>Charles Brown wrote: > >>But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the >>bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments, >>really , anyway ? >>"Who" is the IMF ? Doug: >"The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy >offshore." - MIT econ prof Rudi Dornbusch (the same guy who said that >the upside of the Asian crisis was that Korea became a wholly owned >subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury) At 13:29 14/09/99 -0400, Charles wrote: >Yes, one of those honest statements that slips out now and again. > >To press it a little further, using the old Marxist metphor, the U.S. government -Presidency, including The Treasury, Congress, Judiciary, Military - is still sort of the executive controlled by the Board of Directors (central committee) of the Dictatorship of Transnational Bourgeoisie. The U.S. economic policy (off shore and on) is not aimed at the best interests of the American People in their tens of millions or even the federal top bureaucrats, but the maximum profits for the owners of big private property. > >Can there be any doubt ? The U.S/IMF top bureaucrats, Clinton, the Treasury Secretary, Cadmusses (spelling) are not the actual rulers , but top servants of the rulers, aren't they ? "Who" is the ruling class, "The Board of Directors of the whole World" ? I know conspiracy theory is not favored, but the "system" is not like an mechanical object at the top. There are people there commanding anonymously, aren't there ? It's not Morgan's ghost running things on automatic. > >I don't know what we can do about it. But I refuse to be naive. For the sake of brevity I cut out of my previous post a discussion about how to formulate the idenity of the ultimate capitalist class. Yes admittedly the US is its main power base, but it has interests now that are to some extent global and not just in terms of exploitation. Charles has suggested the term "transnational bourgeoisie" The term "transnational" seems to be favoured in progressive development circles, but it can obscure the fact that the main centre of the capital involved is usually located in one country or another. This point is brought out better by the term "multinational". The main focus of their lobbying may be in one country, probably the USA, but ultimately capital is without any human body home and any country. I do not doubt for a moment that the present capitalist system is one of US hegemony even allowing for the pickings of lesser imperialist powers like Britain. It is a frank and pithy statement from Dornbusch, but not the complete truth. I suggess we also make some allowances for US blunt speaking. In fact the situation is a little more complex. The US has to accept certain constraints to protect its hegemony. Eg the convention of sharing senior posts in international agencies between the US and Europe. Do a transnational bourgeoisie exist separately from US imperialism? Not of course separately, but I would say a) the reported international competition for top corporation executives earning a six figure sum a year, creates a pool of senior finance capitalists who all know each other because they have similar interests and leisure pursuits which only their salaries admit. b) The marxist analysis is real. Ultimately capital has no country and no human body. There is a potential space for a world bank to serve this function even though for a long time to come it will be slanted towards US influence. The IMF will not become autonomous but the struggle to make it more autonomous is progessive. Chris Burford London
