I don't have the time or inclination to dissect and parse Kristof's tortured logic. I do believe he is well-intentioned--given his use of his column as a bully pulpit to raise awareness and call for action to deal with the genocide in the Sudan--but he's clearly misguided and mistaken in his advocacy on this issue. Using his argument one could ask why stop at sweat shops? Why not go back to slavery and be done with it?

I paid for Times Select.

Yeah, that's straight capitalism he's talking.

Well-meaning American university students regularly campaign against sweatshops. But instead, anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops, demanding that companies set up factories in Africa. If Africa could establish a clothing export industry, that would fight poverty far more effectively than any foreign aid program.

Capitalism the religion. 

Africa doesn't even have a domestic clothing industry (the next comment will explain that, as well as show why I subscribe to TimesSelect). It's stratight capitalism that caused it.

And according to globalists you're supposed to specialize in the stuff you produce cheapest and buy everything else. That's the world our new Secretary of the Treasury is to bring into existence. That's our national economic goal.

Trade Theory vs. Used Clothes in Africa

His business, Eladam Enterprises, makes safari suits and police and army uniforms, which he sells out of a small shop in downtown Kampala. But Mr. Sirak looks longingly at Ugandans who buy their clothing at bustling markets stocked with European and American castoffs.

''As long as these clothes are here,'' he insists, ''no textile industry can survive.''

The rich world's hand-me-downs offer visitors some of Africa's more peculiar sights. One afternoon in Kampala, Uganda's lively, diesel-fume-laden capital, a young man wore a black T-shirt that boasted: ''I am what you fear the most: United States Marine.'' Another proclaimed its owner's allegiance to the ''Watkins Warriors,'' presumably some small-town sports team.

The scene repeats itself in towns and villages across Africa, from Mozambique in the south to Mali in the north, thanks to donated clothing from the West that is sold by the charitable entities that receive it to exporters, pressed into bales and shipped to Africa. Though it starts as charity, the declared value of American secondhand clothing exported to Africa was $59.3 million in 2002, according to the International Trade Commission.

About $2.3 million of that went to Uganda, where mivumba, as used clothing is known in the Luganda language, accounts for about 81 percent of garment purchases, according to the Uganda Manufacturers Association.

Yet Mr. Sirak's proposal -- banning mivumba -- falls on incredulous ears in much of Kampala. Importers and consumers of used garments, who far outnumber the manufacturers, have castigated the idea of an import ban, giving rise to a lively debate about whether domestic industries should get a helping hand before facing international competition.

The old arguments for protective tariffs retain some intellectual currency, said Gary Hufbauer of the Washington-based Institute for International Economics. But he said they usually masked a desire to charge more to consumers who would otherwise have access to cheaper imported goods.

''Protection might create a local industry that can compete in world markets, and the subsequent gains might be large enough to pay back the costs incurred on account of the protection,'' Mr. Hufbauer said. ''In practice, however, not more than one case in 10 meets these two conditions.''

American policy here has been against trade barriers. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, passed in 2000, seeks to integrate the continent into the world economy. By offering easy access to the American market, the act preaches growth through exports, not through national self-sufficiency, and accounted for $1.2 billion in apparel exports from Africa in 2003, according to the Commerce Department.

Washington has little sympathy for banning secondhand imports, and contends that new and used clothing appeal to very different consumers. ''The reason this market is so huge is because most people live on a dollar a day,'' said a United States trade official.

South Africa, the continent's economic powerhouse, has thrown its lot in with protectionists. Bowing to pressure from local manufacturers and labor unions, its government cut off imports of used clothing in 1999. Nigeria, Ethiopia and Eritrea have imposed their own prohibitions, while Kenya has flirted with a ban.

''The scourge of secondhand clothes from the United States and Europe deprives us of jobs and food on the table for the family,'' said Brian Brink, executive director of the South African Textile Federation.

But Mr. Hufbauer's skepticism of trade restrictions resonates at the Owino market in Kampala.

Covering 25 acres, the bazaar, one of the largest of its kind in Africa, thrives on the mivumba trade, but includes many other products, like the dried fish that give Owino its distinctive odor. The densely packed clusters of stalls with corrugated metal roofs attract enough backpacking vagabonds to merit mention in the popular Lonely Planet guide for the region.

Owino testifies to the mivumba industry's sophistication. Traders open bales of garments each morning, grade them into three categories, and ship the lowest-quality items to impoverished villages in the countryside. On a good day, retailers move enough clothing to fill a 40-foot shipping container, and Godfrey Kayongo, who runs a wholesale business in secondhand clothing, estimates that Owino employs 50,000 people.

''Let the clothing industries produce alongside mivumba,'' he said. ''If people choose them, then that's fine.''

Mr. Kayongo pours scorn on manufacturers who seek a ban on the garments, ostensibly to build a Ugandan industry. They often import used machinery for their factories, he points out, and drive used cars from abroad.

''This is not patriotism,'' he snorted. ''It is hypocrisy.''

The Ugandan government has so far equivocated in the battle over mivumba. In 2003, it raised the import duty on mivumba from 10 to 15 percent, but has held steady since. Regulators have announced a ban on used undergarments, which will put an end to at least one sector of the market.

Aggrey Awori, a member of Parliament who represents a cotton-growing constituency in Uganda near Lake Victoria, is pushing a three-year phase-out of mivumba, a plan he calls ''a way of phasing out the culture of used clothing.''

And Charlotte Kukunda, an official with the Ugandan Manufacturers Association, said: ''The secondhand sector employs enough people to make this a chicken-and-egg question. Who should government policy work for?''

Yet Ms. Kukunda's secondhand white synthetic blouse showed mivumba's enduring appeal. She paid 5,000 Ugandan shillings -- about $2.50. A new one would cost four times that.

Little hard evidence exists to answer the question of whether secondhand imports actually lead to the demise of local industries.

In 1997, Texaid, a Swiss-based association of charities that deal in secondhand garments, studied the market for used clothing in Ghana and concluded that it complemented, rather than displaced, the indigenous industry, which dealt mostly in traditional African fabrics, like Ghana's well-known kente cloth. But Ghanaian companies still complain that used clothing boxes them out of their own market.

In Uganda, few would pin the absence of a domestic clothing industry purely on economics. The country's turbulent politics, notably Idi Amin's cruel dictatorship in the 1970's, undoubtedly fostered a steep economic decline.

But Mr. Sirak still yearns for the days of old. Through the early 1970's, cotton plantations set up by British colonialists on the banks of the Nile formed the backbone of Uganda's economy. First they produced high-quality cloth, then manufactured garments. But a decade of political strife flattened them all, and in the late 1980's, as calm returned, mivumba arrived.

No nation on the planet has ever practiced pure capitalism.

That's why I said "capitalism as religion."

Self-preservation, fear, and election cycles preclude such fanciful talk.

See, here's the thing. There were no election cycles when capitalism developed. Economic cycles, maybe.

The US and western Europe protected their industries until they could mature and compete.

Seriously, from who?

"I don't have a problem with the quote. It's a classical economists argument for explaining capital investments in labor markets."

Kristof's argument doesn't explain anything; it merely parrots the usual drivel about Africa and Africans being incapable of developing their economies and economic institutions due to an intractable backwardness, political corruption, and the lack of infrastructure. Moreover, it offers as a solution a system that is inherently exploitative and inhumane to the overwhelming masses of people on this planet who are trapped in poverty. While his motive is to find a means whereby economic and industrial development can occur in Africa, Kristof's proposal can only replicate and perpetuate the conditions he wants to redress. When the soup boils down to a low gravy, what remains of his basic argument is the belief that a wage-slavery system (sweatshops) can provide a nascent capitalist base from which development can take root and global trade can commence. 

The problems with this scheme are legion, but they all boil down to the basic and inherent problem of the capitalist system: the ruthless and unjust exploitation of labor. Marx attempted to illuminate this problem through his explanation of how profit (the surplus value workers produce) leads to the exploitation of workers. The fact workers receive wages in an exchange for their labor often obscures the nature of labor exploitation and the fact that the owners of the means of production are not in the business of providing an exchange of equivalent value (i.e., wages for workers equivalent to their output in labor). Capitalists are in the business of maximizing profits at the expense of workers (pay the least to get the most). Given the nature of the capitalist propaganda machine, the marginal gains workers might achieve in their standards of living by working in a sweatshop (the ability to provide more food for their families for example) are perceived and trumpeted as major milestones in their social and economic development. In the long term, however, the majority of workers will remain trapped in the cycle of poverty and exploitation with no way out. Subsistence wages may mean the difference between living or dying of starvation, but survival in this system simply means living to work another day to make someone else extremely rich. Kristof knows this. But he is invested in the belief that capitalism, even in the wage-slave permutation, can cure the world's economic ills. I would have expected better from him. But I'm a socialist, what do I know?

The US and Europe were in competition with one another. http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1080 [linkification by P6]

This link outlines some of the old school protection rackets. Do you really think the US and Europe produced the best products from jump street and simply competed in global markets and the best products won? No chance. Just because the US and Europe were of one accord with respect to Africa does not mean economic competition came to a halt.

I don't get the capitalism as "religion" thing. Capitalism is no more real than any other -ism that is peddled by an elite to sustain itself. By that I mean, purity is not the point. The idea of capital dominating labor is, of course, observable...but the bottom line is not adherence to Smith or Hamilton or Ricardo. The bottom line is winning. "Free trade" talk is simply tactical air (as in media air) warfare. It's not a real thing. Folks who've written bullshit research papers are merely intellectual whores. So, you could say "as religion" in the sense that this propaganda effort mirrors the same disinformation campaigns promoted by churches.

As for the election cycles, the US has had election since long before it became a dominant economic nation. Of course, in a modern sense - where the issue of Western states admonishing others about horrors of protection is given full voice - most nations have election cycles.
"The Recent Increased Emphasis on Free-Trade Agreements The first U.S. free-trade agreement, which was with Israel, went into effect on September 1, 1985; the second, with Canada, took effect on January 1, 1989. Exactly five years later, NAFTA went into effect, creating a free-trade area encompassing the United States, Canada, and Mexico." It doesn't get anymore political than this...
There are hundreds of ways in which election cycles have precluded Americans from practicing capitalism. In 1865, the mostly highly skilled citizens in the land were black folk. At the end of slavery, you had a large cadre of people who were highly skilled in many aspects of industrial and commercial life. Pure capitalism would have tremendously enriched black folk - beginning in 1866...but, as we all know, there were many other factors at hand. The US was/is/will be willing to forego the potential economic contributions of black folk as producers and owners.

"Pure capitalism would have tremendously enriched black folk - beginning in 1866...but, as we all know, there were many other factors at hand"

I don't know what you mean by "pure capitalism," but no version of capitalism, pure or otherwise, would have enriched black folk in 1866. To benefit from capitalism one must control the means of production and be able and willing to exploit the labor of others. Blacks at that time didn't even control their own lives. And the majority of them certainly didn't have control of their own labor, let alone that of others. They were "emancipated" from legal bondage, but they were not then and are not now free of antiblack racism and the infrastructure of inequality white supremacists established and maintain to preserve the status quo of white privilege.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the black american romance with capitalism is about as idiotic and counter-revolutionary as the black american love affair with white Jesus. Both are tragic cases of unrequited love that signal the lingering influences of a slave mentality.

The one thing I've learned from my short time in this land is that folks don't really want to compete.

You know, I can't understand why people don't see this. Every time I hear some major company argue for something on the basis that it will increase competition, I want to scream.

"I would maintain, however, that had white folks done the unthinkable and hired skilled black labor in the 1860's (and not faced enormous resistance from white labor), our material condition would have been significantly different. If a large cadre of skilled black folk entered the American labor force in the 1860's without having to deal with the real world issues of terrorism and state-sanctioned white supremacy (among other issues), the landscape would be different. "

While I can understand your "hypothetical" and how it is used to support your contention about black folks' readiness to participate in and benefit from capitalism in the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, the very scenario you describe is the antithesis of capitalist philosophy. The creation and maintenance of an underclass is essential to the capitalist mode of operation. A capitalist regime would not even enfranchise a "white" underclass, let alone a newly emancipated group of Africans in America (just examine the record related to the indentured servitude of lower class Brits and the Irish during the early days of the American colonial era). In this sense, and in the sense of how the exploitation of workers is central to the capitalist system, Capitalism itself is a form of terrorism.

"I only believe in tactical economics and that will look different at different times. I can't say I'd be opposed to a black-owned "DELL" operating in Mexico and redirecting profits to crush the Janjaweed in Sudan. I would be opposed to a black-owned "DELL" exploiting cheap labor in Ghana and redirecting profits to fund nuclear R&D in India. I don't want to get too far afield, but I hope you see where I'm going..."

Again, I do see where you're going, but ...

It is my contention that, black-owned or otherwise, capitalist enterprises must follow capitalist principles of operation. BET (Buckwheat Entertainment Television) comes to mind as an example. This former black capitalist enterprise created billions of dollars in profits for its owners by exploiting black artists, entertainers, and audiences  through its neo-minstrel show programming. Yes, they created wealth for the fortunate few. But they did so by marketing a pornography of black hedonism and degradation to the world. While I am capable of discerning the differences between the message and the medium, our particular situation in America and BET's unique role as an entertainment provider for the black community, underminds such distinctions. I could go on about what I perceive to be the damage done by this black capitalist enterprise, but I don't want to wear out my soapbox.

I agree that competition is a myth, but it is also a smokescreen. The goal of capitalists is to monopolize wealth, resources, production, and labor. Talk of competition is used to prevent the legislation and enforcement of regulations that will interfere with unfettered piracy, looting, pillaging, and those other rapacious activities that pass for standard business practice in the capitalist system. 

"I would argue the discipline is "neutral."

I agree that this is true from a theoretical perspective. But when it becomes a matter of praxis, then the issues of culture, "race," and gender become decisive factors in how the system operates. Such social structures will magnify or exacerbate any inequities or flaws that exist in the theoretical models or design. Thus, in my opinion, it is impossible to implement a "pure" capitalism, whatever that is, due to the human factor. In a human society that devalues women, for example, capitalism, rather than being a means of female uplift, will be another tool of their oppression and exploitation. In other words, it will reinforce the existing gender inequities in that society. Nearly a century after women acquired the right to vote in America, they still do not receive equal pay for equal work.

"My contention is not this pure capitalism is a panacea. My contention is that pure capitalism would have created, by this time, tens of black billionaires - just as culturally-modified capitalism has produced Russian, Chinese, Indian and other billionaires. We've simply had too many talented people for a competitive system to shut us out without the collaboration of terrorist organizations including local, state and the federal governments. To suggest that those black billionaires would not have sought to build viable inter-generational institutions (that created jobs while exploiting labor and offering health benefits, etc.) is inconsistent with those actions already in evidence among our poorest institution builders."

I disagree with you about the long-term implications for poor blacks if black billionaires had emerged in the early twentieth century. Such a conjecture, in my opinion, is based on the specious notion of the "trickle down" theory. Accordingly, the monopolizers of wealth, in the routine conduct of business or out the some philanthropic interest, decide to "invest" capital in projects that by design or mere happenstance uplift the less fortunate. The problem here is how they acquired the capital in the first place. No one can amass that much loot without standing on the backs of masses of laborers or consumers. Such massive wealth is not a product of their own genius or efforts exclusively, but that of the many hundreds or thousands who contributed to their enterprise, and who receive a minuscule share of the wealth being generated in the form of wages. The lowest paid Exxon worker may make $20 per hour (that's a guess), but the recently retired CEO was paid $23,000 an hour (that's a fact). That's how capitalism works. Now if the CEO was able to locate the oil, build the oil well, extract the oil, barrel it, ship it to market, and deliver it to consumers, singlehandedly, then I would have no argument about his/her pay. But the CEO can't do that. So he or she hires workers (in the past they simply bought them for life). As I said before, wages distort the relationship. And because workers can make "good money" or become millionaires themselves under certain circumstances, workers buy into the system regardless of its inequities.

Bottom line, the number of billionaires per capita is a measure not of capitalism's ability to create wealth but rather an indicator of capitalists' abilities to exploit labor and manipulate markets.

Finally, capitalism is socialism for the rich. Socialism is capitalism for the rest of us.

BTW, T3, congrats on the new blog. It looks great! I've been planning for some time to set up my own little outpost in cyberspace, but I need to find a niche.

I also need to work on my social skills so I can attract a better crowd around the water cooler. Somehow "Ourstorian's Joint: an Oasis for Runaways, Renegades, and Rabble Rousers, doesn't quite cut it (despite the alliteration).

Like me, it needs work.

I guess I plan to keep this thread going singlehandedly. The following "Letter to the Editor" appeared in today's NYT. I couldn't resist "lifting" the whole thing.

"Thanks for the props on the blog. It's still a baby. P6 is like Zeus, ya dig."

P6 stole the fire from heaven, I just want to steal a little spark from his flame to get me rolling ...

Whenever I say something like this, some crisis arises, but I'm still available to help folks set their stuff up. Doesn't have to be Drupal, either.

"Doesn't have to be Drupal, either."

I'm gonna go with Wordpress. But I ain't quite ready for primetime yet.

"it seems to me that the conversation can only be theoretical...and that my contention should have some standing since "capitalism" is really a mirage of sorts..."

It's all a mirage in the desert of the real, my friend. And to the extent all conversations contain elements of the theoretical, I agree. But the praxis of capitalism is the materialization of the idea, the grounding of theory in the human social experiment. It is in this arena that I have addressed my critique of capitalism. I would do the same for socialism should the opportunity present itself.

"i have increasingly come to the opinion that internal factors within africa have been greater determinants than anything europeans were doing (with respect to finance, navigation, or trade). these unresolved internal dynamics continue to pose a significant challenge to collective elevation..."

I too have grown in my understanding and appreciation of the conditions that existed in Africa prior to the advent of the Atlantic slave trade, and its precursor, the Islamic slave trade. And while I'm still grappling with trying to fit the disparate and inchoate parts into a comprehensive and coherent whole (a general theory, so to speak), I recognize that those "internal dynamics" hold a key to resolving many contemporary problems and issues for Africa and those who still believe in the Pan African paradigm. Briefly, one area of investigation I have pursued is to look at the relationship of the internal systems of African bondage and the role of African elites, pre- and post-Euro/Islamic slave trades, in the perpetuation of indigenous systems of inequality, exploitation and oppression. The heirs of African slave traders, in some instances, are now the dictators and ruling elite of many of the nations currently in turmoil. An important part of this analysis also involves investigating land use and land tenure in Africa. Land use and land tenure systems, in many instances, played significant roles in determining the nature of servitude and bondage in pre-colonial African societies. The policy implications for contemporary African states, particularly since the introduction of monetary systems and commerical production, are huge.

Once I open up shop in cyberspace, I plan to explore some of these issues. I would look forward to your contributions. I don't expect there are many out there who have the time, inclination, or information to track such footprints across the desert of the real.