anti-colonial struggle to establish full-scale presence of the USSR in the Middle Eats made the Soviet leadership more tolerant of scientists' attempts to realistically analyze regional trends and developments.For instance, in the Soviet era, politicians were tempted to explain all conflicts in the regions of the Third world, and particularly in the Middle East exclusively by the workings of imperialism. However, Soviet scholars, E.M. Primakov among them, warned in their studies of the dangers of such simplified estimates. Still relevant today also is G. Mirsky’s explanation of the major role the army plays in the politics of the Middle East. He argued that in the traditional societies of the region the army was the only modern, nationwide institution.The works of the Soviet scholars can help better understand contemporary trends. Their studies of driving forces of the revolutions in the Arab world, of the nationalistic regimes, of regional conflicts have not lost their relevance today. They warn the modern generation of researchers against simplistic conclusions, a temptation of politicized assessments and of ignoring the complexity of regional issues.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Caribbean: Unrealizable promises?

This article analyses the relevance of the SDGs to the needs of the Small Islands Developing States of the Caribbean Community. The article situates the SDGs within a critical interrogation of the social change logic of the universalizing global economic system. Thus, I argue that the SDGs, while recognizing some key economic and environmental concerns of the Caribbean Community, are hamstrung by their commitment to the unequal power structure of the neoliberal capitalist development model. Finally, this article calls upon regional and global social movements, and increased economic regionalism as ways of empowering Caribbean social change.

History, Structure and Agency in Global Health Governance Comment on "Global Health Governance Challenges 2016 - Are We Ready?"

Ilona Kickbusch’s thought provoking editorial is criticized in this commentary, partly because she fails to refer to previous critical work on the global conditions and policies that sustain inequality, poverty, poor health and damage to the biosphere and, as a result, she misreads global power and elides consideration of the fundamental historical structures of political and material power that shape agency in global health governance. We also doubt that global health can be improved through structures and processes of multilateralism that are premised on the continued reproduction of the ecologically myopic and socially unsustainable market civilization model of capitalist development that currently prevails in the world economy. This model drives net financial flows from poor to rich countries and from the poor to the affluent and super wealthy individuals. By contrast, we suggest that significant progress in global health requires a profound and socially just restructuring of global power, greater global solidarity and the "development of sustainability."

Imprensa, indígenas versus ruralistas: As tensões entre o modelo desenvolvimentista e o bom viver (tekove porã)

Os embates entre indígenas e ruralistas no Brasil configuram uma desavença antiga. O colonizador quer terras para usufruir e o indígena quer o direito de viver nessas terras e manter sua cultura. Quando as demarcações de reservas atrasam, os indígenas ocupam áreas que reivindicam. Os fazendeiros reagem pelo poder político, econômico e pela violência. O presente estudo investiga o comportamento da mídia diante desses confrontos. Para tanto, observamos reportagens veiculadas em Mato Grosso do Sul com o apoio da Análise da narrativa (Motta, 2013). Ao entrevistar representantes dos índios, anotamos como estes percebem a atuação da imprensa nessas questões. Nossas argumentações se fundamentam na Sociologia das Ausências (Santos, 2002), na Antropologia e no conceito de ‘bom viver’, embasados na teorização de Fábio Mura (2006). Ao final, constatamos que a essência desses conflitos está no choque entre o modelo de desenvolvimento capitalista e o modo de agir/pensar do ‘bom viver’ – tekove porã.

Capitalism, Inequality and Ideology in Singapore: New Challenges for the Ruling Party

Amidst popular concerns about rising inequalities and living costs, reduced social mobility and inadequate public infrastructure, Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) suffered significant declines in electoral support in the 2006 and 2011 general elections before regaining support at the 2015 polls. Importantly, these concerns reflect the intensification of contradictions inherent to Singapore’s model of capitalist development. This juncture in the city-state’s political economy has been conducive to greater scrutiny of core PAP ideological notions about the perils of “Western” social welfare and the moral and functional advantages of non-democratic institutions of political accountability and representation. The PAP has responded with creative new defences of its core ideologies in conjunction with social spending boosts, a strategy that will be further tested following the 2015 election.

DYNAMICS OF AGRARIAN TRANSFORMATION AND RESISTANCE

The paper analyses in the Latin American context the dynamics associated with the capitalist development process, namely, the productive and social transformation of an agrarian society and economy into a modern industrial capitalist system. This process implies a process of primitive accumulation (separation of the direct producers from the land) and the proletarianization of the peasantry. The project of development with international cooperation was designed and serves to assist the dispossessed rural poor in adjusting to the forces of progressive change released in the process, rather than resisting them. The paper also deals with the resistance of the rural landless workers and other elements of the peasantry against the neoliberal model of capitalist development that threatens the viability and sustainability of their livelihoods.

Inequality, environmental injustice, and racism in Brazil: beyond the question of colour

Starting from an analysis of social and environmental injustice, the author argues that the concept of environmental racism is integral to the hegemonic model of capitalist development. She reveals how the financial mega-conglomerates, helped by the media, exploit such prejudices, and highlights the relevance of environmental racism in the struggle to overcome inequalities, to value the importance of diversity, and to build full citizenship for all.

The Crisis of Labor Politics in Latin America: Parties and Labor Movements during the Transition to Neoliberalism

AbstractFollowing the onset of mass politics in early twentieth-century Latin America, party systems were distinguished by different patterns of labor incorporation. In some countries, political competition was realigned by the emergence of a mass-based, labor-mobilizing populist or leftist party. In other countries, party systems remained under the control of traditional oligarchic parties or elite personalities who provided little impetus for labor mobilization. Countries with labor-mobilizing party systems were more deeply embedded in the state-led model of capitalist development known as import substitution industrialization in the middle of the twentieth century, and they suffered severe economic trauma when this development model collapsed in the debt crisis of the 1980s. Economic austerity and free-market reforms undermined the social foundations of these party systems, which experienced sharp declines in trade-union density and widespread electoral volatility during the waning decades of the twentieth century.

4 - Science and Education in Mexico: Lessons for Africa from the Transition from National Capitalism to the Crisis of Globalisation

Almost two decades have passed since governments in Latin American, African and Asian countries were lured by capitalism in crisis to take their populations through the new course of modernisation and globalisation. The case of Mexico represents a good example of why and how this transition took place, why it is not working and what alternative perspectives are emerging. Seen from a point of view of knowledge in society, as is the intention here, this history is even more revealing. This paper shows how science and education, including research and schools, were first called on to play an important role in the nation-building experiment of na- tional capitalism and how, when deprived of any clear social mandate, they have been left to float aimlessly in the market streams, independent social subjects that emerged from the contradictions of a globalising model of capitalist development. At the same time I argue that some recent developments, notably the Zapatista uprising in the southern state of Chiapas and the impetus this has given for the creation of new responses to globalisation and new organizations of academics, students and worker, are creating spaces of autonomy which were once inconceiv- able. I conclude that the resistance to neo-liberal policies can be decisively sup- ported by social forces arising from science and education.

Labour and Neo-Liberal Globalization in South Korea and Taiwan

As they increasingly embrace neo-liberal economic policies (especially since the 1997‐8 Asian financial crisis), the Northeast Asian NICs of South Korea and Taiwanarenowsaidtobelosingtheiruniquenessasalternativecapitalistmodels. Central to the neo-liberal project is labour flexibility. This entails the reform of employment legislation and of the wider social settlement between state, business and labour. This article will argue against the ‘homogenization’ thesis by revealing the distinctive political, economic and ideological characteristics that distinguish the recent market-oriented labour reforms in South Korea and Taiwan from neo-liberal transitions elsewhere. The sources of variation in the pathways of labour market reform within the Northeast Asian NICs will also be explained. Neo-liberal globalization is said to have homogenizing effects on formerly regionally specific capitalist forms. Long depicted as an alternative model of capitalist development, the Northeast Asian NICs of South Korea and Taiwan are now said to be losing their uniqueness astheyembrace neo-liberaleconomicpolicies,atransition hastened by the 1997‐8 Asian financial crisis. A crucial component of the transition to neo-liberalism is the creation of flexible labour forces. This entails the reform of institutional relationships that govern flexibility, namely, the regulations specified in employment legislation and the wider state-business-labour arrangements or social settlements underpinning those rules. From the perspective of recent labour reforms in South Korea (hereinafter Korea) and Taiwan, this article will question the ‘homogenization’ thesis. It will do so by revealing the distinctive political, economic and ideological characteristics that mark out the recent market-oriented labour reforms in Northeast Asia from neo-liberal transitions elsewhere. Having established the continuing distinctiveness of the Northeast

Social Exclusion and Models of Development in Latin America

This article provides an analysis of the conditions of social exclusion that result from an implementation of the neoliberal model of capitalist development. The social impact of this model is examined in the context of developments in Latin America. In addition to this analysis, the article explores various attempts to address the salient conditions of social exclusion such as social inequalities in the distribution of income, the destruction of labour markets, and poverty. At issue are four theoretical models for addressing these issues. The article focuses particularly on the model that underlies the sustainable livelihoods approach to the problem of social exclusion. This model, and the approach based on it, is criticized because of an inherent concern to avoid the central issue of political power involved in the struggle for change and development.

Labour Market Segmentation and Informal Work in Southern Europe

In this article I explore the hypothesis that the four countries which make up the southern part of the European Union constitute variants on a particular model of capitalist development. This model is char acterized by relatively dynamic family enterprises and self-employment, non-wage contributions to house hold livelihood strategies; and the relatively limited formation of a fully proletarianized working class engaged in manufacturing industry.

DEVELOPMENT AND THE FAMILY: THIRD WORLD WOMEN AND INEQUALITY

The traditional capitalist development model with its emphasis upon economic growth has, in the past decade, been severely criticised with respect to its negative effects upon the poor as well as its negative impact upon women. The first and second development decades not only have failed to achieve “economic take off,” but they also have failed to provide that improvement in the status of women which modernisation is reputed to induce. The push for growth and modernisation in the Third World may have led to a deterioration of the economic position of women as well as a deterioration in the absolute economic situation of at least the poorer third of the population. Furthermore evidence suggests that the poorest of the poor are disproportionately women heads of households and their families. One result of this negative impact of the development process has been a refocus of attention in development policy upon the poor as well as a mandate to integrate women in the development process in the “Percy Amendment” to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973. Nevertheless this new emphasis upon women‐in‐development suffers from a flaw similar to that of the traditional development model. Each treats the family only in a superficial way: the first because of naive assumptions concerning women in the family, the second by treating women independently of the family constellation.

Dependency, Modes of Production, and the Class Analysis of Latin America

For a quarter of a century Latin America has been the fulcrum of development theories. From the Economic Commission on Latin America's (ECLA) reformist structuralism to the dependency perspective and analyses of modes of production, each radical reformulation of the Latin American dilemma has ushered in a new approach to underdevelopment in general. The reason for this is clearly contextual. By the mid-twentieth century the region effectively represented the highest of underdevelopment and its attendant contradictions, economic, political and social. This made it a natural source for theories based on an originally innovating but now generally accepted premise: underdevelopment is not a traditional state, nor a stage in a standard development process, but a distinct historical condition for which neither bourgeois nor Marxist theories of unilinear evolution afford explanations or solutions (Frank, 1971: 27-30). The experience of the structuralist reforms of the 1950s and 1960s was the catalyst of this new thinking. Their contradictions were a mirror of the Latin American situation. On the one hand, they embodied a notion that Latin American history was shaped by the international division of labor and unfavorable terms of trade (Furtado, 1970). On the other hand, they were a last attempt to realign this history with a standard model of capitalist development through Keynesian forms of intervention: state planning, import substitution industrialization and agrarian reform. The radical inference of their failures, in Brazil and Chile particularly, was that history could not just be rerouted through the existing state apparatus. If significant change were to be achieved, this history had to be broken out of by revolutionary means and in the revolutionary direction which Cuba was already pioneering. Hence both the main post-structuralist approaches set out, at least in principle, to examine class relations and struggles. From the premise that

Capitalist Evolution and Soviet Evolution

The purpose of this paper is to show that a historical model of capitalist development is useful in the analysis of Soviet Socialist evolution.1 The procedure is to compare two periods of the Soviet experience with appropriate periods of Western capitalist experience. The Soviet industrialization period is compared to the emergence of capitalism in England and the post-Stalin Soviet period is compared with the emergence of mature or corporate capitalism. A final sec? tion draws some implications from this analysis. A word of explanation concerning periodization should help clarify for the reader the argument to be unfolded below. The comparison of the Soviet industrialization period is made to early capitalist England because that represents the classic example of capitalist industrializa? tion. Both the literature generally and Marx specifically use the par? ticulars of the English case to articulate theories of capitalist origin and evolution. More recently, however, the former colonies across the Atlantic have surpassed Britain and become the prototypical case of mature capitalism. The literature is now cast with the United States of America as the principal referent. In other words, for the original and mature periods of capitalist civilization first British and now American capitalism represent the cutting edge of history. It is therefore appropriate that the Soviet comparison be made in the first instance?that of industrialization?to Britain, and in the sec? ond instance?that of post-World War II modernization or contempo rization?to the U.S.A.

The Present Situation in Iran

Propagandists in the West—in Madison Avenue, Fleet Street, government publications, and even in university circles have been selling Iran to the rest of the world as a model of capitalist development. They have constantly praised the shah for creating an "island of stability" in a sea of Middle Eastern instability. They have invariably repeated his false double boast of avoiding a bloodbath while carrying through a White Revolution. They have given him three cheers for decreeing a new "revolution," which, unlike some others, does not threaten to nationalize basic industries.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.