At 23/06/01 07:47 +0000, Patrick Bond wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:32:48 +0100
> > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > To what extent is there still relevance in the ANC/SACP concept of the
> > National Democratic Revolution?
>
>Concept is great. Problem is, some of the key actors are "talk-left,
>act-right" sell-outs.
>
>
> > Is there indeed scope for radical democratic initiatives that take the
> > National Democratic Revolution forward and have a socialist content or
> > prepare the ground for socialism?
>
>Yes but they're not being supported by the ANC.
Clear answers from Patrick.
> > If uneven development on a world scale and within a country like South
> > Africa, runs into crises of accumulation and if these tendencies have
> > intensified with the international dominance of neo-liberalism, does it
> not
> > suggest that there is a democratic agenda at a global level as well as at
> > the level of individual countries?
>
>Yes absolutely, to spin that broken record of mine, the international
>democratic agenda can only be, in my view (given the existing
>balance of forces), to rid the world of the most powerful
>transmission agents of neo-liberalism, especially the WB/IMF/WTO, to
>give some breathing space to national-scale movements making demands
>on their nation-states. (We'll agree to disagree Chris.)
I welcome Patrick accepting a formula about an international democratic
agenda. It is not a disaster if serious people disagree about what that
should consist of, providing the options are understood, and debated, and
we move forward.
To clarify the disagreement one step further in response to Patrick's
last post, I would not see neo-liberalism as a policy *transmitted*
through the WB/IMF/WTO. (although that certainly occurs and it is
absolutely right to campaign against structural adjustment programmes.)
Essentially I see the pressure for neo-liberalism being the workings of
international (US led) global finance capitalism. It wants the maximum
freedom of movement for its interests. The world as a safari park for the
giant international corporations. A level playing field for exploitation.
A totally free laissez faire market in finance capital means that the
"fucking bond traders" (Clinton) dictate the policies or all governments.
Yes, there is something crazy in the most extreme structural adjustment
programmes which require destruction of all non-commodity or non-capitalist
sectors of domestic economies rather than concentrating on those areas
which need to be competitive to earn foreign exchange.
But fundamentally the enemy is not a policy: it is the blind workings of
global finance capital. That is why we need regulation not de-regulation.
This may not come through the reform of Bretton Woods organisations, but it
needs to come from somewhere, of a global economy that is a highly complex
social structure, but is privately owned by finance capital.
Chris Burford
London.
