Underprivileged Nations, by Moussa

[p040] The Underprivileged Nations. By P. Moussa. Sidgwick and Jackson, 1962, 30s. The ‘new’ imperialism of the mid- 20th century masquerades in the guise of ‘decolonization’ and concern for the welfare of the underdeveloped countries. As a manual for the decolonizers, or better, ‘neo-colonial- ists’, Moussa’s book has its virtues. It brings together in non-‘echnical form points which have been made in the literature of the subject in recent years. It sketches out re- assuring prescriptions for those, including the present rulers of these countries, who wish to keep the former colonial territories within the world market of capitalism. In accord with this standpoint, real problems of political power and social structure are glossed over. Agrarian reform receives a chapter which says no more than that it is desirable but not easy to carry out. No light is cast on the relation between the existing distribution of landownership and the political set-up in the underdeveloped countries or their role as primary producers. By a process of fallacious reason- ing—which omits any mention of the exploitation of labour power in the advanced as well as the backward areas—Moussa tries to blame part of the poverty of the latter onto the workers in the former. This is in line with his conception of ‘prole- tarian nations’ (the French title of the book) which follows from accepting a high degree of solidarity between rulers and ruled in these countries. At the same time, Moussa sheds some light, unintentionally, of course, on the processes of modern imperial- ism. He insists on the fact that ‘industrial countries are being obliged by their need for raw materials to form ever closer links with under- developed ones’—contrary to some of those who tell us that because this is no longer true imperialism is finished. He wants to see private capital playing a larger part in the economies of underdeveloped coun- tries. He points out how this can be profitable not only for the foreign undertakings directly concerned, but for the whole economy of the invest- ing countries. Naturally interna- tional guarantees are required to prevent expropriation of foreign capital. And the ‘neo-colonialists’ know perfectly well what they are doing, as this statement shows: ‘no opportunity should be lost of inte- grating the foreign enterprise with the host country [does this mean that the former are _ parasites?—T.K.],

[p041] BOOK REVIEWS whose nationals should be given an interest in the undertaking in every possible way: through financial par- ticipation by indigenous persons, whether physical or legal [he means individual capitalists or business companies], or by the state itself, and by a public relations aititude [!] and activity adapted to the under- developed country’. In short, win over and develop loyal executants to carry on the exploitation of the underlying population of peasants and workers, tie them to the interests of the big monopolies and create the illusion that everything is being done for the good of the people. This lesson has obviously been learned by government and _ business alike: Moussa is only generalizing from the experience of the past decade. Far from having ended, the old empire of world capitalism is being carried on under new forms of ‘partnership’ and joint management. Of course, Moussa knows that the state must play a role in economic development in the backward coun- tries. It may be a little awkward if the forms of government turn out to be authoritarian. But what does it matter if opposition leaders are locked up or shot and the masses regimented, so long as the field is kept clear for foreign capital, growth is speeded up and the country con- cerned—however loudly it proclaims ‘neutralism’—is kept within the capitalist world market? T.K. Socialism rejected