Chris Burford: >Hutton is probably proposing Keynesian solutions. It would certainly not be >socialism. But even a capitalist programme really to eradicate global >inequality would be a big shock to the privileged populations of the >imperialist countries, let alone their bourgeoisies.
A " capitalist programme to really to eradicate global equality" is a contradiction in terms, like democratic fascism or enlightened savagery. >This could only be overcome if Keynesian measures brought so much >underutilised means of production in the third world into play, (especially >their underutilised labour power) that the total social product of the >world increased substantially at the same time as surplus was invested >almost exclusively in the the third world. This would allow a great >increase in available use value in the world to disguise a massive >redistribution of exchange value, within the total social product of the >world. Keynsianism is an impossible course of action in 3rd world countries because their economies are too tightly integrated into the world capitalist system. The only option that makes sense is a proletarian dictatorship, a planned economy and a monopoly on foreign trade--in other words the Cuba model. It is also important to acknowledge that Keynsianism did not work very well in the first world when it was tried out. After all, it was WWII that lifted the USA out of a depression, not public works. >I presume this is a reference to George Soros. I would have thought that he >has been invited to a forum for commercial reasons of his notoriety and >because he has argued for capital to be recirculated to the global >peripheries, (no doubt at public expense). > >Hutton, who is a fairly honest radical bourgeois, may well also be arguing >for capital to be redistributed to the peripheries. What does it mean for capital to be redistributed concretely? Banks have no trouble making loans to places like Chile or Jamaica. If this is what you mean, then that's like recommending tobacco to somebody with lung cancer. If, on the other hand, you mean the kind of arrangement the USSR had with COMECON, which effectively subsidized the Cuban and Eastern European economy, then I'm for it. Of course, people like George Soros, Tony Blair et al are obstacles to that. In any case, the two roads are incompatible. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
