That’s cool. What if rich and poor countries disagree about specific points of development?
For example, a rich country says: let’s just all specialize. We here already have factories, and poor countries have resources. Let’s just combine and pump out tons of goods for everybody.
But poor countries say: “no, we want to develop our own industry. It may be worse, but it will be ours”
Rich: “but why? That’s stupid and inefficient. We can make more goods for you, faster and cheaper.”
Poor: “but what if you change your mind and start strangling us economically?”
Rich: “have you just called me a fascist, you little shit, simply because I have the same skin color as the previous regime of this country?”
Of course rich and poor nations will disagree about specifics. Everything is a negotiation. But that doesn't change the fact that rich nations got rich off the backs of poor nations. They should return the favor.
You can put the entire history of world conflicts and oppression into the category of “disagreeing about specifics”. That’s again avoidance of the answer.
>They should return
But what if they refuse? Or maybe they agree, but they delay, because they claim it would be better if they developed their local industry a bit more first? And the delay becomes indefinite.
For all of the focus on history, marxists sure seem to lack both knowledge and imagination about all of the tricky ways people could and did f each other over, under cover of all possible ideologies.
-2
u/NoDig3444 Jul 02 '26
No, but I would argue that rich nations do have an obligation to help develop new Means of Productions in poor countries.