Re: Re: "The World We're In" by Will Hutton
On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:28:31 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: >What the Marshall Aid plan was necessary to do >was *political*: to protect western Europe from >going "Communist". I didn't think it was necessary for me to point this out. >If we apply a counterfactual argument to this - >what would have happened in western Europe had >there been no Marshall Aid plan? - the work >force would have been as impoverished as say in >Indonesia today. This of course completely undercuts the first point you made. If western Europe had gone communist, it would have grown at a faster pace than Marshall Plan-subsidized capitalism. The CIA itself said that the Soviet economy grew faster than Europe's (or the USA's) during the 1950s. In any case, there is no amount of aid that will relieve poverty in Indonesia since it is victimized by imperialism. No amount of aid will make it into a G-7 type nation. By the same token, the Marshall Plan was capable of restoring war-devastated imperialist nations back to "health" so that they could once again trample on the rights of Indonesia, Vietnam, the Congo, etc. > The only future for people >trying to better themselves in Europe would have >been to try to migrate to the USA or being one >of a narrow body of exploiters within their own >country, vulnerable to revolution. TINA >The >urgency of a Marshall Aid plan is much less >strong because there is no threat from the >Soviet Bloc as a rival pole of attraction. It is urgent in moralistic terms. It is not urgent in economic terms. More to the point, no amount of aid will transform class relations on an international scale. Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" could not eliminate the ghetto. We are dealing with ghettos on a world scale here. >Ten years ago the global sado neo-liberals we >saying that Africa might as well have dropped >off the map. Nowadays under pressure of concern >about AIDS, there is some feeling in capitalist >circles that there has to be a policy for >Africa. Right, the imperialist shark Paul O'Neill and his stooge Bono are visiting this part of the world making noises about how poverty can be eliminated. An utterly grotesque spectacle. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/18/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: "The World We're In" by Will Hutton
Chris Burford: >However the Marshall Aid programme after the war shifted capital back to >western Europe and produced an increase in the use values available for the >local population. Capitalism can continue even with a redistribution of >capitalism and of the circulation of commodities. (Consider Marx's argument >in "Wages, Price, and Profit against Citizen Weston") The Marshall Plan was necessary to jump start capitalist expansion in devastated post-WWII Europe. However, capitalism is flourishing throughout the third world, so what is the point of a Marshall Plan? Perhaps you are recommending something entirely different, like direct grants from G-7 countries to allow places like Jamaica and the Congo to build up health care, education, public transportation, etc., since that's really what's needed, after all. To expect something like this would be utter folly in light of the tendencies in world capitalism since the early 1970s. There is a drive to cut back on social spending throughout the world because of intense competition between the USA and exactly those countries that benefited from the Marshall Plan. So, to put it dialectically, the Marshall Plan generated the conditions for its ultimate obsolescence as a policy measure. Post-WWII prosperity leads to intensified competition, which leads to neoliberalism, which leads to unemployment, hunger and war. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: "The World We're In" by Will Hutton
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
Re: Re: "The World We're In" by Will Hutton
At 14/05/02 10:46 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: >Hutton joins the bandwagon of critics who oppose the symptoms of >capitalism, but stop short of any solution that will go to the roots. That is the sort of central question that we should be debating. Do you have any direct quotes from Hutton's book to support this? > Like >George Soros, Edward Luttwak, Joseph Stiglitz and William Greider, he is >upset with global inequality but would be equally upset with structural >changes to eradicate inequality. 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. 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. A bourgeois programme however moving more gradually in this direction might be possible and might get the backing of international finance capital as a way to stabilise continued capitalist exploitation. > So, the Cuba socialist path is really the only >alternative, not vaporous calls for social justice from the likes of George >Soros. How this scumbag worms his way into left circles is beyond me. 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. Chris Burford
