I may be trying to create a problem where none exists, but I worry about how we understand and respond to recent cracks in the mainstream free-market consensus. It is of course very satisfying to see criticisms of the IMF/WB or free market policies from unexpected sources. And groups like the Heritage foundation (and Republican party) get a lot more attention when they attack the IMF then when we do. Similarly a statement by Krugman calling for exchange controls puts the issue to the top of the global political agenda, while left calls for regulation of capital flows were rarely even given a mention at the end of an article. So, not only is it satisfying, these criticisms help to raise the visibility of alternative policies (although not always of our arguments). But, what now. We all know that the Heritage Foundation dislikes the IMF for reasons different than we do. For example, it just wants the free market to work better. And Krugman's criticism of unregulated currency movements is not tied to a vision of social transformation. Even the announcement by Malaysia that it will introduce controls, while welcome and wise, does not represent a fundamental shift in political vision or economic strategy. So, in short, what can/should we do to try and build on these developments, to take advantage of these recognitions of market failure so as to widen the debate to include a critique of capitalism itself. I fear that we might end up just quoting from the Krugman's and Stiglitz's, giving them added credibility, only to find ourselves at a dead end (with no added public credibility or voice) when they shift gears (as they will) in response to class forces and dynamics reflecting their own institutional positions. So my question: in what ways, if any, should this current trend/development influence our own political efforts in this period. Should we just ignore it, promote it, take aim at it for its limited understanding? Comments or reactions appreciated. Marty Hart-Landsberg
