[Marxism] Debunking Third World myths

[S. Artesian]

Yes, Argentina was well more developed than Spain and Portugal, with far 
more "model capitalist" agricultural production.  Which makes me ask the 
question:  What then made Argentina part of a "3rd world,"  and Spain not 
part?  Was it the prior history of colony and colonizer?  The role of 
British capital in the "development," read ownership in Argentina?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nestor Gorojovsky" <nmgoro at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Debunking Third World myths




David Picón Álvarez escribió:
> From: "Paula" <Paula_cerni at msn.com>
>> For smaller nations the data gets even more interesting. South Korea, for
>> example, now has both a higher life expectancy and higher income per
>> person
>> than Portugal. Singapore also beats the US on both counts. It makes no
>> sense, IMO, to consider Singapore or South Korea Third World countries.
>
> Does anyone do that? It would be like considering Hong Kong third world.
> There might have ones been grounds to regard SK that way, but Singapore 
> has
> long been a very prosperous place, as far as I know.

I do, however. During the early decades of the 20th Century, Argentina
beat Portugal, Greece or Spain on those items, and on lots more.
Argentina beat even a good chunk of Southern Italy.

And it was a Third World country.

If politics was written in the UN statistic tables, then making a
revolution would be too easy.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net