The writer of this piece confuses two concepts: imperialistic mercantilism
and capitalism. In the former, which was largely what prevailed in Africa and
other imperial colonies, there are no competitors to imperial mercantilist
structures; they have complete monopoly over resources, markets and capital.
Hence the preponderance of discrimination, divide and rule subterfuge. In a
quintessentially capitalistic organisation, discrimination is a non-issue.
This is because with the capitalist emphasis on efficiency, the profit motive
and natural animus to monopolistic proclivities, discrimination on the scale
the writer attributes to capitalism, is virtually impossible. Let Milton
Friedman explain:
"The maintenance of the general rules of private property and of capitalism
have been a major source of opportunity for Negroes and have permitted them
to make greater progress than they other wise could have made. To take a more
general example, the preserves of discrimination in any society are the areas
that are most monopolistic in character, whereas discrimination against
groups of particular or religion is least in those areas where there is the
greatest freedom of competition"
Perhaps, it is because of what Friedman just delineated above - how the State
being the most monopolistic outfit in society is where most discriminations
against groups take place - that the writer gave this frank overview of why
the State should be trimmed further and its frontiers rolled back as not to
be central in our lives. As the writer puts it:
"Events in the run-up to this
>> > month's presidential election in Ghana provide ample
>> > testimony of this, as many of such groups with the backing
>> > of the bourgeoisie have sprung up, all seeking to advance
>> > the interest of the bourgeoisie in the various ethnic
>> > groups. They have organised and whipped up the sentiments of
>> > the lower strata of their tribespeople against rivals
>> > belonging to different ethnic groups. They have created the
>> > impression that it is only when one of your tribesmen is at
>> > the helm of affairs that you can have a fair share of
>> > national development and individual personal advancement.
>> > Consequently, where a presidential or vice-presidential
>> > candidate comes from has become extremely important."
Stuff is: it is the State - because of its centrality in African
polities/societies and their monopolistic and inefficient proclivities - that
is the primary cause of the festering of tribal antagonism. This is an
irrefutable thesis. On the key question of efficiency and competition of
capitalism and its links to ending discrimination, here is Friedman again:
"..... the purchaser of bread does not know whether it was made from wheat
grown by a white man or a Negro, by a Christian or a Jew. In consequence, the
producer of wheat is in a position to use resources as effectively as he can,
regardless of what the attitudes of the community may be toward the color,
the religion, or other characteristics of the peoples he hires. Furthermore,
and perhaps more important, there is an economic efficiency from other
charcteristics of the individual. A businessman and or an entrpreneur who
expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to
productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who
do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs on himself than
are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence in a free
market they will tend to drive him out." [Milton Friedman, Capitalism and
Discrimination in Capitalism and Human, pp. 109-110, University of Chicago
Press, 1984.]
To the extent that the above is cogent, is itself the stuff of history,
especially of how capitalism contributed to the downfall of such
discriminatory systems like Slavery, imperialism, Apartheid, Negro
subjugation in the American South, Jewish Slavery and Emancipation in Europe.
To the latter, the Marxist, Leon Trotsky, once allowed that the admittance
of Jews to the wider European society from the ghettoes they were confined
to, was as a result of capitalist intervention. Similarly, the writings of
such sociologists like Max Weber, who linked the Protestant ethics of hard
work and faith to the machinations of capitalism, was famous for pointing out
how thanks to capitalism the West's polarisation along the lines of ethnic
allegiance, was dealt with a killer blow. Suffice to say that today in the
West, ethnic allegiance is the butt-end of ironic jests and sentimental
memories. The only places in Europe where ethnic emotional attachments still
command respectable following are those societies less capitalistic. I
noticed how thanks to capitalism, the sectarian and ethnic troubles in
Northern Ireland and Basque territories are becoming obsolete and irrational
in their claims and losing crucial support amongst the capitalist minded
younger generation as ethnic and sectarian allegiances transform - as ever
thanks to capitalism's "creative destruction". This to a lesser extent is
true of the Metro and Urban areas of some African societies where the
capitalist invasion is rendering ethnic allegiances absolete and in return
ushering in inter-tribal cohabitations, marriages and largely relationships
indifferent to ethnic roots. It is true that this has yet to be decisive in
making etnnicity an ironic jest and sentimental memory as is the case in the
West. This is partly due to the very fact that the capitalist invasion in
Africa is at best minuscle and have yet to reach the proportion where it
would completely over-haul the social make up of society.
The "creative destruction" Schumpeter attributed to free marketism and other
capitalistic norms, is the most effective weaponry we have in ending
tribalism in Africa. In today's Gambia, the promoter of tribal antagonism,
discrimination and polarisation is the State and those politicians who want
to make the State the key centrality in our lives. The free market and
capitalism in the Gambia has nothing to do with ethnic bigotry. None will
hear a capitalist organisation like Taf Construction engage in encouraging
ethnic bigotry and or polarisation to strengthen his position; only
politicians and their graft use a monopolistic outfit like the State to this
end. What we need today in the Gambia are more capitalists and their capital
to deal a killer blow to tribal allegiances. Only capitalism, liberal
democracy and bourgeoisie moderation can save Africa and the African peoples.
The liberal agenda therefore would be one which not only ridicules the State
and socialist obsession with bureaucracy, red tape and regulation in
controlling our lives but one which goes out to philosophically delineate the
virtues of the free market and capitalism by establishing free institutions
and promoting civic liberalism as an alternative to self- righteous
politicians, the monopolistic State and the graft used to rationalise its
debilitating intrusion into our lives that continues to destroy/ravage our
continent and her enormous resources/potentials.
Hamjatta Kanteh
Hamjatta Kanteh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
