Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:00:57 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: Congo: People wins! But why the industry decrease?


Karl C.,

You're quite wrong in saying (25.03) that the present war
in Congo/Zaire is "unjust on both sides". It *is* a popular
uprising! When or of it wins - we're not there yet - there
will be great problems in economic construction. It's not
clear what kind of governmet will - would - arise. It may
well degenerate eventually. Experience shows that such things
happen. But the AFDL does show promise to make up or create
a considerably better government and that of Mobutu, and the
people of Congo - not such fools, or corrupts, as some people
who write to this list - see it, and today are quite
enthusiastic!

You raised one point which is of interest and which I'd like
to answer quite briefly. I've already written several times
on the general theme in question before.

KARL:
>What is needed is an
>understanding of why and how sub-Saharan Africa in particular, and
>perhaps even virtually the entire continent, has experienced what
>many commentators would describe as de-industrialisation. Marxism
>promotes the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall as a
>central law of contemporary capitalism. Yet if this law is operating
>why is that industrial capital is failing to migrate to sub-Saharan
>Africa where the general rate of profit, logically speaking,is higher
>than in the so-called core economies such as the States, Europe and
>Japan. Indeed capital flows are are heavily concentrated between the
>imperialist economies despite claims by marxism that the Tendency of
>the Rate of Profit to fall is a law. Until marxism offers a valid
>explanation of economic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa it will have
>essentially offered nothing in the way of an explanation of world
>economic conditions.
 
Yes, there obviuosly *has* been de-industrialisation in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Why this awful fact?

This has to do with what I've written about many times already
and have referred to as "green warfare" by the main bourgeois
forces in the world against the peoples of all countries.

It's a global anti-industry, anti-technology, anti-science and anti-
economic-growth campaign essentially *caused by the bourgeoisie's
enormous fear, today, of proletarian revolution*!

Marx saw the beginnings of this fear even back in 1856!

On this, see a speech of his in London that year on the Archive.

One other reason for this de-industrialisation campaign or at
least for the anti-modernisation part of it probably is that
law that you mentioned, that of the falling rate of profit.

The capitalists really would *like* to have a *smaller* part
of their capital laid out for machinery and a *bigger* for
force of labour, since it's only the latter that creates
surplus value.

But they're being *forced* by competition to modernise and
get more and more advanced, more and more expensive machinery -
which thus turns out much more goods - good for most of us but
no matter for the capitalists, whose only interest is, how
many dollars must they spend to "make" one more dollar.

So if someone could decree a *global* de-modernisation in
some important fields, they would be inclined to accept that!

This is one reason behind the global campaigns against
the most modern energy sources, for instance.

But as I already said, the directly anti-proletarian-revolution,
anti-worker, anti-oppressed-peoples motive is the strongest
behind the wilful de-industrialisation strivings.

They cut *some* of their profits just to try to keep their
roten international system for a few more decades.

The worst such de-industrialisation has been going on in the
relatively most highly-industrialised countries.

For instance, right now, there's a criminal plan by the
majority of the bourgeois politicians here in Sweden to
*close down and destroy* a perfecly well functioning
nuclear power plant near to where I live, the Barseb=E4ck
plant, starting next year! A destruction to the tune of
some $3-6 bn! Restistance to this is being organised at
this very moment. The destruction plan is not mainly caused
by factors inside - relatively quiet - Sweden but by
international factor, by pressure, above all, from the
main forces of US imperialism who want the destruction as
a not unimportant international example.

This is why I've called for international support against it.
And I was very pleased to get such from my comrade Jay
Miles in Detroit, for instance. This because the "leftists"
in general have not understood these things at all. But Jay
here IMO showed an understanding of an important part of the
political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. Goody! There
came some support from France and Germany too, on the
part of non-Marxist people. Likewise helpful to us here,
as showing the politicians they're being watched
internationally. But *more* people who say they're Marxists
need to get to understand these things too!

It's such crimonal bourgeois efforts that also have hit Sub-
Saharan Africa, indirectly, for instance, too, by taking away
part of the markets for the products that would come from there.

And you say it's strange, Karl, that the capitalists have
*not* invested, as they *would* have done and *did* in earlier
decades (when the contradiction internationally between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie hadn't yet become that acute)
in that region where wages are very low and profits thus would
be high.

But this too has to do with the capialists' - their
*politicians'* above all - today thinking much less: "How are
we going to get the biggest profits?" that "How on earth are
we going to keep our entire more and more rotten and outdated
system from being overthrown by the peoples of the world?"

More industry in Central Africa, for instance, that would
also create a bit of that working class the revolutionaries
so much would like to be there! "Better be careful!", the
bourgeois politicians say to this.

There you also have the reason for the seemingly strange
*opposition* to *hydropower* projects in many parts of the
third world - I imagine most people aren't so naive that
they think "environmental" etc motives are the real ones
behind this.

So Marxism, Karl, *does* have an answer to your question.

Only, it so far has been only one party that has really
understood this factor - well, the Communist Party of China
under Mao's leadership had *some* understanding of it too,
but in those days and in China, thngs hadn't gotten to be so
acute on that point - behind the de-industrialisation etc,
and that was the small party in Germany the KPD/ML(NEUE
EINHEIT). I've quoted some earlier things from it on that.

Today, most unfortunately, that party has degenrated and
turned into a bourgeois one, but it still does hit out
at least a little against the "green" warfare of the
bourgeoisie's main forces. It has sometimes posted to this
list as <klasber-AT-aol.com> and has another address
<wagerd-AT-aol.com> too - but I somehow suspect, Karl, that
you're not much interested in discussing these questions
with them nor with me.

You see, some people who pretend they're Marxists are
*covering up* those criminal de-industrialization
efforts, if not even actively *supporting* them, and VERY
angry do they get if this gets pointed out or in any way
discussed - you just watch out for that!

Or *do* you dare to touch on that subject anyway?

Rolf M.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---