[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The Limits To Growth

On 16 Nov 1996 02:53:37 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:

> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
> 
> >On 15 Nov 1996 18:38:59 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> >
> >> bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >> >Precisely my point. Genocide has zero economic benefit. But the
> >> >"economism" of people like you is what brings this about. 
> >>  
> >> This is false.  Genocide is the result not of any "economism,"
> >> whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic racisms. In
> >> Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient tribalism.
> >>  
> >>                                      -dlj.
> > 
> >This is simply not correct, sorry.  The problem in Bosnia, Rwanda, 
> >Burundi, Azerbajan, Los Angeles and many other places is that a 
> >relatively affluent minority rules.  As in the French and Russian 
> >revolutions, a point comes when the majority revolts and sets about
> >killing off the minority.  This is political economics, not tribalism.
> >The tribal differences are historic and lie behind the minority rule 
> >but are not the cause of the revolt.
>  
> This is clear as mud.  I still don't know what the hell Yuri's
> economism is, but Mason's "political economics" has nothing to do with
> politics and economics.  It is just another word for tribalism as far
> as I can see from the, uh, explanation above.
>  
>                                    -dlj.

OK, I'll need to expand a bit.  Take Bosnia.  The muslims, descendants
of the Ottoman empire, occupied the cities, the Serbs the countryside.
OK, OK, many exceptions.  But the overall pattern was and is as stated.
When Yugoslavia broke up and the Slovenes, Croats, and then the 
Bosnians (Muslims) (tribe) ceceded, the Serbs countryfolk (tribe) found 
themselves threatened by the dominance of the relatively affluent Muslim
(tribe) minority in Bosnia.  These tribes had been living in peace together 
under the control of Tito.  During that time the Muslim minority did not rule 
Yugoslavia or Bosnia.  The new Bosnia would have been ruled by that 
minority (and still may be). 

The revolt of the Serbs and attempt to drive the Muslims was revolt of 
the majority against the ruling minority.  The rule was political; the 
consequence of that rule was economic in the relative affluence of the
Muslims.  Politics and economics are Siamese twins - not separable.
Too often this is forgotten in theories of either, hence I much prefer the
term "political economics" and it has an honorable history.

I will post more examples of political economic revolts and the history 
of the term if there is need here.  Always eager for an opening.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com

  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
 
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)

Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby

---------------------------------
Follow-Ups: References: