The writer of this piece confuses two concepts: imperialistic mercantilism and capitalism. In the former, which was largely what prevailed in Africa and other imperial colonies, there are no competitors to imperial mercantilist structures; they have complete monopoly over resources, markets and capital. Hence the preponderance of discrimination, divide and rule subterfuge. In a quintessentially capitalistic organisation, discrimination is a non-issue. This is because with the capitalist emphasis on efficiency, the profit motive and natural animus to monopolistic proclivities, discrimination on the scale the writer attributes to capitalism, is virtually impossible. Let Milton Friedman explain: "The maintenance of the general rules of private property and of capitalism have been a major source of opportunity for Negroes and have permitted them to make greater progress than they other wise could have made. To take a more general example, the preserves of discrimination in any society are the areas that are most monopolistic in character, whereas discrimination against groups of particular or religion is least in those areas where there is the greatest freedom of competition" Perhaps, it is because of what Friedman just delineated above - how the State being the most monopolistic outfit in society is where most discriminations against groups take place - that the writer gave this frank overview of why the State should be trimmed further and its frontiers rolled back as not to be central in our lives. As the writer puts it: "Events in the run-up to this >> > month's presidential election in Ghana provide ample >> > testimony of this, as many of such groups with the backing >> > of the bourgeoisie have sprung up, all seeking to advance >> > the interest of the bourgeoisie in the various ethnic >> > groups. They have organised and whipped up the sentiments of >> > the lower strata of their tribespeople against rivals >> > belonging to different ethnic groups. They have created the >> > impression that it is only when one of your tribesmen is at >> > the helm of affairs that you can have a fair share of >> > national development and individual personal advancement. >> > Consequently, where a presidential or vice-presidential >> > candidate comes from has become extremely important." Stuff is: it is the State - because of its centrality in African polities/societies and their monopolistic and inefficient proclivities - that is the primary cause of the festering of tribal antagonism. This is an irrefutable thesis. On the key question of efficiency and competition of capitalism and its links to ending discrimination, here is Friedman again: "..... the purchaser of bread does not know whether it was made from wheat grown by a white man or a Negro, by a Christian or a Jew. In consequence, the producer of wheat is in a position to use resources as effectively as he can, regardless of what the attitudes of the community may be toward the color, the religion, or other characteristics of the peoples he hires. Furthermore, and perhaps more important, there is an economic efficiency from other charcteristics of the individual. A businessman and or an entrpreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence in a free market they will tend to drive him out." [Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Discrimination in Capitalism and Human, pp. 109-110, University of Chicago Press, 1984.] To the extent that the above is cogent, is itself the stuff of history, especially of how capitalism contributed to the downfall of such discriminatory systems like Slavery, imperialism, Apartheid, Negro subjugation in the American South, Jewish Slavery and Emancipation in Europe. To the latter, the Marxist, Leon Trotsky, once allowed that the admittance of Jews to the wider European society from the ghettoes they were confined to, was as a result of capitalist intervention. Similarly, the writings of such sociologists like Max Weber, who linked the Protestant ethics of hard work and faith to the machinations of capitalism, was famous for pointing out how thanks to capitalism the West's polarisation along the lines of ethnic allegiance, was dealt with a killer blow. Suffice to say that today in the West, ethnic allegiance is the butt-end of ironic jests and sentimental memories. The only places in Europe where ethnic emotional attachments still command respectable following are those societies less capitalistic. I noticed how thanks to capitalism, the sectarian and ethnic troubles in Northern Ireland and Basque territories are becoming obsolete and irrational in their claims and losing crucial support amongst the capitalist minded younger generation as ethnic and sectarian allegiances transform - as ever thanks to capitalism's "creative destruction". This to a lesser extent is true of the Metro and Urban areas of some African societies where the capitalist invasion is rendering ethnic allegiances absolete and in return ushering in inter-tribal cohabitations, marriages and largely relationships indifferent to ethnic roots. It is true that this has yet to be decisive in making etnnicity an ironic jest and sentimental memory as is the case in the West. This is partly due to the very fact that the capitalist invasion in Africa is at best minuscle and have yet to reach the proportion where it would completely over-haul the social make up of society. The "creative destruction" Schumpeter attributed to free marketism and other capitalistic norms, is the most effective weaponry we have in ending tribalism in Africa. In today's Gambia, the promoter of tribal antagonism, discrimination and polarisation is the State and those politicians who want to make the State the key centrality in our lives. The free market and capitalism in the Gambia has nothing to do with ethnic bigotry. None will hear a capitalist organisation like Taf Construction engage in encouraging ethnic bigotry and or polarisation to strengthen his position; only politicians and their graft use a monopolistic outfit like the State to this end. What we need today in the Gambia are more capitalists and their capital to deal a killer blow to tribal allegiances. Only capitalism, liberal democracy and bourgeoisie moderation can save Africa and the African peoples. The liberal agenda therefore would be one which not only ridicules the State and socialist obsession with bureaucracy, red tape and regulation in controlling our lives but one which goes out to philosophically delineate the virtues of the free market and capitalism by establishing free institutions and promoting civic liberalism as an alternative to self- righteous politicians, the monopolistic State and the graft used to rationalise its debilitating intrusion into our lives that continues to destroy/ravage our continent and her enormous resources/potentials. Hamjatta Kanteh Hamjatta Kanteh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask] if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------