Dear Sir Baidoo, I can't really come to terms with the uttermost condemnation of the Noble Prize of Paul Krugman whilest at the same breath eulogising the Pultizer award of another writer. I think, equal appreciation shou ... read full comment
Dear Sir Baidoo, I can't really come to terms with the uttermost condemnation of the Noble Prize of Paul Krugman whilest at the same breath eulogising the Pultizer award of another writer. I think, equal appreciation should be shown to both winners for their various prizes because they acheived them on hardworks, in any case the former prize outweighs the latter in any day and so differences in idealogies shouldn't underwrite or estimate the efforts put in by the various winners. Thank you
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Readers,
So now Baidoo is telling us why the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences went to Paul Krugman and not him?
Paul Krugmah's work and intellectual insights have impacted major American institution ... read full comment
Dear Readers,
So now Baidoo is telling us why the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences went to Paul Krugman and not him?
Paul Krugmah's work and intellectual insights have impacted major American institutions and central banks around the world.
He has more than highly technical papers published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals around the world.
Both these highly technical papers (and his work that won him the Nobel Prize) has involved mountains of dense data/statistics.
He has also written/co-written academic textbooks,edited/co-edited academic books, economic textbooks, and well-received books for the general public.
In fact, the work he did on economic geography, economies of scale, consumer choices, globalization (international economics,etc) involved analysis (analytics) of mountains of data from around the world.
And here we are with Baidoo throwing a couple of junior high-school numbers/statistics haphazardly here or there in one or two porous paragraphs in his Ghanaweb articles and claiming that his interpretation of those junior high-school numbers/statistics deserves a Nobel Prize in economics?
What acknowledgements has Ghanaweb and other Ghana-based websites given Baidoo for his analysis of those junior high-school numbers/statistics in his one or two paragraphs?
Which major central banks in the world has Baidoo's shoddy articles influences compared with Krugman's? Baidoo should go around the world and count the number of major institutions around the world and tell us how close he comes to Krugman's?
You see, he did the same to Thomas Pichetty's influential and bestselling text, "Capital in the Twentieth-First Century"? Just last week a very good friend of mine asked me if I read Baidoo's "Nkrumahism, The Can Of Worms I Opened-ll" which, of course I hadn't read (I have read all of Baidoo's articles. Sometimes I am forced not to read beyond two paragraphs because of childishness) and I realized Baidoo grossly misrepresenting Picketty.
My good friend has a copy of the book. And I had read the book myself, so I wonder what Baidoo was saying about Picketty's book. Picketty analyzed data/statistics/information across two and a half centuries (250 years) and Baidoo coverts these dense data into insults.
And here he is saying that Krugman's Nobel Prize should have gone to him for his junior high-school data analysis on Ghanaweb!
My good friend came to a conclusion that Baidoo has not read the book in question. I also came to the same conclusion after reading the Part 2 of Baidoo's series on capitalism.
And yes, a few scholars have raised questions about the quality of some of Picketty's data but Picketty has defended those data in question and even made them available to the world.
I am surprised Baidoo is here misrepresenting the views of Adam Smith. Who said Adam Smith dogmatically supported free market laissez faire? From where in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" did Baidoo get his ideas (I have addressed this question in some detail in my forthcoming article "WHAT GHANAIANS CAN LEARN FROM POPE FRANCIS--2. In this article I take readers through some chapters of "The Wealth of Nations" so readers know what Smith said about the markets and regulation (state or government intervention) and more.)
Readers will then know why Baidoo and free market fundamentalist are lying about Smith. I myself was shocked when I sat down to read "The Wealth of Nations" closely. As for his shoddy essays on FDR we have some interesting answers for him.
This is a list of Krugman's awards (courtesy of wikipedia. Baidoo should list his awards so that we can compare them):
1)1991, American Economic Association, John Bates Clark Medal.[83] Since it was awarded to only one person, once every two years (prior to 2009), The Economist has described the Clark Medal as 'slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize'
2)1992, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS)
3)1995, Adam Smith Award of the National Association for Business Economics[85]
4)1998, Doctor honoris causa in Economics awarded by Free University of Berlin Freie Universität Berlin in Germany
5)2000, H.C. Recktenwald Prize in Economics, awarded by University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany.
6)2002, Editor and Publisher, Columnist of the Year.[86]
7)2004, Fundación Príncipe de Asturias (Spain), Prince of Asturias Awards in Social Sciences.[87]
8)2004, Doctor of Humane Letters honoris causa, Haverford College[88]
9)2008, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for Krugman's contributions to New Trade Theory.[89] He became the twelfth John Bates Clark Medal winner to be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize.
10)2012, Doctor honoris causa from the Universidade de Lisboa, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa and Universidade Nova de Lisboa[90][91]
11)2013, Doctor of Laws, honoris causa conferred by the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada [92]
12)2014, recipient of the Literary and Historical Society (University College Dublin)'s James Joyce Award in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the economic sciences.[93]
13)2014, recipient of the Green Templeton College, Oxford's Sanjaya Lall Visiting Professorship of Business and Development, Trinity Term 2014, in recognition of his outstanding international reputation in scholarship and research in the field of Development Economics and Business.
........................................................................................................................................................
For now here is a list of what Adam Smith required of the state (From "The Wealth of Nations"--Adam Smith's Lost Legacy):
• the Navigation Acts, blessed by Smith under the assertion that ‘defence, however, is of much more importance than opulence’ (WN464);
• Sterling marks on plate and stamps on linen and woollen cloth (WN138–9
• enforcement of contracts by a system of justice (WN720);
• wages to be paid in money, not goods;
• regulations of paper money in banking (WN437);
• obligations to build party walls to prevent the spread of fire (WN324);
• rights of farmers to send farm produce to the best market (except ‘only in the most urgent necessity’) (WN539);
• ‘Premiums and other encouragements to advance the linen and woollen industries’ (TMS185);
• ‘Police’, or preservation of the ‘cleanliness of roads, streets, and to prevent the bad effects of corruption and putrifying substances’;
• ensuring the ‘cheapness or plenty [of provisions]’ (LJ6; 331);
• patrols by town guards and fire fighters to watch for hazardous accidents (LJ331–2);
• erecting and maintaining certain public works and public institutions intended to facilitate commerce (roads, bridges, canals and harbours) (WN723);
• coinage and the mint (WN478; 1724);
• post office (WN724);
• regulation of institutions, such as company structures (joint- stock companies, co-partneries, regulated companies and so on) (WN731–58);
• temporary monopolies, including copyright and patents, of fixed duration (WN754);
• education of youth (‘village schools’, curriculum design and so on) (WN758–89);
• education of people of all ages (tythes or land tax) (WN788);
• encouragement of ‘the frequency and gaiety of publick diversions’(WN796);
• the prevention of ‘leprosy or any other loathsome and offensive disease’ from spreading among the population (WN787–88);
• encouragement of martial exercises (WN786);
• registration of mortgages for land, houses and boats over two tons (WN861, 863);
• government restrictions on interest for borrowing (usury laws) to overcome investor ‘stupidity’ (WN356–7);
• laws against banks issuing low-denomination promissory notes (WN324);
• natural liberty may be breached if individuals ‘endanger the security of the whole society’ (WN324);
• limiting ‘free exportation of corn’ only ‘in cases of the most urgent necessity’ (‘dearth’ turning into ‘famine’) (WN539); and
• moderate export taxes on wool exports for government revenue (WN879).
........................................................................................................................................................
KING LOMOTEY 8 years ago
You are not brighther than the Nobel Prize Committee by no means for awarding the Nobel Prize for Economics to Dr. Paul Krugman. Don't you think he was vetted by the Nobel Committee? Moron.
Just stop making a jackass of y ... read full comment
You are not brighther than the Nobel Prize Committee by no means for awarding the Nobel Prize for Economics to Dr. Paul Krugman. Don't you think he was vetted by the Nobel Committee? Moron.
Just stop making a jackass of yourself Baidoo
Philip Kobina Baidoo 8 years ago
Hello Mr Lomotey, do you think the committee are made up of gods? If that is what you are suggesting that is good for you. However, he was awarded based on a particular economic discipline; it does not give him the leverage t ... read full comment
Hello Mr Lomotey, do you think the committee are made up of gods? If that is what you are suggesting that is good for you. However, he was awarded based on a particular economic discipline; it does not give him the leverage to pontificate erroneously on historical facts.Thank you.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Baidoo,
Tell us one "particular economic discipline" you have realized in your life that meets a fraction of Krugman's intellectual contributions to economic theory?
And how about your lies? I have given you a list ... read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
Tell us one "particular economic discipline" you have realized in your life that meets a fraction of Krugman's intellectual contributions to economic theory?
And how about your lies? I have given you a list of Krugman's awards, the bokks he has written used across America, his widely read newspaper articles, and the hundred-plus technical papers he has written for prestigious peer-reviewed journals across the world, why don't you give us yours so we can compare?
Which major central bank in the world has your Ghanaweb articles impacted? No, let us not discuss any major central bank in the world.
Just give us any central bank in any of the poorest countries in the world where your Ghanaweb articles have influenced? Just give us.
Why are you making a caricature of yourself? Have you written any influential economic aor acdemic text in your life comparable to any Krugman has written?
Have you compared your junior high-school statistics spread in one or two paragraphs of your poorly written Ghanaweb articles to data analysis at the community coollege levels, let alone compare that with the mountains of data Krugman has to undertake to earn his Nobel Prize?
Why haven't you earn a Nobel with your Ghanawev articles? Tell us which of the Nobel Committee members that selected Krugman for the award that you can claim to be smatter than?
After all, Ghanaweb readers would not have known about you if not for Ghanaweb and other less patronized websites. The world does not know you like Krugman.
Tell us which academic journals you publish your articles so that we can compare them with Krugman's. Tell us which economic theory you have developed and technically expounded that has benefited the world's major central banks.
And how many economic disciplines did your failed hero Milton Friedman win the Nobel Prize for? Are you willing to tell us how many lies Milton Friedman told (or you want me to do a piece on this for you and unsuspecting readership)?
And the fact that you are ignorant about most basic ideas does not mean you should lie shamelessly about Adam Smith and about all those others which readers (and myself) have helped in exposing.
Please stay in your uninformed corner and let the celebrate the likes of Krugman! I am waiting for the day when your Ghanaweb articles earn a Nobel Prize! Anything Krugman has done for economics and the intellectual history of economic thought, even his high school work (some of hich I had seen and read), far outweigh any article you have written for Ghanaweb!
Go and read about Krugman's high-school data analysis and compare them with those you put out in your Ghanaweb articles. You will be surprised what you learn. Stay in your uninformed corner. You can't walk in the man's shoes not in a million yeras to come.
See all the basic factual errors in your articles. Let us see in your next articles how you can analyze 250 years of data as in Picketty's work or in Krugman's work, if you can't get basic high-school global history facts right!
Thanks.
Philip Kobina Baidoo 8 years ago
Hello Mr Amanfo, I did not condemn the Nobel Prize.I said he has brought it into disrepute. Thank you.
Hello Mr Amanfo, I did not condemn the Nobel Prize.I said he has brought it into disrepute. Thank you.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Readers,
I wish I could have added more. Information to discredit Baidoo's weak and porous arguments on his paper capitalism is there in the public domain.
In fact, the sort of paper capitalism (100% capitalism) h ... read full comment
Dear Readers,
I wish I could have added more. Information to discredit Baidoo's weak and porous arguments on his paper capitalism is there in the public domain.
In fact, the sort of paper capitalism (100% capitalism) he has been wasting his time on has never existed anywhere in human history. There has always been one government intervention or another. Even Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," which free market fundamentalists see as the Bible of free market economics, has powerful statements on government's "limited" role in the market.
I will be discussing Adam Smith in my forthcoming article, "What Ghanaians Can Learn From Pope Francis-2." Already I can see Baidoo lying about "The Wealth of Nations" and what Adam Smith had to say about the market and state/government intervention.
But the facts to discredit Baidoo's arguments are all over the place. The World Bank and almost all the world's
central banks have all the research data required to discredit Baidoo's paper (or 100%) capitalism, which has never existed anywhere in human history except on his Ghanaweb papers.
All the world has known is the adoption of degrees of Keynesian economics, whether it is America, Cuba, China, or the Nordic Model. Dr. Douglas's article contains my major arguments for "mixed economy" or Keynesian economics. All of Baidoo's rants have nothing to do with my arguments.
But his own misplaced self-glorification and misunderstanding of basic ideas on the intellectual history of economic thought. I have already finished collecting some of the most sophisticated texts on economic theory for him (and others interested in the subject).
I will leave you to attend to more important matters.
Thanks.
........................................................................................................................................................
An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution
A web project of Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College
Capitalism Requires Government
"Americans need to realize that our economy has thrived not in spite of government, but in many ways because of government."
Without a whole host of government rules, capitalism could not exist. Even regulations and social programs help sustain a market economy by fixing many of its serious social and economic problems.
One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the United States is the idea that the free market is “natural” – that it exists in some natural world, separate from government. In this view, government rules and regulations only “interfere” with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Even the term “free market” implies that it can exist free from government and that it prospers best when government leaves it alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government – it is very much a product of government rules and regulations. The dirty little secret of our “free” market system is that it would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.
Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential “rules” – the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.
•Limited Liability Laws. Capitalism requires capital – lots of it. But without limited liability laws, investors are unlikely to risk investing their money in businesses. In the 19th century, before the passing of laws that limited the liability of investors, anyone who put money into a business that then went under could be held liable for the debts of the company. They could have their personal assets seized and could be financially ruined. Needless to say, this discouraged investment. Without limited liability laws, the economy would not have access to the capital it needs to grow and prosper.1
•Property Rights. Without the right to own property and dispose of it as you wish, capitalism as we know it could not exist. These legal rights are created and protected by the government. Moreover, in the U.S., the federal courts have extended to corporations the same property rights given to citizens. Corporate property rights – one of the main legal instruments that insulate business from government power – can be created and maintained only by government.
•Law and Order. A market system cannot work well without a functioning criminal justice system. Otherwise, organized crime would easily take over large sectors of the business community. Extortion, bribery, kidnapping, and murder would become the reigning corporate model. Without the rule of law, our economy would resemble the “mafia capitalism” that Russia has suffered from in its transition to capitalism.
•Bankruptcy Protection. Business is inherently risky and one of the largest risks is business failure, particularly during recessions and depressions. In the 19th century, before the creation of bankruptcy laws, business failures would usually saddle entrepreneurs with large and ongoing debts, making it impossible for them to make a fresh start and often putting them in debtors’ prison. Investors and creditors also often failed to get any of the money due to them. Bankruptcy laws protected otherwise healthy businesses that were temporarily short of funds. And these laws allowed entrepreneurs to be eventually freed from crushing debts. Along with limited liability, bankruptcy rules formed a crucial financial safety net for entrepreneurs. It is important to note, however, that bankruptcy laws were passed not simply out of concern or sympathy for failed entrepreneurs, but also as a way to lessen economic risk and therefore encourage more investment and economic growth.2
•A Stable Money Supply. Without reliable money, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be extremely limited. In the U.S., before the Civil War, almost all paper money was issued by private banks – not the government. This was an unreliable and incredibly chaotic system. Sometimes merchants would not even accept certain currencies. It also meant there was no real control over the money supply – which has a crucial impact on inflation and economic growth. Widespread commerce and a stable economy both require a stable and dependable money system – one in which consumers and merchants have faith. This can only be provided and maintained by the federal government.
•Patents and Copyrights. Large portions of our economy would grind to a halt if the government did not grant patents and copyrights. Without this massive intervention into the free market, the drug, music, publishing, and software industries could not exist. Bill Gates likes to think of himself as a self-made man, but he would not be one of the richest men in the world if the government did not make it illegal for anyone but Microsoft to copy and sell Windows.
•Banking Regulation and Insurance. As we have seen recently, a capitalist economy depends heavily on stable banks to finance growing businesses. But banks are inherently vulnerable to “runs” – where worried depositors all seek to take out their money at the same time. Banks cannot survive runs because they have loaned out most of the money deposited with them and therefore cannot pay it out to a large number of depositors at once. Before the passage of banking regulations and federal deposit insurance, banks regularly had runs and failed. The main reason that we had no disastrous runs on banks (and money market funds) during the financial panic of 2008 was that government was there to guarantee those deposits.
•Corporate Charters. Capitalism today is corporate capitalism. But the corporation itself is a creation of government. Corporations can come into being only through charters: the legal instruments by which state governments allow businesses to incorporate. These charters and state business laws define what a corporation is, how it is organized, how it is governed, how long it may exist, who has a say in decision making, the rights of stockholders, the extent of its liability, and so on. Most states also retain the right to revoke the charters of corporations that break the law or harm the public interest, though this power is seldom used these days.
•Commercial Transaction Laws. Businesses could not operate effectively without laws governing commercial transactions. Few would risk doing business on a wide scale unless there was some way of making and enforcing contracts. Who would sell goods if they couldn’t be sure they would be paid, and who would buy goods if they couldn’t be sure they would receive them? The Uniform Commercial Code is a set of legal rules that determines, among other things, what a valid contract is, how contracts can be enforced, and various remedies for fraud, default, etc. It is over 800 pages long and covers every aspect of commerce in great detail, including laws governing the sales of goods, payment methods, receipts, warrantees, titles, shipping of goods, storage of goods, how sales are financed, and the leasing of goods. It is the legal infrastructure that allows business to be conducted smoothly and reliably.
•International Trade Law. Global capitalism would be impossible without trade. Governments create the legal frameworks – the treaties and international trade laws – that facilitate and make this trade possible. “Free trade” is a misnomer because it implies that it is international trade that exists free of any political framework. But this is hardly the case. The North American Free Trade Agreement, for instance, takes up two volumes and is over 900 pages long – covering such things as tariffs, customs, dumping, corporate and investor rights, intellectual property rights, financial services, government procurement, and dispute resolution procedures. It also establishes a secretariat, a commission, dispute panels, scientific review boards, eight industrial sector committees, and six working groups to oversee implementation of this agreement. It turns out that free trade requires a great deal of regulation.
•Enforcement of Laws. All of these rules and laws that facilitate business and markets have to be enforced, otherwise they are worthless. Just as international trade treaties require elaborate enforcement mechanisms, so do all our national laws that facilitate the business process. And this is no small effort. We and our governments spend billions of dollars every year to provide police to protect private property, courts to interpret and enforce contracts, and agencies to protect patents, oversee banks, and act as watch dogs in the stock and bond markets. It is revealing that most civil suits are not brought by individuals harassing corporations – as conservatives would have it – but by businesses suing other business. The courts are indispensable for resolving business disputes and thus ensuring the smooth operation of the economic system.
To see how just how essential these government contributions are to the workings of a free market system, you merely have to imagine what it would be like if these measures didn’t exist. Or if we didn’t enforce these laws. Imagine that investors were liable for all debts of a company, that there were no patents, copyrights, or property rights, that contracts couldn’t be enforced legally, that there was no official and stable money supply, and so on. In such a world, markets would be very limited, and economic growth severely stunted. It would hardly resemble the economic world we now live in.
Conservatives would like us to think that there can be a strict boundary between public and private in modern economies. But this is impossible. As the points above make clear, markets and capitalism are quasi-public entities – made possible by a myriad of government rules and laws that establish many of their basic inner workings. We may think of the “private market” as existing separately from the public sphere, but it does not.
Football and Capitalism: The Rules Make the Games
Consider this analogy: free-market capitalism is constituted by government laws in the same way that sports are constituted by their rules. When we watch football, for instance, we usually see it as a freewheeling game with exciting runs and daring passes. But in reality, football is a highly circumscribed and regulated activity. It is only made possible by a large numbers of rules and regulations that cover everything ranging from the size of the field and the ball, to the number of downs, how scoring occurs, how tackling and blocking must take place, what constitutes a legal play, and so on. And without referees to interpret and enforce these rules, football as we know it would descend into chaos. The defining nature of these rules is shown by the fact that there are different kinds of football, depending on the rules. In Canada, for instance, the field is much larger, teams have one more player, and there are only three downs. In Arena League football, the clock rarely stops, the fields and goal posts are much smaller, and substitutions are very limited. The rules make the game.
Just as rules can create different kinds of football, government laws can create different kinds of capitalism and market relations. This clearly shows how market economies are actually political constructions – with their basic institutional arrangements being developed and managed by government rules. In some European countries, for instance, the government has not granted to firms the broad property rights that corporations have in the United States. This means, among other things, that large businesses are not free to simply move facilities from one region of the country to another. Because these relocations can dramatically alter the economic fortunes of entire communities, businesses must apply to the government for permission to move. In addition, in many other Western countries, government laws give much more power to unions in their relationships with businesses – thus altering the basic nature of the labor market. In some places, for instance, unions are actually mandated by law. These kinds of market relations are no more or less “natural” than those we have in the United States. There is no one natural form of market relations – just as there is no one “natural” form of football. This is simply an illusion that business interests and conservatives like to foster. Capitalism itself can take on different forms depending on the government rules that form it.
The Fantasy of our Laissez-Faire History
There is nothing new in the way that government aids business and a market economy. Conservatives would have us believe that our nation began and prospered under a laissez-faire arrangement, until the twentieth century and the advent of the New Deal and big government as we know it. But in fact, there has never been a complete wall between the public and private sectors. Government has always been involved in the economy. Active government support for business and the encouragement of economic growth can be traced back to the very beginnings of our Republic. Consider, for example, section eight in our Constitution – the one that describes the powers given to the newly created Congress. What is striking about most of the powers listed in this section is how mundane they seem. Here are the first eight of those powers:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
What is remarkable about most of these topics is that they have little to do with promoting freedom, justice, equality, or the other lofty political values for which the American Revolution was fought. What they are promoting is economic prosperity. This was the first attempt to create a legal and policy infrastructure that would promote and encourage business growth – establishing protective patents, providing a stable money supply, preventing counterfeiting, creating uniform duties on goods, establishing uniform bankruptcy rules, regulating foreign trade, and so on. Even the creation of post roads was not simply for the mail – these roads were the main avenues of commercial transportation in the states. Later, in clause ten, the Constitution also forbids states from imposing duties on goods from other states and prevents them from impeding the enforcement of states across state lines – all absolutely necessary if businesses are to grow into nationwide enterprises.
So as far back as the 18th century, American government has been working hand in glove with business interests to promote economic growth. In the 19th century, this government effort to aid the economy intensified and took on new forms. As seen earlier, numerous laws were passed on the federal and state level to protect investors and entrepreneurs from excessive risk and to give an artificial boost to economic growth.
In addition, the key infrastructure development of that century – and one that fueled rapid economic development in the entire country – was the railroads. These were extremely risky ventures that had to be heavily subsidized by state and federal governments through loans, credits, and land grants. Government also greatly strengthened and increased farm production through its establishment of agricultural colleges and agricultural extensions services. Further, research and development in public universities and land grant colleges were largely responsible for giving U.S. industries technological leads in areas such as metallurgy, and mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineering during the latter 19th century.3
Extensive and ongoing government tariffs also continued to protect and promote many vital domestic businesses throughout that whole period.
So the conservative idea that until recently we had a laissez-faire economy that prospered without any help from government is really a myth. Robert Kuttner, one of our most insightful commentators on the relationship between government and business makes this point very strongly. Looking at this long tradition of government aid for business in this country, he concludes that it “gives lie to the idea that the United States has historically been a laissez-faire nation. Despite the constitutional restraints on state power and the generally libertarian national creed, government action for economic and industrial development is deeply ingrained in our heritage.”4
Government and the Deification of the Market
Up until this point, I have been talking about how government policies and programs actually help businesses and stimulate economic growth. These have clearly positive effects on business, and even most conservatives would not deny the beneficial economic results of the government enforcing contracts, keeping the money supply stable, limiting liability of corporations, and so on. But the fact is that modern democratic governments also do a lot of things that are not necessarily good for particular businesses – at least in the short run. And these are what really bother anti-government conservatives – things like environmental and workplace regulations that add to the cost of doing business, taxes that lower the profitability of corporations, and social programs that insulate people from the discipline of the labor market. There is no getting around that fact that some governmental actions do indeed reduce profits for some businesses.
For free-market, anti-government conservatives, most of this damaging government interference in the economy is simply unnecessary. In their view, if we simply leave the market alone, it can be trusted to produce virtually all of what we need for the good life in America. This unbridled enthusiasm about the wondrous abilities of markets is expressed well in a variation of the old light bulb joke:
Q: “How many conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?”
A: “None. If the government would just leave it alone, it would screw itself in.”
A silly joke – but it does capture well the sense of delusional optimism that many conservatives have about markets. The market is seen as a marvelous self-regulating mechanism that if left unfettered will provide all our basic needs – and a great many luxuries as well. This view rests in large part, as mentioned earlier, on the notion that markets are “natural” and can achieve a kind of perfection that manmade, artificial government cannot. It assumes that market-based decision-making will always produce the public interest – and that attempts by government to regulate markets only distort them and cause problems. As Rep. Dick Armey liked to quip: “The market is rational and the government is dumb." 5
In many ways, then, the conservative movement’s demonizing of government is merely the flip side of its deifying the market. And the term “deifying,” with all its religious connotations, may not be that far off. After all, it was Rep. Armey who suggested that our inspiration to participate in the market may come from above. “We have all been called to Freedom by God,” he said. “I think the free market arose from the calling.”6
Of course, most anti-government conservatives would not take it so far as to claim some kind of divine endorsement of the market; but many do adhere to a kind of “market fundamentalism.” This fundamentalism consists of an unquestioning faith that unrestricted markets are the best way to organize human activity and that they can largely do no wrong. We all need only follow our own selfish economic interests, and the “invisible hand” of the market will inevitably weave this all together to produce the public interest. Moreover, free market mechanisms, if allowed to, would eventually solve virtually every pressing problem we have, including spiraling health costs, poor quality education, environmental pollution, unsafe products, retirement insecurity, and so on. So if we simply place our faith in laissez-faire capitalism, then we will all reap the rewards.
The Inherent Problems of a Market Economy
The problem with market fundamentalism is the problem with all forms of fundamentalism – the faith of the adherents blinds them to significant portions of reality. In the case of market fundamentalism, it blinds them to most of the serious problems inherent in a capitalist economic system – the problems that necessitate government action. If pressed, most conservatives will admit that unregulated markets do suffer from a few “market failures,” such as a tendency to ignore pollution. But they see such failures as episodic and limited. For them, these problems only occasionally interfere with the smooth operation of markets to produce the public interest and thus only necessitate a modicum of government interference to set them straight. But they are wrong. The failures of markets are many, serious, widespread, and ongoing. This is not to suggest that capitalism is “bad” or to deny the many economic advantages and achievements of markets. It is simply to acknowledge that when left on their own, market economies will inevitably produce a whole host of economic and social problems. Let’s consider a list of some of the basic built-in problems, limitations, and failures of capitalist market economies.
•Economic Bubbles. Market economies are susceptible to "bubbles" -- where the price of an asset rises high above its real value. These bubbles then burst, leading to the destruction of large amounts of wealth. Recent examples include the Dot-Com bubble crash that wiped out $5 trillion in the market value of technology companies, and the $2 trillion lost when the housing market bubble burst in 2008.
•Environmental Pollution. Pollution is a classic example of one common form of market failure: externalities. Externalities are created when decisions by businesses cause costs to groups outside of the business. Since businesses don’t have to bear these costs, they typically ignore these side effects – but the public is harmed by them. So a company has no incentive to clean up air or water pollution caused by its production facilities, even though it will do great harm to the environment and to humans. This kind of problem cannot be solved within a market framework. Voluntarily assuming the costs of cleaning up its own pollution would be irrational for a business – it would lower profits and put it at a competitive disadvantage with rival companies. Only government can effectively address this problem by devising policies to ban or discourage pollution. Without government, a laissez-faire capitalist economy is inherently and inevitably bad for the environment.
•Exploitation of Workers. Corporations and their employees have conflicting interests. Businesses want to pay their employees as little as possible and not give benefits like health insurance and pensions. Also, businesses do not have an incentive to invest in safety measures in the workplace, which would lower profits. Owners of sweatshops, mines, and other businesses found out long ago that it is cheaper to replace injured workers than to improve working conditions. Given that corporations are often in a position of power over their employees, only a countervailing power on the side of these workers – in the form of unions or the government – can protect them from exploitation.
•Unsafe and Ineffective Products. Without government help, consumers are vulnerable to products that are unsafe or ineffective – such as tainted foods and worthless medicines. Some shady businesses engage in outright deception about their products, but even legitimate businesses have an incentive to pad their bottom line by not being overly concerned about how safe or effective their products are. For example, the auto industry fought for decades against such things as mandatory seat-belts, air-bags, and other important safety features because these safety devices lowered their profits. Without government, the reality of the market is “Let the Buyer Beware!”
•Marketing Bads. Left alone, markets and businesses will sell anything for which there is a demand. But there are many things that shouldn’t be sold. We don’t want women sold into slavery in the sex industry, or the peddling of child pornography, or the sale of dangerous and addictive drugs. Only government can control what should or should not be marketed. Where appropriate, it can try to eliminate markets entirely (such as underground markets that provide Stinger ground-to-air missiles to terrorists), or act to limit markets (as in not allowing cigarettes to be sold to minors).
•Resource Depletion. Like individual businesses, capitalist economic systems must grow or die. But as the worldwide economy grows, depletion of non-renewable resources necessarily increases dramatically. For example, the United States, with five percent of the world’s population, currently consumes twenty-six percent of the world’s energy – most of it in non-renewable forms. If the rest of the developing world were to rise to our levels of energy use, non-renewable energy resources would quickly be used up. A worldwide capitalist economy engaged in unlimited growth is fundamentally incompatible with a world where many vital resources are limited.
•Corporate Fraud and Theft. Without the government playing watchdog, there is a constant and strong temptation for companies to cheat their investors and their customers. The Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of $50 billion is simply the latest example of this problem. This happens so often, it cannot be considered an aberration. In just the last decade, many large businesses, including Enron and WorldCom, have used deceptive accounting procedures to give the illusion of profitability, defrauding investors out of billions of dollars. Insurance brokers have rigged prices to steal hundreds of millions from their customers. Investment companies have routinely told customers to buy stock in companies they have underwritten, knowing full well that these are poor investments. Several prominent mutual fund companies have been convicted of allowing illegal “late trading” by a few favored customers that lowered the profits of other customers. Drug companies have paid hundreds of millions in government fines for bribing doctors to prescribe their medicines. Corporations also routinely cheat the public by using questionable, unethical, and sometimes illegal strategies to avoid paying taxes, thus forcing citizens to pay more to fund public services.
•Neglect of Public Goods. Another classic example of market failure. A public good is something that is hard or impossible to produce for private profit – primarily because once it is produced, you can’t limit who enjoys or consumes that good. The classic example is a light-house, because you can’t prevent any ships from using it. More important examples are national defense, law enforcement, and clean air. Such goods are inevitably under-produced or neglected in a market economy and we must produce them collectively through government.
•Neglect of Social and Public Investments. Typically, businesses will not invest in large public projects that are necessary for the long-term health of our economy or society. A typical example is infrastructure facilities like roads, bridges, harbors, airports, etc. Such projects are usually too risky and provide too little profit for most businesses or investors to want to take them on. Education, sanitation, and public transportation are other examples of important social investments that would be neglected if left to the market.
•Hidden Information. For markets to work effectively in the public interest, consumers must have the information they need about products to make an intelligent choice about what meets their needs. But businesses often have an interest in not fully disclosing all relevant information. So government must step in and force companies to reveal that crucial information, such as what is in their food products, how safe their cars are, how efficient their air conditioners are, or what side effects their drugs have.
•Inability to Plan. Markets cannot plan. Capitalism is basically an anarchical economic process. Economic development is a function of the activities of separate and uncoordinated businesses and customers – all largely oriented toward the short-term. While this arrangement produces great economic efficiencies, it has the disadvantage of disallowing any coordinated planning to make our lives better. Planning is essential if we want to have cities with livable neighborhoods, to create an efficient interstate highway system, to have an energy system not so dependent on foreign oil, to save rare ecosystems for future generations, and so on. Only government can provide rational, long-term plans for the development of society.
•Boom and Bust Cycles. As history has shown, laissez-faire capitalism is subject to regular cycles of boom and bust, where economies heat up too rapidly and then cool down into a period of deep stagnation. This process produces run-away inflation, recessions, depressions, rampant unemployment, etc. – and the widespread and profound human suffering that accompanies these serious economic problems. Government policies are often the only way to dampen these swings. For example, in an economic downturn, when businesses are shrinking, consumers are not buying, and banks are not lending, only government is in a position to revive the economy through the use of monetary and fiscal policies.
•Lack of Markets. Not everything we need for a good society can be provided by markets and business – especially things such as justice, fairness, equality, or basic rights and freedoms. Even if markets were possible for these things, we would not want them. For example, when the well-off are able to buy more justice in our court system, we consider that illegitimate and unfair. Only government can properly supply things like justice and freedom to all Americans.
•Monopoly. Competition in capitalism does not foster more competition – it eventually creates monopoly. Unrelenting competition eventually drives many companies out of business or forces them to merge, thus allowing fewer companies to take over increasingly larger shares of a market. Unchecked, this process leads to monopolies and oligopolies. This inevitably produces price-fixing, low-quality products, and other abuses of overly concentrated economic power. The only cure? Government anti-trust laws and other “regulation for competition” policies
•Ignoring Needs. Markets and business do not respond to our needs, they respond to demand, as expressed in money. Thus social needs are sometimes neglected. What concerns producers is not what social needs or functions are fulfilled by their products, but how much people will pay for them. Henry Ford put it best when he said that he was in the business of making money, not making cars or providing transportation. So while there is a pressing need for low-cost, affordable housing in America, what are being produced are huge McMansions and luxury condominiums – because these are more profitable. And while we may desperately need universal health care in this country, it will not be provided by the market alone. It can only be mandated by government policy.
•Devaluing the Future. As a rule, businesses are only oriented to the short-term. The accounting practices of firms utilize “discount rates” that require them to consider money, goods, and resources in the future to be worth less than those in the present. So it is better to develop resources like oil and old-growth forest now, rather than leaving them for later. The result: values like long-term environmental sustainability and the welfare of future generations tend to be neglected in corporate calculations.
•Poverty and Economic Inequality. On their own, market economies tend to produce high levels of poverty and economic inequality. In the last twenty years, the distribution of income and wealth has become more unequal in the United States, and we far surpass other Western democracies in our poverty rate. Also, the top 10% of wealthy Americans now own 70% of the wealth of the country. Economic inequality inevitably produces unequal distribution of other vital goods. The poor, for instance, have less access to health care, adequate housing, and retirement security. Only government action can address the low wages and lack of jobs that fuels poverty and can provide an economic safety for citizens. Studies have shown that Western countries that spend more on social programs and do the most to promote worker interests are the ones who have the fewest poor and the lowest economic inequality.7
•Lack of Opportunity and Economic Mobility. The economic inequality characteristic of market economies also undermines equal opportunity. The poor face many obstacles to financial success, while the well-off enjoy the advantages of superior education, social connections, and family wealth.8 Unsurprisingly, studies show that citizens in countries like the U.S. with relatively high levels of poverty and lower government spending to equalize educational opportunities have less intergenerational economic mobility.9 Even the Wall Street Journal has admitted that “Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. remains a more mobile society than Europe, economists and sociologists say that in recent decades the typical child starting out in poverty in continental Europe or in Canada has had a better chance at prosperity."10 Only government programs – like Head Start, high quality public schools, federal student aid, and low cost public colleges – can begin to level the economic playing field and help to equalize life chances for all Americans.
Taken together, all of these failures and problems totally undermine any notion of the “perfection” and “self-regulating” nature of the market. Virtually all of these problems are built-in to a capitalist, free-market system. They are systemic problems – products of the normal operation and the inherent attributes of this kind of economic system. This means that they occur irrespective of who is running our businesses. They are not the product of greedy owners or evil corporate CEOs; they are a product of the systemic priorities that all companies must adhere to if they are to stay in business and prosper. It is the internal logic of capitalism that forces firms to pay low wages, ignore the environment, devalue the future, and hide information from consumers.
Being systemic also means that these problems cannot be cured from within the economic system itself. These problems can only be addressed from the outside by coordinated collective efforts – the efforts of people acting through their governments. This doesn’t mean that the government cannot at times utilize the forces of the market to help solve these problems – such as when it creates a market in pollution rights, or when it auctions off a limited number of licenses to harvest lobsters. But these are not “market solutions” as conservatives like to trumpet; these are “government solutions” that utilize markets to achieve their goals.
Once the extent and severity of the shortcomings of a market economy become obvious, it becomes much clearer why we have big government in the United States. The public has repeatedly turned to government to provide important things the market cannot – such as clean air, retirement security, equal access to a good education, city planning, and health care for those who cannot afford it. Nor can we rely on markets to provide a more just, free, and secure society. Government is also necessary to make sure that market economies don’t hurt people in a variety of ways, including cars that blow-up or roll-over, or mines that collapse. That is exactly why most Americans say they do not want to see consumer or workplace regulatory protections dismantled. 11 Even David Stockman, ardent free-marketeer and lead man in the effort to reduce government in the Reagan administration, eventually had to reluctantly admit that the American public would simply not put up with capitalism in its raw form. Upon leaving office as budget director, he observed rather sadly that “The American electorate wants a moderate social democracy to shield it from capitalism’s rougher edges.”12
Why Taxes, Regulations and Social Programs are Good for Capitalism
That, then, is the traditional justification for government regulation of business and market: only government can address the many serious problems caused by laissez-faire capitalism. Even if government rules decrease somewhat corporate growth and profits, they promote important things that Americans care about – like better health care, safer workplaces, a cleaner environment, and more economic security. But this rationale leaves out an important – and more intriguing – reason why government “interference” in the economy is desirable. The fact is that many government actions that hurt businesses in the short run are actually good for business in the long run. Most regulations, for instance, are not only good for the American people, they are also ultimately good for business as well. This point may not seem obvious at first. But I will argue that the central pillars of the modern democratic state – the regulations and social programs that conservatives and business interests often oppose so vehemently – actually work in important ways to the benefit of the business community and capitalism itself. What business thinks is bad for it economically can be very beneficial, and even essential, for it politically.
How can this possibly be true? To see, we need only asks ourselves a simple question: What would happen to market capitalism without all of these regulations and social programs? Fortunately, we don’t have to try to speculate about the answer to this question; we merely need to go back to the first several decades of the twentieth century. This was the time before big government – before extensive regulations and expensive social programs – an era that anti-government conservatives consider a golden age. But what they forget is that at that time, around the world and even in this country, growing numbers of people were becoming very discontent with capitalism. They were also becoming increasingly interested in alternatives such as socialism, communism, and anarchism. The communist revolution in Russia prompted a wave of attempted socialist uprisings or threats of uprisings throughout much of Europe after World War I. Rosa Luxemburg led one uprising in Germany, and the communists actually overthrew the government in Bavaria and briefly established a soviet state. Another short-lived communist government was established by revolutionaries in Hungary in 1919. The success in Russia also inspired a host of anti-capitalist movements and incidents in other countries: there was a wave of factory occupations in Italy, a wide-spread series of strikes in Britain, and a general strike in Winnipeg, Canada. Later, in the 1930s, in the Spanish Civil War, anarchists and communists fought side by side for control of the country.
Many people today wonder how anyone could have become such a radical, anti-capitalist revolutionary. But they are forgetting the horrendous conditions that many people were living under in unregulated capitalist economies – the grinding poverty, the enormous economic inequality, the lack of adequate health care for most people, the absence of old-age pensions, the widespread unemployment, the unchecked and abusive power of monopolies, the environmental squalor of the cities, the dangerous and often lethal working conditions, the inevitable and hugely destructive economic depressions. It was these unaddressed problems of capitalism that led to the creation of communism and communist revolutions. Some people were so upset and disgusted with the widespread injustices and suffering caused by of laissez-faire capitalism that they were willing to take up arms and risk their lives to throw out the entire system and to start over with new and untried economic systems. The extreme problems of capitalism drove them to those political extremes.
The United States was not immune to these problems or this kind of political and social unrest. In 1912, Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party presidential candidate, offered a radical critique of capitalism and won the support of nearly a million voters. Some unions, like the Industrial Workers of the World, wanted to replace capitalism with worker-controlled production. The IWW was instrumental in organizing the Seattle General Strike of 1919 where 60,000 workers went out on strike and paralyzed the city for a week. The influence of the Socialist Party and the IWW only abated when federal and state authorities jailed their leaders, deported many of them, harassed their members, shut down their newspapers, and denied them use of the mail.
The 1930s and the Great Depression, however, saw a resurgence of interest in anti-capitalist ideas and movements. Political unrest was growing. There were food riots, widespread labor violence, street protests, and increasing political instability. In this atmosphere, communist and socialist parties experienced growing support and began to exert more influence in unions as well. In addition, socialist and communist groups became very popular on college campuses. To students, they seemed to be the only organizations that could explain the causes of the Depression and who offered alternatives to a malfunctioning capitalist system. Into this highly volatile and precarious political situation stepped Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal programs. Anti-market conservatives have reviled Roosevelt ever since as a "socialist" who betrayed capitalism; but in reality, his government programs actually saved capitalism by stabilizing the economy and developing programs to alleviate the suffering it was causing – all of which had the effect of undermining political unrest.
Examining the deeper political implications of New Deal, the political scientist Edward Greenberg concluded in his book Capitalism and the American Political Ideal that Roosevelt’s efforts can best be seen as ultimately aiding the cause of business and conservatives:
[T]he New Deal is best understood as a series of attempts to save a faltering and depressed capitalist system by further regulating and rationalizing the economy, by bringing important elements of the labor movement into the established political life, and by staving off social disruption and revolution through expansion of the welfare role of government. … the New Deal represents, paradoxically, a conservative expansion of government activities. While it is traditional to define any expansion of government activities as “liberal,” I would argue that since this expansion was directed toward preserving and cementing the position of capital and maintaining the social class system, it must, in the end, be judged “conservative.”13
Ironically, then, free-market conservatives and business leaders who worked so hard against Roosevelt and his policies were actually working against their own long-term interests. They failed to see that capitalism actually needs some “socialism” to make it less destructive and more palatable to most people.
Today, the corporate community and anti-government conservatives fail to see this point as well. They fail to understand that government policies that protect consumers, make workplaces safe, provide economic security, eliminate poverty in old age, provide health care to the poor, and prevent and repair environmental damage are what “humanize” capitalism and make it tolerable to people. In this way, businesses are a lot like sulky teenagers. They resent their parents’ rules – such as no drinking and driving, no unsafe sex, no experimentation with hard drugs – which they simply see as constraints on their freedom and their fun. They refuse to see that these rules are for their own good, their own long-term health and welfare.
Similarly, businesses and free-market conservatives have been unable to appreciate how government efforts to humanize capitalism have been for their own good. Instead, they have resented and opposed virtually every effort to make capitalism less harsh – from the 40-hour week and the abolition of child labor to Social Security and Medicare. They should see the costs they pay for these policies as a premium on a vital form of political insurance. Government regulatory policies and social programs are crucial in undermining popular discontent about the problems of a free-market economy and serve to co-opt potential anti-capitalist and anti-business political movements. These “liberal” reforms provide and sustain the social and political peace on which profitable business activity ultimately depends.
Even Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, understands how essential government safety net programs are to maintaining public support for our market system. He has warned of the "painful dislocations" associated with capitalism and has stated that if "we did not place some limits on the downside risks to individuals affected by economic change, the public at large might become less willing to accept the dynamism that is so essential to economic progress."
There is one final ironic twist to all of this. Modern government’s achievements in reining in abuses of corporate power and humanizing capitalism have actually backfired on those who champion an active role for government in society. These successes have fostered an illusion that a market economy is relatively harmless. Few people remain alive who actually experienced the severe problems of the “bad old days” of capitalism before the New Deal. Today, many think we are living in a natural “free market” system, but in reality it has been extensively tamed by myriad government policies. It is as if we lived in a world where all we knew about wild animals is what we learned by going to the circus, and thus came to believe that bears and elephants were naturally gentle creatures. Frustratingly, then, it has been the government’s triumphs in addressing the many problems inherently caused by a free-market economy that has allowed conservatives to argue that markets are naturally benign and largely problem free – and so we do not really need much government.14
Beyond the Myths of Government and Markets
In the end, anti-government conservatives get it wrong about both markets and government. In their zeal to justify shrinking the state, they intentionally misrepresent both of these institutions and how they interact. The market is not God and the government is not the Devil. Despite their enormous advantages, markets are not benign and self-regulating. They create numerous social, economic, and political problems that only government can correct. Government is also not the sworn enemy of business and capitalism. Conservatives can only promote this misleading caricature of government by deliberately ignoring the myriad ways that government aids business and makes a market economy possible
Anti-government conservatives are constantly warning that government is primarily a threat to business and the economy – that unless we reduce it, it will “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.” But as we’ve seen, this is far from the truth. The modern state is more like the farmer who feeds and waters the goose, builds the facility that houses it, inoculates it from disease, clips its wings so it can’t fly away, protects it from predators, cleans up its excrement, and tames it so it won’t bite people. If we appreciate those golden eggs, we should also appreciate the efforts of the farmer who helps make the egg production process possible. Similarly, those who celebrate the achievements of business and a market economy should also acknowledge and celebrate the role government has had in those accomplishments. This would be the fair thing to do; but of course it would not fit into anti-government conservative orthodoxy.
The basic lesson is this: we Americans need to realize that our economy has thrived not in spite of government, but in many ways because of government. The American economy that so many people admire is not the mythical free market that operates without government interference. Our version of a market economy is highly constructed, regulated, subsidized, and humanized by government laws and policies. And we are all better off for it. Even if it were possible to create a world of free markets that were left entirely alone by government, none of us would want to live there.
*************
For more on the relationship between government and capitalism, see: How Government is Good for Business.
To see how government programs work quietly to improve our daily lives, see: A Day in Your Life with Government.
See also: Why We Need More Government, Not Less.
________________________________________
1. For more on this issue, see David Moss’ excellent book, When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002) chapter three.
2. Moss, chapter five.
3. Robert Kuttner, Everything for Sale (. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997) p. 212.
4. Kuttner, p. 218.
5. Dick Armey, The Freedom Revolution (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1995), p. 316.
6. Armey, p. 68.
7. See for example, Timothy M. Smeeding, et al., “United States Poverty in a Cross-National Context.” In Sheldon H. Danziger and Robert H. Haveman, editors, Understanding Poverty (New York and Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press, 2002) pp. 162-189.
8. Benard Wasaw, “Rags to Riches: The Americans Dream is Less Common in the United States than Elsewhere,” Century Foundation, March 19, 2004. www.tcf.org/4L/4LMain.asp?SubjectID=1&TopicID=0&ArticleID=456
9. Jo Blanden, et al., “Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America,” April, 2005. www.suttontrust.com/reports/ IntergenerationalMobility.pdf
10. "As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S., Class Mobility Stalls," The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2005.
11. Charles Noble, The Collapse of Liberalism (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), p. xvi.
12. David Stockman, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Administration Failed (New York: Harper and Row, 1986) p. 394.
13. Edward S. Greenberg, Capitalism and the American Political Ideal (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1985) p. 93.
14. Thanks to Sam Rosen-Amy for making this point to me.
........................................................................................................................................................
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Readers,
Please go to Modernghana and look at the pictures accompanying the article.
Title: "Have Germans Finally Acknowledged Their Extermination Wars Against The Herero, Nama, San And Damara As Genocide?"
By D ... read full comment
Dear Readers,
Please go to Modernghana and look at the pictures accompanying the article.
Title: "Have Germans Finally Acknowledged Their Extermination Wars Against The Herero, Nama, San And Damara As Genocide?"
By Dr. Kwame Opoku (Modernghana, Aug. 2, 2015)
........................................................................................................................................................
For a long time, successive German governments have sought to avoid taking responsibility for the genocide of the Herero and Nama of South-West Africa, now Namibia, in 1904-1908. We have in previous articles examined the various untenable arguments that were advanced by German governments to reject this historic cruelty and responsibility. (1)
The attempt to deny historical evidence of German genocide was bound to fail in so far as all the elements of German responsibility have been fully documented in German official papers and writings of German scholars. (2)The extermination order of the German General in South West Africa, General von Lothar should have been sufficient evidence of the declared intention to exterminate Herero and Nama:
‘I, the great general of the German troops, send this letter to the Herero people. The Herero are no longer German subjects. They have murdered and stolen, they have cut off the ears and other parts of the bodies of wounded soldiers, and now out of cowardice they no longer wish to fight. I say to the people: anyone who hands over one of the chiefs to one of our stations as prisoner shall receive 1,000 marks and whoever delivers Samuel Maharero will receive 5,000 marks. The Herero people must however leave the land. If the people refuse to do so, I shall force them with the Great Rohr [cannon]. Any Herero found within the German borders, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I no longer receive women or children. I will drive them back to their people or order them to be shot. These are my words to the Herero people.
The great General of the mighty German Kaiser.” (3)
Vernichtungsbefehl (Extermination Order) by the German commander, General Lothar von Trotha.
The information that has come from Germany in the last few weeks seems to suggest that the present German government may be preparing to move in the direction of accepting that the extermination wars of 1904-1908 constitute indeed genocide in the meaning and intendment of the Convention on Genocide. (4)
After the discussions in April 2015 on the question of Armenian genocide, the question of genocide in South West Africa got more publicity. In April, the President of Germany, Joachim Gauck and Norbert Lammert, President of the German Parliament, described the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman forces in 1915 as genocide. However the Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier would not use genocide to describe Armenian massacres since this risks belittling the Holocaust. He argued it would minimize the horror of the Holocaust in which six million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany. When Steinmeier’s party, SPD, was in opposition, he supported motions calling on the government to recognize the genocide in Namibia but now that his party is in a coalition government, he argues that the word genocide should not be used in connection with the Armenian massacres. A very interesting argument that is trying to introduce a quantitative requirement which is not in the Genocide Convention.
This quantitative or qualitative argument, depending on one’s point of view, may very well be a convenient smokescreen for a value judgemental viewpoint which a Foreign Minister of Germany can ill-afford to advance since it would open a series of historical recriminations and arguments that are best left unmentioned.
A quantitative argument would imply telling descendants of victims of genocide such as the Herero and Nama,”Look, we would have characterised the killing of your predecessors as genocide but not enough of them were killed; only about 65,000 of them were killed.” Steinmeier is of course too intelligent and sophisticated to put it this way but in effect this is what his argument would mean in practice. It becomes evident in view of the German atrocities in Namibia that such an argument should not even be mentioned. (5)
In an article in Die Zeit,09 July 2015,Norbert Lammert, President of the German Parliament noted that: “At the same time, there is a startling contrast between the lack of commemorating one’s own colonial past in this country, and the passionate debate in April on the occasion of the centenary of genocide against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.” (6)
Lammert pointed out that even though Germany’s colonial history was short it “is linked to shameful crimes-especially the merciless suppression of the Herero and Nama uprising between 1904 and1908”. Lammert adds that the Germans waged against the Herero a “race war.”
After what has been written above, Lammert concludes that:
” According to present day international law, the suppression of the Herero uprising was genocide International law stipulates that if acts are committed with intent “to destroy ,in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such ”the criminal act of genocide has occurred Such is the interpretation of many ,also German historians”
Lammert also adds a statement which must be carefully noticed:
“Irrespective of the question whether the UN-Convention on Genocide is applicable in this case, the Bundestag and the German government emphasized the historical and moral responsibility on several occasions”
Lammert informs us that “for one year now, the Federal government is involved in a dialogue with the Namibian government, in order to find a common position and common language in dealing with the cruel colonial war of 1904-1908.”
Lammert ends his interesting article by referring to “Germany’s special responsibility for its former colony in South-West Africa is also reflected in the amount of German development assistance for the independent State of Namibia; they are the highest per capita in Africa”.
After the President of the German Parliament, German Government officials have also declared readiness to recognize officially the genocide in South West Africa.
At a Government Press conference on10 July, 2015, the question was raised as to whether, in view of the various pressures on the German government to define the massacres of the Herero and Nama as genocide, there was a chance the government might modify its position. (7) Dr Schafer Spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry defined the Governments position as follows:
“Firstly, the basis of all actions and for our political motivation is the guiding principle that the Federal Government-against the background of the brutal colonial war of Imperial Germany in South West Africa acknowledges Germany’s special historical responsibility towards Namibia and its citizens and especially towards the Herero, Nama, San and Damara. This necessitates all further actions, also today’s political actions of the Federal Government and the Foreign Minister…
The objective of this German-Namibian dialogue is to find a dignified manner to commemorate and remember the atrocities of the past. I specifically repeat: to jointly find/look for a new way, and, on the basis of a joint understanding about the past, lead the bilateral relations between Germany and Namibia into the future”
Dr. Schäfer then referred to the statement by Ms. Heidemarie Wieczoreck-Zeul, the then Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development who in a visit to Windhoek in 2004 had said on behalf the German Government:
“We Germans accept our historical-political and moral-ethical responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time. The atrocities committed at that time would today be termed genocide”. (8)
Schäfer concluded by saying that discussions and negotiations between Germany and Namibia are ongoing and that after the conclusion of the negotiations” we intend to publish a joint declaration, which will naturally include this part of the past and the language for such a joint assessment of the past”.
An additional question brought the following response from Dr. Schäfer:
“The German Bundestag recognizes the heavy burden of guilt incurred by German colonial troops against the Herero, Nama, Damara and San. The German Bundestag emphasizes, as proven by historians for many years, that the war of extermination in Namibia from 1904-1908 was a war crime and genocide. In that context, the German Bundestag emphasizes the continued German responsibility for Nambia’s future”.
Further questioning of Dr. Schäfer yielded the following answer: “The Federal Government says: That was genocide. That would be an announcement to make”.
The statements from Dr. Norbert Lammert, President of the German Bundestag (Parliament) and the answers given by officials of the Foreign Ministry and the Cabinet at the Press Conference on 10 July 2015 add to the impression that the German Government is preparing to abandon the long standing practice of denying responsibility for the genocides of 1904-1908 and is now prepared to characterize those wars of extermination as genocide. But has the German Government adopted fully a new position?
None of those who have spoken or written can be said to represent the German Government in such matters however high their positions may be. The President of Parliament does not necessarily speak for the Government. Besides, his statements were made in an article to Die Zeit, a leading German newspaper which is not a government organ.
The government officials who spoke at the press conference were, in the end, very cautious about their statements. They emphasized that the German Government was in negotiations with the Namibian Government and that when those negotiations are over, an announcement would be made on these issues. So far, the negotiations have not been concluded.
Dr Schäfer also subjected the characterization of the murderous events of 1904-1908 as genocide to an important limitation: “According to present day International Law, the suppression of the Herero uprising was genocide”. Implicit in this statement is an attempt to distinguish present day International Law from the International Law in force in 1904-1908. (9) Moreover, he emphasized Germany’s historical responsibility irrespective of the question of the applicability or not of the Geneva Convention on Genocide.
Frankly, I was surprised and worried by the various statements indicating that the Germans and the Namibians have been having negotiations and discussions aimed at finding “a common position and common language in dealing with the cruel colonial war of 1904-1908”. This is a remarkable statement. Does anybody really believe Germans and Namibians can find a common position and a common language regarding the cruel and inhuman atrocities of the Germans in South –West Africa? Is this really serious or is this intended to persuade the Namibians to get involved in a dangerous rewriting of history that would present the Germany in a less inhuman light?
There are probably fewer aspects of recent African history that are as well documented as the German presence and atrocities in Namibia. What is there more for non-historians and politicians to discover and present as a common position and common language of the colonized and the colonizer, of the oppressor and the oppressed?
This can only be an attempt to modify the role of the perpetrator of atrocities and to make the victims partially responsible for the heinous crimes committed against them. The victim becomes involved in the criminal acts against him. Colonized victims cannot evaluate the events of which they were victims in the same way as the oppressive colonizers. There is no need for Germans and Namibians to view in the same way the unspeakable crimes of the German Schutztruppe in South-West Africa in1904-1908. Namibians should reject suggestions and propositions of this nature without further discussions.
It is remarkable that Germans and Namibians have been in discussion for more than a year and there is no information as to what precisely they are discussing and what difficulties they may have encountered. Could it be that the Germans, supported by the French, British, and Belgians and other former colonial powers are frightened about the effect of German recognition of genocide in Namibia? They would all like to avoid having to pay adequate compensation to their African victims and so urge the Germans to avoid setting a precedent; they are probably trying to find a formula, short of admitting genocide in Namibia that allows them to pay some compensation, less than what they would have to pay under the application of normal rules.
As for the desire to find “a dignified manner to commemorate and remember the atrocities of the past”, it is the Germans who have a lot to learn in this respect. The Herero, Nama, San and Damara have always known how to remember their lost ones and their losses in a dignified way. They have, as Africans, no need to learn from anyone how to commemorate tragic losses inflicted on us by European colonial regimes. Let the Germans who have shown and continue to show little respect for the Namibians exterminated during their colonial rule, now learn how to commemorate with respect and dignity the Herero and Nama victims of genocide. They know how to build respectable memorials for the victims of the Nazi regime but when it comes to African victims, they seem to have problems. Is it because of our skin-colour?
The German government could start the process of bringing dignity into this matter by erecting a respectable memorial to those who died as a result of their extermination wars to replace the existing inadequate memorial stone in Berlin.
What would one expect of a German Government that has decided finally to recognize the enormous atrocities of the past and is prepared to change its untenable position regarding the cruelties of the past?
First of all, we would expect a full, unambiguous and unconditional official apology for the events of 1904-1908 and a plea to the Herero, Nama, San and Damara peoples for forgiveness and for an initiation of a process of reconciliation with all those whose lives were unjustly extinguished and with their present descendants; such an apology should be issued by the President of Germany, the Chancellor or the Minister for Foreign Affairs and should go beyond the statement made by the Federal Minister Heidemarie W|ieczorek-Zeul on 14 August 2004 even though deriving inspiration from the tone and spirit of that statement.
Secondly, those acts of extermination based on cruel official policies, such as the extermination order of the German commander, Lothar von Trotha, should be characterized without limitation or ambiguity as acts of genocide by the German Government;
Thirdly, the German Government, the representatives of the Herero, Nama, San and Damara and the Government of Namibia should to work out a scheme of appropriate compensation for all those who, as a result of the cruel acts of the German administration or military, lost their land, cattle and other property. Compensations should also be paid for forced labour. Special attention should be paid to the women who experienced forced labour, other cruelties and indignities. Compensations under these specific counts should not be conflated with compensation for genocide. These are separate items that are not necessarily linked to genocide however connected they may be generally.
Fourthly, the issues of compensation mentioned- above should be distinguished and separated from issues of bilateral cooperation between Germany and Namibia. Attempts to drown issues of genocide in a sea of discussions and arrangements of development cooperation aid cannot help us in dealing with issues of genocide. No amount of financial assistance to the Namibian State can by itself heal the wounds and feelings of the descendants of the victims of German genocide.
Fifthly, a respectable and fitting memorial such as has been built for victims of Nazi persecution in Berlin, should be built in memory of the Herero, Nama, San and Damara victims of the German genocide in South West Africa, in consultation with the representatives of their descendants. (10)
That there is a change or willingness to change as regards the attitude of Germany towards Namibia and its people seems evident. Even the Stiftung Preussicher Kulturbesitz has decided to return all the Namibian bones and skulls in its possession (11)but there are other acts or events that seem to cast doubt on this willingness to change.
I refer to the refusal of the German President to receive a high level Namibian Delegation that had arrived specifically in Germany for the presentation of a petition to the President. (Annex III)
A petition by the NGO Alliance, “Budnis Völkermord verjährt nicht”(Genocide is not subject to statute of limitations) entitled “ Völkermord ist Völkermord,”(Genocide is Genocide) was to be presented to the Federal President Gauck, calling on the German government to recognize and accept on the 100th anniversary of the end of German rule in German South West Africa, on 9 July 2015, that the murderous extermination wars against the Herero and Nama in 1904-1908 were genocides; the Government should also issue an official apology for the many human remains that were stolen for racist “scientific” research from Africa and to enter into direct consultations with the Herero and Nama about appropriate ways and means for reconciliation. The petition had been signed by many prominent persons from the Church, culture, politics, science and from the Black Community in Germany. The opposition parties, Die Linke (Left) and the Alliance 90/Die Grunen (Green) had supported the demands in the petition.
The presentation of the petition was to be made in the presence of a high level Namibian delegation, under the leadership of the Herero Paramount Chief, Adv. Vekuii Rukoro and the Member of Parliament and representative of the Nama, Ida Hoffmann who had travelled to Germany specifically for this purpose. The delegation was not received by the President even though he had been informed ahead of their arrival. Thus the descendants of the victims of German genocide found no respect or recognition from the German President. Ida Hoffmann, Member of Parliament and representative of the Nama expressed her disappointment at the way the Namibian delegation was treated; they were not even allowed to enter the Presidential premises and were received by personnel at the main entrance to the Presidential Palace, Schloss Bellevue.
This lack of respect reminds us of the handing over ceremony of 20 skulls to a Namibian delegation on 28 September 2011, at the Medical Museum of the Charité Hospital, Berlin, when the German State-secretary in the Ministry of Foreign affairs, Cornelia Pieper, who was present, left the hall immediately after her speech but before the Namibians spoke.
The refusal by the German President to receive the Namibian Delegation, not even allowing them to enter the premises of the President, is surely not a good omen for future relations between Germany and Namibia on the issues arising from Germany’s war of extermination in 1904-1908.
We expect the Namibian Government to handle the issues of German genocide and its ramifications in the interest of the Namibian peoples, irrespective of party allegiance and in the interest of the African peoples. They should remember that many other African peoples have claims similar to those of the Herero, Nama, San and Damara (12) and the case of these peoples is being watched very closely by the rest of the Continent that has in the past expressed confidence in the Namibian Government
Given what the Herero, Nama, San, Damara and all the Namibian peoples have gone through in their encounter with German colonial rule, it is amazing that these issues still remain unsolved. There is no way the Government of Germany can continue to evade assuming openly and fully the consequences of the 1904-1908 exterminations wars.
Kwame Opoku, 1 August, 2015.
NOTES
1 Kwame Opoku, Namibian Bones in European Museums: Genocide with Impunity
www.afrikanet.info › Home › African Art
Bones do not die: Germans to return Namibian skulls.
Return of Stolen Skulls by Germany to Namibia: Closure of a Horrible Chapter? www.modernghana.com/news/362016/1/return-of-stolen-skulls-by-germany-to-namibia-clos.html
Will Namibian bones haunt Germans for a long time?
See also genocide-namibia.net/
www.no-humboldt21.de/
For a rap rendition of colonial aggression, see Sir Black reminds us of Europe's division of Africa on Vimeo and Monday Midnite www.youtube.com
2. Many good books and excellent articles have been written on German colonial rule in Africa by German scholars and others:
Horst Drechsler, Südwestafrika unter deutscher Kolonialherrschaft:
Der Kampf der Herero und Nama gegen den deutschen Imperialismus (1884-1915). Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1985;
Horst Gründer, Geschichte der deutschen Kolonien, Paderborn: Schöningh, 2000;
Helmut Bley, Kolonialherrschaft und Sozialstruktur in Deutsch-Südwestafrika (1894-1914),Hamburg, Leibniz Verlag, 1968;
Helmut Strizek, Kolonien Geschenkte:Ruanda und Burundi unter deutscher Herrschaft, Berlin, Ch.Links Verlag, 2006
Ulrich van der Heyden and Joachim Zeller (Eds.), Macht und Anteil an der Weltherrshaft, Unrast Verlag, Münster, 2005.
The bibliography on the German rule in South-West Africa is formidable.
The accounts of German atrocities often require strong stomach to read all the atrocious and heinous crimes against humanity that were perpetrated in South- West Africa (Namibia). See for a list on this topic by Prevent Genocide International, “German Southwest Africa 1904-1908: Genocide of Hereros”,
www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/swafrika/resources/
Detailed information on the atrocities committed by Germany in South-West Africa can be found in the infamous Blue Book, republished by J. Silvester and J-B. Gewald, Words Cannot be Found. German Colonial Rule in Namibia: An Annotated Reprint of the 1018 Blue Book, 2003.Brill, Leiden, Netherlands,) There are images of hangings of Herero and the whips used by the Germans on Africans that may disturb some readers but the book is worth reading. Equally instructive is the history of the actions of the British and South African authorities to suppress this book. The Report on the Natives of South-West Africa and their Treatment by Germany (1918) had been prepared by the Administrator's Office in Windhoek in 1918 and published as a British Blue Book by Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London. It served as a powerful instrument to establish that Germany was not worthy to administer the territory because of its human treatment of the Africans under its control. Once the territory was transferred to the British, to be administered on its behalf by South Africa, it became clear to Britain and South Africa that some of the criticisms against Germany could be turned against them and in the interest of cooperation with Germany, measures were taken in 1826 to suppress the report. Her Majesty's Stationary ceased to sell the report and copies were removed from all libraries and available copies bought and destroyed.
In response to the British Blue Book, the Germans issued in 1919 their White Book, “The Treatment of Native and other Populations in the Colonial Possessions of Germany and England”, that depicted atrocities committed by Britain in its colonies. See, Silvester and Gewald, in the introduction to their book. p. xix.
See also, “Blue Book they didn't want us to read” findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200201/ai_n21324291/
The Blue Book They Didn't Want Us to Read: How Britain, Germany and South Africa Destroyed a Damning Book on German Atrocities in Namibia New African January 2002. p 38 www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002449379
See also New York Times September 1918 query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E12F63F5D147A93C1A81782D85F4C8185F9
3. German text of Extermination Order: ‘Aufruf an das Volk der Herero Abschrift zu O.K. 17290 Osombo -Windembe, den 2. Oktober 1904
Kommando der Schutztruppe.
J.Nr. 3737
"Ich, der große General der deutschen Soldaten, sende diesen Brief an das Volk der Herero. Die Hereros sind nicht mehr deutsche Untertanen. Sie haben gemordet und gestohlen, haben verwundeten Soldaten Ohren und Nasen und andere Körperteile abgeschnitten, und wollen jetzt aus Feigheit nicht mehr kämpfen. Ich sage dem Volk: Jeder der einen der Kapitäne an eine meiner Stationen als Gefangenen abliefert, erhält 1000 Mark, wer Samuel Maharero bringt, erhält 5000 Mark. Das Volk der Herero muß jedoch das Land verlassen.
Wenn das Volk dies nicht tut, so werde ich es mit dem Groot Rohr dazu zwingen. Innerhalb der Deutschen Grenze wird jeder Herero mit und ohne Gewehr, mit oder ohne Vieh erschossen, ich nehme keine Weiber und Kinder mehr auf, treibe sie zu ihrem Volke zurück oder lasse auf sie schießen. Dies sind meine Worte an das Volk der Hereros.
Der große General des mächtigen deutschen Kaisers’
Lothar von Trotha, news.bbc.co.uk; ; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
Völkermord an den Nama und Herero in Deutsch-Südwestafrika ab 1904
Dokumentation gegen das Vergessen. www.mahali.de/1904/genozid/vernichtungsbefehl.php
See Jan-Bart Gewald, ‘Herero Heroes’, James Currey, Oxford, and Ohio University Press, 1999; also, The Great General of the Kaiser .
Horst Drechsler, ‘Let us die fighting’, Zed Press, London, 1966, p156
4. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 as General Assembly in its Resolution 260 on 9 December 1948. The convention was passed to mainly to ban actions similar to the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire during World War I and the Holocaust by Nazi Germany during World War II
Article 2 of the Convention defined genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3 defined the crimes that can be punished under the Convention as
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
5. Steinmeier: Armenia wasn't genocide - The Local
8. See Annex I
9. As we have often stated attempts to argue that the heinous acts of the German Schutztruppe in South-West Africa in 1904-1908 were somehow not punishable before the entry into force of the Genocide Convention are not plausible. Indeed the preamble to the Genocide Convention states clearly
“HAVING CONSIDERED the declaration made by the General Assembly of the
United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide
is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United
Nations and condemned by the civilized world “;
Rachel Anderson has quite rightly stated: An analysis of international law during the early twentieth century shows that the war of annihilation waged by the German colonial administration against the Herero nation violated several treaties to which Germany was a signatory, as well as customary law of the period. Most scholars do not dispute that Germany waged a war of annihilation against the Hereros. There is ample evidence that the Hereros endured slavery, forced labor, concentration camps, medical experimentation, destruction of tribal culture and social organizations, and systematic abuse of women and children.’ Rachel J. Anderson, ‘Redressing Colonial Genocide under International Law: The Hereros' Cause of Action Against Germany’, 93 California Law Review 1155 (2005). papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm .
10. See Annex II. That one could even envisage laying a memorial stone in the memory of a group of victims of violent aggression without even inviting members of that group appears shocking but that is apparently what occurred with the laying of the Namibian Memorial stone. Where then is the sense of decency?
12. Jeremy Sarkin has pointed out that the Herero case is not the only one in colonial history: “Clearly, the Herero case could have consequences for many societies around the world affected by similar histories. The case has great significance for the Herero but also for Namibian and African history. Other cases are already under consideration and some are currently being filed. One such case relates to the massacres in German East Africa (now Tanzania) between 1905 and 1907 in what was known as the Maji-Maji rebellion. It is believed that about 250,000 Ngoni, Matumbi, Waluguru, Makua, Yao, and Makonde people were killed.” Jeremy Sarkin, Colonial Genocide and Reparations in the 21st Century, Praeger Security International, Westport, Connecticut. 2009, p. 156
ANNEX I
SPEECH BY THE FEDERAL MINISTER HEIDEMARIE WIECZOREK-ZEUL AT THE COMMERMORATIONS OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SUPPRESSION OF THE HERERO UPRISING, OKAKARARA,ON 14 AUGUST 2004.
Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul
Federal Minister for Economic Co-operation and Development
It is an honour to have been invited to take part in your commemorations here today.
I would like to thank you for giving me, as the German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development and as a representative of the German government and the German parliament, this opportunity to speak to you. Yet I am also here to listen to you.
Acknowledging the atrocities of 1904
Today, I want to acknowledge the violence inflicted by the German colonial powers on your ancestors, particularly the Herero and the Nama.
I am painfully aware of the atrocities committed: in the late 19th century, the German colonial powers drove the people from their land. When the Herero, when your ancestors, resisted, General von Trotha's troops embarked on a war of extermination against them and the Nama. In his infamous order General Trotha commanded that every Herero be shot – with no mercy shown even to women and children.
After the battle of Waterberg in 1904, the survivors were forced into the Omaheke desert, where they were denied any access to water sources and were left to die of thirst and starvation.
Following the uprisings, the surviving Herero, Nama and Damara were interned in camps and put to forced labour of such brutality that many did not survive.
Respect for the fight for freedom
We pay tribute to those brave women and men, particularly from the Herero and the Nama, who fought and suffered so that their children and their children's children could live in freedom.
I remember with great respect your ancestors who died fighting against their German oppressors.
Even at that time, back in 1904, there were also Germans who opposed and spoke out against this war of oppression. One of them was August Bebel, the chairman of the same political party of which I am a member. In the German parliament, Bebel condemned the oppression of the Herero in the strongest terms and honoured their uprising as a just struggle for liberation. I am proud of that today.
Plea to forgive
A century ago, the oppressors – blinded by colonialist fervour – became agents of violence, discrimination, racism and annihilation in Germany's name.
The atrocities committed at that time would today be termed genocide – and nowadays a General von Trotha would be prosecuted and convicted.
We Germans accept our historical and moral responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time.
And so, in the words of the Lord's Prayer that we share, I ask you to forgive us our trespasses.
Without a conscious process of remembering, without sorrow, there can be no reconciliation – remembrance is the key to reconciliation.
2004 is a year of commemorations but it should also be a year of reconciliation.
Today, we honour the dead. Those who fail to remember the past become blind to the present.
By remembering the past, we should gain strength for the present and the future.
A shared vision of freedom and justice
Namibia's independence grew out of the determination and courage of the people of Namibia and the vision you share with your ancestors. The people of Namibia have every reason to be proud of these fourteen years of independence.
The vision that you and we share of a more just, peaceful and more humane world is based on rejecting the overcoming chauvinist power politics and all forms of apartheid. We share the vision of those who fought for freedom and dignity or against discrimination of any kind: a vision of freedom, justice, mutual respect and human rights. By gaining independence, the people of Namibia have won the chance to realise that vision. I am pleased and proud that a great deal of support was also forthcoming from my own country for this struggle for independence and beyond.
Committed to support and assist
Germany has learned the bitter lessons of history: We are a country that is open to the world and has in many ways become multicultural. We have achieved German reunification in a peaceful manner and enjoy being part of the enlarged European Union. We are a committed member of the United Nations, working for world-wide peace, human rights, development and poverty reduction. We provide sustained assistance to the people of Africa and strongly support the NEPAD initiative.
Accepting our special historical responsibility towards Namibia, we wish to continue our close partnership at all levels. Germany is looking to the future and wishes to help Namibia tackle the challenges of development. This applies in particular to assistance for the necessary process of land reform.
I hope very much for all of us that this cultural centre in Okakarara will be a place for Germans and Namibians to talk and exchange views on our past and on our future. From the unhappy past that this place has witnessed, let us draw the strength to create a bright future in peace and friendship.
As Bishop Kameeta said in an interview, at a time of faceless globalisation we must tell people loud and clear that there is hope for the world and make people aware that this world and our planet cannot survive by concentrating all the work in a few hands and a few countries but by sharing resources across the whole world and ensuring that the world population has equal access to these resources.
And so, in that spirit of hope, we share a commitment to a fairer world, to better living conditions here and in all parts of our world.
Thank you
ANNEX II
MEMORIAL IN REMEMBRANCE OF 7 GERMAN SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN FIGHTING THE HEREROS AND NAMA AND A MEMORIAL FOR VICTIMS OF GERMAN COLONIA RULE IN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA 1884-1915, ESPECIALLY THE COLONIAL WARS OF 1904-1907
Zum Gedenken an die Opfer der deutschen Kolonialherrschaft in Namibia 1884 - 1915 insbesondere des Kolonialkrieges von 1904 - 1907“.
We have here two memorials which one has attempted to combine with the result that this may be the most unsatisfactory memorial in the world. The first one is the large solid rock, standing upright which had been erected in the memory of some 7 German soldiers of the Schutztruppe who lost their lives in fighting against the Herero and Nama in 1904-1908,following the notorious extermination order of Lothar von Trotha. This memorial, later called “Afrika-Stein, was previously known as “Herero-Stein”.
As a result of protest by various NGO’s and others about the absence of a memorial for the victims of the genocidal wars of 1904-1908, on 2 October 2009, a memorial plaque, with the outline of the map of Namibia, was placed immediately below the old memorial, The inscription on the plaque was:
“In memory of the victims of the German colonial rule in Namibia 1884-1915, especially of the colonial wars of 1904-1907. The District Council and the District Office Neukölln, Berlin. Only the one, who knows the past, has a future (Wilhelm von Humboldt)”.
The citation from Humboldt could be subject of very interesting interpretation. Was the District Council warning the Namibians or the Germans about the future?
The old memorial for the 7 German soldiers who had been involved in genocide stands erect, big and strong, above the memorial for the 80,000 thousands Herero and Nama that lies down as a flat plaque, on its back, evidently subordinate to the mighty stone.
On the big stone is written,”From the 41 members of Regiment, who in the period from January 1904 to March 1907 voluntarily participated in the campaign in South West Africa, met a heroic death (names of 7 soldiers written). The Officers Corps honours with this stone the memory of the heroes”. There had previously been a second inscription, with German cross, stating that the stone was to honour the fallen German soldiers.
The smaller Namibian plaque does not mention the names of any of the victims of German aggression nor does the word “genocide” appear anywhere. Would Germans present such a memorial if it were for victims of Nazi aggression?
The overall impression of these two memorials is disturbing. Did one have to place a memorial for the victims of German genocide next to a memorial glorifying “heroes” of German genocide? Could the two memorials, produced at different periods of German history not be put at different locations?
There appears to be an attempt to achieve many and different objectives with the same objects. One appears here to be killing many birds with two stones.
Has any German politician ever visited the Namibienstein? Not even at the opening of the memorial did important politicians find it worthy to visit the memorial. Would they do the same if it were a memorial for the victims of Nazi atrocities?
How many Berliners and tourists ever visit the memorial, assuming they are aware of the existence of this memorial? Tourist guides do not mention the Afrikastein or Namibienstein as an attraction in Berlin. The Holocaust Memorial is mentioned in most Berlin tourist guides, e.g. Time Out Berlin, 2009, p.84 ; Marco Polo Berlin, 2014, p.42; The Rough Guide to Berlin, 2014, p38.
Very soon 500 looted Benin artefacts, victims also of European aggression (British aggression, Germany being accessory after the looting, will be brought to the heart of Berlin, Berlin-Mitte. Why not also bring the Namibian memorial to Berlin Mitte where we also have the Holocaust Memorial? Are there any essential differences apart from the skin colour of the victims?
With all due respect to those whose efforts resulted in this minimum symbolism, this memorial stone for the victims of German genocide in South West Africa, Namibia, is simply not enough. We should look at the monuments set up in the memory of the victims of Nazi atrocities to realize how little respect is accorded to African victims of German genocide.
Friedhof Columbiadamm Berlin’s most offensive monument
At the back of the Columbiadamm cemetery, in the shade of ivy-covered trees, there is a strange calm – only interrupted by loudspeaker announcements from the lifeguard at the Neukölln public pool, located just on the other side of the red brick wall. Here, you will find Berlin’s most offensive monument.
It seems that the colonial troops massacring the Herero and Nama suffered some hardships themselves. In 1907, a giant block of red granite was engraved with the names of seven soldiers who “died a hero’s death”. The Afrikastein (Africa Stone) stood in Kreuzberg until 1973, when Berlin’s dubious “Africa-Camaraderie Society” restored the stone and moved it to its current location. At the same time, they inscribed it with the logo of Hitler’s failed Afrikakorps initiative, replacing the swastika with an iron cross.
For years, Berlin Postkolonial and other groups have protested this inappropriate tribute. “Our demand was to remove the Africa Stone, or at least put a decent text on the plaque,” says Endrias. The government’s response? In October 2009 a much smaller plaque was installed on the ground next to the stone, commemorating Namibia’s 60,000 “victims of colonial war”. According to Neukölln councilman Thomas Blesing, the German Foreign Office “strongly discouraged” any references to genocide.
Colonial Berlin in 10 stops by Wladek Flakin September 25, 2012 - See more at: www.exberliner.com/features/lifestyle/colonial-berlin-in-10-stops/#sthash.rMNhgSHb.dpuf
[PDF] Tracing marks of German colonialism in the cities of Berlin
Garnisonsfriedhof Neukölln –
Memorial Stone in Honour of the Victims of
German Colonial Rule in Namibia
(2009):
The Memorial stone is commemorating the victims of German colonialrule in Namibia from 1884 – 1915, in particular the colonial war of 1904 – 1908 – a war in which the German so-called Schutztruppe committed unspeakable crimes and genocide against the Herero, the Nama and the Damara.
Unfortunately, the inscription does not use the term »genocide« but speaks only about »colonial war« (see also www.berlin-postkolonial.de/aktuelle_themen/ Namibia-Gedenkstein.html). In 2009, the memorial stone was put up next to the »Africa stone« of 1907, which commemorates German soldiers of the »Schutztruppe«, not mentioning any of the African victims?
Christian Kopp
Deutsche Welle reported that Christian Kopp of the NGO Berlin Postkolonial criticised the existence of monuments glorifying Germany’s colonial past and cited a monument erected at Berlin’s Columbiadamm street to the memory of seven German soldiers fallen in fighting the Herero: "For years we had complained about this monument," Kopp said. "And finally the city put up a plaque to honor the Namibian victims. But actually, it doesn't really honor them at all: it's a tiny stone for 80,000 murdered Namibians that literally sits below a much larger rock for 7 soldiers who are essentially being honored for committing genocide against the Namibians."
Pressure grows on Germany to acknowledge genocide in former South -West Africa
Pressure grows on Germany to acknowledge genocide in
CRITICISM FROM NGOS
Various NGO’S including Berliner Postkolonial criticized strongly the laying down of the memorial stone. They were shocked that the inscription does not speak of genocide but refers only to colonial wars in Namibia. Moreover no members from the Herero or Nama peoples were invited to participate in the laying of the stone. In addition, the NGO’s were not allowed to speak on the occasion. Postkolonialismus « Global Posts - Entwickler
Here is a very useful documentary film that deals with the general subject of German genocide in Namibia and which gives very useful information also on the Namibian stone, documentary "Deutsch-Südwas?" vimeo.com/69403718
CONTINUITY IN HONOURING THOSE INVOLVED IN GENOCIDE
We were shocked to learn that there are 5 military barracks in Hamburg-Wandsbek honouring members of the German Shutztruppe in East Africa-Wissmann, Zelewski, Von Schele, Von Schleinitz and the Great General of the mighty Kaiser who issued the extermination order in South-West Africa, Lothar von Trotha. The evil commander was with the Schutztruppe in East Africa before going to his notorious accomplishment in Namibia. The German army has been using those barracks for some 50years - long tradition and continuity. It seems decolonization will also involve denazification.
ANNEX III
PETITION –GENOCIDE IS GENOCIDE
Genocide is Genocide!
Germany must now finally officially recognise the genocide of the OvaHerero and Nama.
Until October 2nd 2015, the 111th anniversary of the order to exterminate the Herero in present day Namibia, we demand from the German president, the German parliament and the German government
to officially recognize the genocide against the OvaHerero and Nama – an action which is long overdue
to formally ask the descendants of the victims of genocide for forgiveness
to commit to identifying and returning all of the human remains deported from Namibia and other German colonies to Germany
to declare Germany’s unconditional willingness to participate in an open dialogue with the descendants of the victims, as well as with the Namibian government concerning measures which can be taken to achieve reconciliation
Background
July 9th 2015 has marked the 100th anniversary of the end of German colonial rule in present-day Namibia. This foreign dominance was based on deception, violence, exploitation and a colonial-racist view of the world. The OvaHerero and the Nama were particularly resolute in their rebellion against this. Their resistance was met by the Kaiser’s “Schutztruppe” (protection force) with the first genocide of the 20th century. Both of the infamous execution orders, which were issued by General von Trotha in 1904 and 1905 in the name of the German Kaiser, are clear in their genocidal intent.
Following the massacre at Waterberg, a great majority of the OvaHerero were driven into the Omaheke desert, where most of them died of thirst and exhaustion. The survivors were held in concentration camps with captured Nama and were subjected to forced labour, starvation, harsh weather conditions and disease. The human remains of those who were murdered were sent to Germany and used in racist research. According to expert opinion, up to 80 percent of the OvaHerero and 50 percent of the Nama were murdered as a direct result of the actions of German colonialists.
Those who survived the genocide lost all of their property to the German colonialists, were locked up in reservations and forced to work for the colonial system. Until today, the OvaHerero and Nama lack their former means of subsistence due to the plundering of land and livestock that took place during colonial times. Other victims also include the Damara and the San.
Speakers of all fractions of the German government recognized the genocide of the Armenians at the hands of the Young Turks on April 24th 2015 and appealed to Turkey’s sense of historical responsibility. The German President Gauck stressed that the descendants of the victims had a right to expect “the recognition of historical facts and with this a historical debt” and that “without truth, no reconciliation” can take place.
In a similar way, Germany must also finally face the truth and recognise its own historical responsibility for the genocide of the OvaHerero and Nama: there should be no unequal treatment for African victims of genocide or their descendants!
Berlin | 09.06.2015 | Bündnis „Völkermord verjährt nicht!“
www.genocide-namibia.net/appellpetition
KKO 8 years ago
Excellent piece Namesake.
You wrote, "You need a good history book of the era to really have a grip on the insanity of some of the policies adopted, which was supposedly to heal capitalism. It was like children having a pi ... read full comment
Excellent piece Namesake.
You wrote, "You need a good history book of the era to really have a grip on the insanity of some of the policies adopted, which was supposedly to heal capitalism. It was like children having a picnic."
The irony of it all is that leftist governments the world over are still practising those idiotic policies. While John Maham says "Ghanaians should buy made in Ghana goods", and occasionally wears ill-fitting cotton shirts sewn in Ghana, he encourages the majority nincompoops of his party in Parliament to import third rate tables and chairs from China, while Ghanaian carpenters and woodwork companies collapse because of lack of orders!
Philip Kobina Baidoo 8 years ago
Thank you KKO, I hope these people learn something from it.
Thank you KKO, I hope these people learn something from it.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear KKO & Baidoo,
You are going to get a dose of what other textbooks have to say about the era!
There is no monolithic history on this era. You will have this problem when you are not familiar with the "entire" librar ... read full comment
Dear KKO & Baidoo,
You are going to get a dose of what other textbooks have to say about the era!
There is no monolithic history on this era. You will have this problem when you are not familiar with the "entire" library on the subject.
And you will no why even your idol Reagan abondoned that laisez-faire nonsense. Even your ido Miton Friedman contributed to Keyneysian-style governments and regreted for the rest of his life. Hahahahahaha...
People like KKO are not familiar with the literature on the subject matter. This is clear from his uninformed comments. Amd he will later understand why. The likes of KKO do not know you are misleading them.
Thanks.
KKO 8 years ago
Kwarteng,
I grew up in Ghana and saw a bit of the Gold Coast and the the Ghana of Kwame Nkrumah. I know what his disastrous policies did to Ghana. I saw the jubilation all over Ghana after 24th February 1966. I even saw the ... read full comment
Kwarteng,
I grew up in Ghana and saw a bit of the Gold Coast and the the Ghana of Kwame Nkrumah. I know what his disastrous policies did to Ghana. I saw the jubilation all over Ghana after 24th February 1966. I even saw the extended weekly demonstration in Sekondi-Takoradi for three months.
I do not need anyone, least of all you, to tell me about what the majority of Ghanaians went through under Kwame Nkrumah.
I schooled and worked for some time in the US and I have been living in Europe for a very long time. I can identify with what Philip has been writing about. Mercifully, Philip's writing is very original, quoting others like any true scholar will do if and when necessary.
As a scientist, I have also read enough biography/autobiographies of distinguished people from around the world and some world history, to know when someone is spewing out garbage. For me the bottom line is that a lot of the so-called socialists, including deceitful people like Kwesi Botchey, when shove comes to push run to the hated capitalist countries, and not Cuba or North Korea. Thank God for 24th february 1966, you and I can write anything about Ghana and get away with it. Maybe you should check out Kofi Heheta, the guy who wrote "An African Student in China!"
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
KKO,
Your background does not matter to what the facts of history say. You have been spewing garbage and when pushed to provide data/statistics, you simply run to websites and copy what, in your opinion you think are facts ... read full comment
KKO,
Your background does not matter to what the facts of history say. You have been spewing garbage and when pushed to provide data/statistics, you simply run to websites and copy what, in your opinion you think are facts, without even crediting your source, much as your idol Baidoo has been doing.
Again, you have not said one anything of substance in your comments. NOT ONE. What sort of scientists are you that you spew anecdoates and wild speculations and when prodded to provide empirical facts, you run away!
And what has living and working for the US and Europe got to do with anything? Data/statistics from the central banks of European and Americans undermine almost everything single thing Baidoo has said about his unworkable paper (100%) capitalism (which has never existed anywhere in human history).
Besides, my beef with Baidoo is not about his paper socialism or paper capialism. It is about Keynesian economics (mixed economy). The political economy that operated under Nkrumah was Keynesian economics, not the daydreaming articles Baidoo has been writing for his unsuspecting readership.
And you know why the world's major central banks and political economics, Wall Street and other famous Stock Exchanges still rely on economic/econometric models derived from Keynesian economics? The data/statistics are all there. Visit all the world's major economies including little one like those in Africa, Latin America, etc. Alll that Baidoo has successfully done is describing a form of paper capitalism practiced beyond Pluto!
No part part of human history has ever known about Baidoo's paper socialism or paper capitalism. The Europe and America where you have lived are ample examples.
Moreover, I don't care what Baidoo writes about his paper socialism and paper capitalism because it is Keynesian economics I care about. And the Keynesian economics (the economic theory the world has ever known) I have been talking about lives on its world, nothing nothing to do with Baidoo's paper capitalism or paper socialism.
It is a shame you have lived in Europe and America and you come across as an individual who have lived on Pluto all his life. And who cares how you and others felt on Feb. 24, 1966?
Which of Ghanaian leaders since Nkrumah commands a fraction of the respect Nkrumah gets around the world? It is Nkrumah the world celebrates today?
Your idols pale in political significance as far as the world. Ghana lives today because of Nkrumah's vision. Tell me what your idols and how they fare in the world's reckoning!
That said, you alleged readings do not shine through your comments. Your take on most historical issues are anemic and uninformed at best. Let me see more of your "science" in the way you argue and articulate your positions. So far, I have seen none of that. As for Baidoo the less said about him and his clueless articles, the better.
I love you all anyway. No hard feelings. Finally, you need to go beyond biographies/autobiographies by reading technical texts and peer-reviewed papers that explore issues these same biographies/autobiographies you read explore. There is a tendency for biographers and autiobiographers to embellish. I have seen and read many of these. This is a little advise for you.
Dear Sir Baidoo, I can't really come to terms with the uttermost condemnation of the Noble Prize of Paul Krugman whilest at the same breath eulogising the Pultizer award of another writer. I think, equal appreciation shou ...
read full comment
Dear Readers,
So now Baidoo is telling us why the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences went to Paul Krugman and not him?
Paul Krugmah's work and intellectual insights have impacted major American institution ...
read full comment
You are not brighther than the Nobel Prize Committee by no means for awarding the Nobel Prize for Economics to Dr. Paul Krugman. Don't you think he was vetted by the Nobel Committee? Moron.
Just stop making a jackass of y ...
read full comment
Hello Mr Lomotey, do you think the committee are made up of gods? If that is what you are suggesting that is good for you. However, he was awarded based on a particular economic discipline; it does not give him the leverage t ...
read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
Tell us one "particular economic discipline" you have realized in your life that meets a fraction of Krugman's intellectual contributions to economic theory?
And how about your lies? I have given you a list ...
read full comment
Hello Mr Amanfo, I did not condemn the Nobel Prize.I said he has brought it into disrepute. Thank you.
Dear Readers,
I wish I could have added more. Information to discredit Baidoo's weak and porous arguments on his paper capitalism is there in the public domain.
In fact, the sort of paper capitalism (100% capitalism) h ...
read full comment
Dear Readers,
Please go to Modernghana and look at the pictures accompanying the article.
Title: "Have Germans Finally Acknowledged Their Extermination Wars Against The Herero, Nama, San And Damara As Genocide?"
By D ...
read full comment
Excellent piece Namesake.
You wrote, "You need a good history book of the era to really have a grip on the insanity of some of the policies adopted, which was supposedly to heal capitalism. It was like children having a pi ...
read full comment
Thank you KKO, I hope these people learn something from it.
Dear KKO & Baidoo,
You are going to get a dose of what other textbooks have to say about the era!
There is no monolithic history on this era. You will have this problem when you are not familiar with the "entire" librar ...
read full comment
Kwarteng,
I grew up in Ghana and saw a bit of the Gold Coast and the the Ghana of Kwame Nkrumah. I know what his disastrous policies did to Ghana. I saw the jubilation all over Ghana after 24th February 1966. I even saw the ...
read full comment
KKO,
Your background does not matter to what the facts of history say. You have been spewing garbage and when pushed to provide data/statistics, you simply run to websites and copy what, in your opinion you think are facts ...
read full comment