Ch. 15 Journal

Karl Polanyi and the 'Great Transformation'

He describes a 'self-regulating market economy' as the ideal, a form of utopia

He notes that the change at the end of the 18th century changed the structure of society

Social relations are then shaped by the economy (as opposed to the other way around)

People, nature and money become commodities

regimes of accumulation= different ways in which control is exercised over labor and their relations with the wider economic management

Toyota-ism can be referred to as flexible accumulation because production was based on flexibility to accommodate a changing market, whereas Ford-ism was based on rigid work allocation and a projected steady increase of consumers. According to the book: "'Toyota-ism' is based on the product types, responding flexibly to variations in demand in different market niches. It is demand driven rather than resource driven. I think the use of the phrase "ford-ism to toyota-ism" is pretty creative, catchy, and illustrated the idea pretty well. As competition increases, it is only natural for this process to happen. New companies such as Toyota will always arise to be more flexible to the changing markets. The quick and more flexible, the more successful the company.

kaizen refers to constant improvement i.e. quality control in Ford cars and their large inventory. This is contrasted with 'just-in-time' arrangements from Toyota, who reduce their inventory and stocks at the last minute.

Toyota:

workers have co-responsibility over finished product

batch production

multiple tasks

variety of production

demand driven

post-modernism

Ford:

workers have less responsibility over finished product

mass production

single task

uniformity of production

resource driven

modernism

Castell's view on a post-modern society:

redefinition of personal relationships, emphasis on self-realization

progressive groups mobilize resistance to industrial society: feminists, localists, religious, environmental

People finding meaning not on what they do, but in what they identify themselves with (ethnic, culture, beliefs).

I think Castell's view makes sense. Since capitalism and a market-driven economy, people have let the economy and their jobs define them. However with the movement towards redefining who someone is, people are now driven by their identities outside of work. It's like they have a new mode of thinking. This is better, because it opposes the mainstream flow. It makes people think more, and not everything is about feeding into the capitalist, neo-liberal thought. People are thinking outside the box, according to Castell, and I agree. People are starting to see the positives and negatives of a free market.

Holmstrom & Smith article

Summary:

Russia and gangster capitalism. People's biggest complaint has been the corruption in China. People should have seen it coming, but relied on the neoliberalism concpet of capitalism. Marx's concept of capitalism is different, called "primitive accumulation." Capitalism first emerged in Britain with 2 groups of people: ones with monopolies and the landless proletariat. According to Marx, capitalism is not just money, it is the unique social relationship between those two groups. This is utterly tied to the separation from the produce from the producers, ultimately people sell their labor.

Post-socialist countries are trying to privatize state-collective property. This will bring increased economic depression, social polarization, corruption and class struggle. "Between 1992 and 1995, Russia's GDP fell 42 percent.. since 1989 Russia's economy halved in size and 80% of Russians have no savings... In the mid-nineties, suicides double and deaths from alcohol tripled."

The author says this was in part to Jeffrey Sach's "cure all" plan to privatize the market. This initial plan came from the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID). Are they to blame? Were they pushing for an entirely Western agenda that went wrong? Basic rights such as education, childcare, housing and other subsidies are sacrificed for the transition to a "normal" economy. Sachs and company insist that the pain was unavoidable... is this justified? The author blames Western economy "architects" for the mess in Russia and China.

The rich Russians involved with "grabification" stealing everything they can get their hands on. hahahah this is an intriguing way of putting it, and the bourgeoise stashed their cash in Western bank accounts. And, people are trying to legalize it! Author claimed that Sachs fetishized capitalism, because prior to reform Russia did not have the 'capitalist' class. Capitalists had to be created, thus the birth of gangster capitalists... (mafia, nomenklatura, intelligentsia)

China's path to capitalism was different from Russia's because China effectively privatized their agricultural sector. Their economy consists of "special economic zones" and runs under state management. Mao thought (prior to 1978) provided equality and security in poverty, known as the "iron rice bowl." People can expect work, though they lacked freedom everyone was on the same page, and nobody owned anything.

Reactions: This article was very well written and easy to read. I had to look up some names like Anatoly Chubais and Gorbachev to give me a better understanding of Soviet and post-Soviet history. It was very informative, insightful and written in a way that non-Economy majors (such as myself) could read, understand and be engaged.

Ch. 14 Journal

'Socialism'

"Socialism is attractive to countries that have escaped formal colonization and which remained largely separate from the world economy, like Afghanistan and Ethiopia. The second group are the countries that struggle against colonialism and have gained national liberation, like Angola, Mozambique and other Portuguese colonies. Socialist ideas became popular also in Latin America and Caribbean such as Cuba and Nicaragua."

"The socialist model of development, not just in Russia and China, but also elsewhere in the world, is in danger of appearing an unattractive and unviable model with no future."

My response to this statement is, "Why is socialism seen as unattractive?" It has clearly been attractive to developing countries and offers people the hope of a better more equal life. Though it has proved disastrous in the USSR, China was successful in adopting socialist ideas into their trade and has grown 10% per annum, according to the text. I think socialism is the other option besides capitalism for growing countries. Capitalism can be seen

"One approach of socialism is to focus on industrial capitalism to help underdeveloped countries gain independence from developed capitalist systems."

Can this really be called socialism then? Is this concept just using several points of socialism to improve society? Or, was socialism intended to help underdeveloped countries gain independence in the first place? There are so many motives behind 'socialism' good and bad. I think people meant for it to be good, and to gain independence however it has turned into something very negative after people have used it in the wrong way... and the perfect 'socialist' nation can never be achieved.

Mahmood Reading

The author claims that state formation is characterized by two identities, by the market and by the culture, both which are mistaken for the same thing. Mahmood states that the cultural aspect is much more important. Culture involves ethnic traditions, customs of tribal groups, language, religions etc. When colonies were formed, colonizers ignored existing ethnic boundaries. Ethnic problems arose within the political boundaries created by the state. Also he concludes that the greatest crime of colonization was not exploiting the indigenous, but to politicizing indigeneity.

He says the politics of colonialism are not "historicized" meaning "we failed to understand the extent to which colonial institutions shaped the agency of the colonized." This is a difficult and wordy concept to grasp, so in my own words: Europe's current perception and influence on post-colonial countries is still shaped by the legacy of colonialsim.

Africa needed "native authority" to enter history. Europe didn't see Africa as having any types of government so Africa was excluded from history. Africa's history only started when Europeans could recognized a legitimate form of government, which started at the tribal "chief." Europe only recognized government in terms of authoritarianism. However Africa's history of government is much longer and vibrant and its portrayed including religious ruling, kingdoms, women ruler heads and clans.

European powers created an ethnic divide between natives and nonnatives. Natives were not under the law so they had no rights. Nonnatives were bound to the law and had rights. Africa has ethnicities--> defined by different tribes.

3 Post-colonial Dilemmas:

*Rights- civil rights for all citizens, "bonus" customary rights for the indigenous

*Entitlements- only applies to "natives"

*Customs- word closely tied with "native"

"Colonialism is not just about the identity of governors, that they were white or European; it was even more so about the institutions they created to enable a minority to rule over a majority." (Mahmood p.14)

I agree. It doesn't matter what the race of the colonizers were. Colonialism is about a small few ruling and exploiting many.

"Let us reconsider the colonial legacy that each of us is either a native or a settler. It is with that compass in hand that we must fashion our political world" (Mahmood p. 15).

I agree. We should take culture into account and detach our minds from a native vs. settler mentality so we can better picture the effects of colonialism.

Ch. 12 Journal

'Colonial States'

The 7 features of colonial rule

*International Political Dimension

*Bureaucratic elitism and authoritarianism

*Use of 'customary' authority figures in colonial society

*Use of force

*Technological advantage

*Statism

*Hegemonic ideology

Colonial states had little or no say in their laws or economy. Colonial states depended on traditional authority figures to carry out their laws. These people were village chiefs or upperclassmen. Hegemonic power ingrained helplessness into the people's minds. They thought they were supposed to follow the rules. Hegemonic power prevents rebellions and uprisings because people inherently believe that their rulers are beneficial. One challenger of colonial rule was Gandhi.

"The idea that British rule was invincible was challenged by the law-breaking mass movements led by Gandhi and others- movements whose basic objective was to show that British rule could be challenged and to build up confidence and courage among the people so that they could develop the capacity to struggle successfully against that rule." (p. 284)

I like this quote because it is so true. The masses were subject to unfair exploitation however Gandhi became the voice of the people- and he had many followers that believed in independence. What's more incredible was that he led people in peaceful protest. This way has more impact because it brings out the injustices of colonial rule. When people protest peacefully, they open up the tables for negotiation and represent readiness for reconciliation. Gandhi was the pioneer for mass protest and civil disobedience during the Indian Independence movement. He led protests by rounding up peasants, farmers, urban laborers and led nation-wide campaigns to ease poverty, expand women's rights, rid "untouchability" and build religious and ethnic amity (wikipedia.org).

The British raj was the name of British colonial rule in India. India gained its independence in 1947.

Statism means the state has massive control over the economy. An example is Britian's East India Company, who controlled much of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka. In 1858, the Crown gained power of India from the East India Company. Railways, roads, canals and bridges, telegraph stations were built in India for easy communication and transportation and were thus ruled by the state. However, while this benefited Britain, it harmed India because it did not create jobs for Indians, left India with high unemployment and crippled India's economy for the local businesses. Also, there were a series of famines in India, resulted from poor colonial administration and the economic constraints in India.

Britain controlled by force, exercising control through zamindars (landlords in India) and the military. Zamindars were Indian landlords who collected taxes from the peasants, then handed the money to Britain and keeping a portion for themselves. The majority of rules were enforced by the military. The text notes multiple rebellions in the Madras Province of India. In Africa, troops would devastate areas with violence.

Britain's power started to fade by the end of the 1930s with the establishment of the Indian National Congress (1937) which gave people local power. A highlighting event was the revolt of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay, also known as the "Bombay Mutiny." The mutiny spread to many ships and 20,000 sailors. It was a strike against conditions and lack of food.

We can see the devastating effects of colonials and the changes after independence. The masses were quick to support the rebellions. The beginning of self-independence for India was the start of a new era.

"No government lasts long on the basis of force alone. The British had to have 'traditional' authority figures in Indian society on whom they could rely for political support and who could bring to the new state the cloak of legitimacy. Where they could not find authority figures, they created them." (p. 278)

My reaction to this quote is that the colonizers were quite clever in maintaining power abroad. For as long as they can convince people that their loyalty rested in Britain, they could control whole nations. They placed people they could trust, and that the locals could trust to re-enforce power. In Africa, Europeans ruled indirectly through tribes. They thought: "Every African belonged to a tribe, like every European belonged to a nation." Therefore each tribe must be under a chief. They took advantage of this by supervising chiefs and making sure these 'patrimonial rulers" represented European administration.