To Have and Have Not

 

Blue = core, red = periphery

I discover my kids’ world geography text teaches Marxism; but in a way subtle enough many parents might not realize. So, as a public service, I outline the problem here.

The text divides the world into “core” and “periphery.” These are all the same countries we used to call “developed” and “underdeveloped” or “developing.” Except, of course, that there are more developed countries now than there used to be.

The text asserts that “core areas pull in people, skills, and wealth from the periphery”: and that “the core depends on the periphery for food and raw materials.”

This sounds as though the core is exploiting the periphery, just as, in Marxist theory, the proletarians are exploited by the rich capitalists. Strictly speaking, this is Fascism; assigning class to race and nation. Mussolini identified Italy as a “proletarian nation,” and Hitler identified rich capitalists with Jews.

And this is what your kids learned today in school.

The essential premise, for Marxism and for Fascism, is that wealth is acquired by stealing it from others. This premise is false; and it leads to violence.

Begin with the claim that the developed world depends on the periphery for food. Before the “green revolution” of the 1980s, famine was widespread in the underdeveloped world. They were not exporting food; they were importing it from the developed world. Today, the world’s largest food exporter is the USA. Then Netherlands, Germany, France, Canada; none of the top ten are countries the text identifies as “periphery.” The poorer countries are still hard pressed to feed themselves.

As for raw materials, the trade does not seem one-sided. Broadly, raw materials are randomly distributed around the globe. Canada, the US, and Australia are notably rich in minerals, timber, oil. No doubt the core needs some raw materials from the periphery, just as the periphery needs some raw materials from the core. Each country sells what it can, for the price it can get. To claim that this is exploitative is like saying a customer is exploiting a store by shopping there. Rather, trade makes either richer.

It is true that the developed world draws people and skills from the periphery. But this too is liable to make their home countries richer, not poorer. These emigres may stay and settle in the new land. But they will still be inclined to send some money home, and to invest at home some capital they make abroad. Remittances from “Overseas Workers” make up, for example, one fifth of the Philippine economy. Moreover,  being or having ties to emigres from another country, over the longer term,  gives the rich country reason to invest there. When Japan became prosperous, their prosperity spread next to South Korea and Taiwan, places that used to belong to Japan, and then to Thailand, their former ally. Were else would they feel more comfortable opening a branch plant? When Britain became prosperous, their prosperity spread to Canada, the US, Australia. Taiwanese prosperity naturally spread to China.

Rich countries do not plunder wealth from the poor countries. Rather, poor countries gain wealth from the rich. Just as, if your near neighbour becomes rich, you do not become poorer; your opportunities to make money increase, by selling him goods and services.

So why is it then that some countries are rich, and others poor?

It is not strategic location. Singapore, the text suggests, is rich  because of its strategic location on a major trade route, the Straits of Malacca. But Yemen and Somalia are just as strategically located, as the Red Sea empties into the Arabian Sea: this is the same trade route from Europe to East Asia, at similar choke point. And they are as poor as any place on Earth.

It is not happening to have rich natural resources. Yes, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Qatar do well from gas and oil. But Venezuela or Libya have comparable amounts of oil, and are starving.

Having ties with another country that is already rich certainly helps—an argument, actually, for colonialism. But the key is social stability and good social order. In order to invest either money or energy, you need to be confident your property is secure, and you are not going to be robbed or punished for doing well. If you can trust your neighbour to do as he says, to keep a bargain, this reduces friction in every transaction. 

Bad, corrupt, or unstable government can hinder this. So, more seriously, can a breakdown in shared social values. Things become expensive when you cannot trust anyone.

Observe the unusually high levels of public order and public trust in England, where the Industrial Revolution began. Observe the good social order in such successful economies as Germany, Japan, Switzerland, the Netherlands. Things work as they should in such lands, with a minimum of fuss. The wheels are greased.

Unfortunately, the West is increasingly seeing bad government, a breakdown in shared values, and a decline in community trust.

And this seems actually encouraged and promoted by elites. Who now scorn such “white values” or “patriarchy” in favour of “multiculturalism” and libertinism masquerading as liberalism.