Apologies for not coming back on this earlier
At 22/05/01 07:49 -0700, you wrote:
>Chris B. answers:
>>Why should that be beneath the dignity of the privileged but progressive
>>citizens of the hegemonic capitalist country of the world?!
>
>It seems like there are more important battles, such as trying to harness
>corporate globalization to subordinate it to democracy. In this
>perspective, preventing the IMF from extorting countries to toe the
>neoliberal party line is less important than giving it new responsibilities.
Well it is alternatives that have to be discussed. Of course they are not
mutually exclusive but the debate can be about where the main momentum
should be directed.
Anyway I thought I saw a recent article suggesting that the IMF is moving
on from concentrating on massive bail outs and the accompanying conditions,
and that the new message is that companies need to respond to the overall
financial framework that the IMF is setting.
This might indeed make the IMF more like the ultimate central bank,
guaranteeing credit at a certain rate to subordinate banks who then are
responsible for the issue credit to companies at an appropriate balance of
risk and rate. One thing can be certain, global centralization is
progressing forward, whether progressives try to influence the agenda or not.
>I haven't orbited in Trotskyist space.
I am sure not everyone holds that against you.
>I don't think that the idea of giving the IMF new responsibilities is in
>the same league as World War II. They are issues of quite different
>proportions.
Yes. But the issue is whether under certain conditions it may be correct to
take advantage of contradictions between imperialist powers. Clearly the
French are asking for a different form of capitalism than Bush "capitalisme
sauvage".
>right. US hegemonism is bad. But I don't see how giving the IMF new powers
>deals with this. The "new & improved IMF" would likely be under the US
>thumb (i.e., of the US power elite). Or the thumb of US+Euroland (i.e.,
>of their power elites).
I am not proud of the progressive credentials of Europe, but without taking
advantage of existing contradictions the immediate prospects of change are
not great.
A reformed IMF would of course still be under the powerful influence of the
US and Euroland, but there would also be legal and formal procedures that
would allow representatives of more oppressed people some voice. Besides it
is better than the blind workings of laissez faire finance capital which
sucks wealth from all over the globe into the belly of the hegemonic beast.
This is not least because, for want of a better issuer of world money, its
Fed issues the money for the world, guided mainly by domestic US
considerations.
>>That zealous, even at times over-zealous, Marxist, Lenin, argued "Why
>>does it follow that 'the great, victorious, world' revolution can and
>>must employ only revolutionary methods? It does not follow at all."
>
>I didn't say anything that makes this quote relevant, since I wasn't
>talking about reform vs. revolution.
In a war of position, it is necessary to think about the positions taken by
other agents. There are a variety of reasons why it is hard for
progressive people of good will who are citizens of the USA to find ways
forward to combat US hegemonism. Only one of those is the position of some
who claim the name of Marx to disdain to discuss reforms as soiled as
reforming the IMF. My prediction is that in due course, they will
marginalise themselves in their sectarian Marxism.
>I'm not a big fan of Lenin, so I'll skip the rest of the quotes. BTW, from
>the perspective of 2001, Lenin's effort in l917 looks like a failure (for
>whatever reason), so his status as an authority is dimmed, to say the
>least. In any event, I don't think quoting from authorities is useful as a
>way of proving a point.
It may only help people to think again, who respect that source.
Yes on the history, while I think Lenin was a rigorous thinker and clearly
a very successful revolutionary, in the light of history his leap from
bourgoeis democracy to socialism in 1917 left the young Soviet State with
difficult contradictions in achieving socialism. His last significant
policy article, On Cooperation, implies that the transitional period of a
mixed economy might take a generation. Since then the revolution only
partially cascaded out to other countries, and it is hard to see purely
socialist revolutions flourising easily in todays globalized world. It may
be we have to think of the transitional period lasting a century or two.
On a global scale now, the French alternative to capitalisme sauvage would
be preferable provided it created bridges for further advance.
At least the internet can help create that global civil society that the
French also call for.
Chris Burford
London
