Re: Roger Burbach reconsiders the state...

2004-02-22 Thread dmschanoes



but the state doesn't reconsider 
itself.
 
First as RB reports, during 2002-2003 Argentinian 
suffered a net financial outflow in international debt receipts and 
payments.  So that even during the period when and after the government had 
"defaulted" on approximately $130 billion in debt, debt servicing 
continued.
 
Secondly, the "default" does not exist in isolation 
from the overall attempt of Argentine capitalism to preserve protect and extend 
its property at the expense of any and everyone.  Thus the default follows 
the freezing of bank accounts, the suspension of convertibility, dramatic 
devaluation, currency controls, wage reductions, unemployment and immiseration 
of the overall society. Default is part of a program.  And partial 
payment of the debt at 25% is also part of that same program of that same 
class, that same social organization.
 
So it seems the very least Marxists should do is a 
lot more than "critical support" of the current leadership of the 
bourgeoisie's plan to preserve the bourgeois ship of state and vice 
versa.  Like, hey, how about paying  0% of the debt?  Is that too 
radical?  It wasn't too radical in 1998 for Bono and the Jubilee 
types.  
 
Which brings us to the whole notion of critical 
support-- no such support exists separate and apart from an overall program 
carefully distinguishing the working class program and solution from the 
bourgeoisie's.
 
Kirchner says 25cents on the dollar, critical 
support means counterposing 0 cents on the dollar as the 25 cents is going to 
come out of the depreciated living standards of the poor.  And it's 0 
cents with wage increases and socialization of the banks to 
prevent financial sabotage..  Its 0 cents with asset takeovers of 
international firms shuttering production.  Just for starters, I 
mean.
 
Critical support is a great tactic, based on a 
class distinction.  "Like the rope supports the hanged 
man."   We're supposed to be the rope in that 
formulation.
 
dms 


Roger Burbach reconsiders the state

2004-02-21 Thread Louis Proyect
(Although Roger Burbach explains Nestor Kirchner's taking on the IMF in
terms of Piquetero pressure, it is of some significance that he (and they)
give him critical support. This probably reflects a willingness to engage
with reality, now that a number of Latin American heads of state are
showing some independence to one degree or another. This is a healthy turn
in my opinion. Burbach is an interesting figure. His "Fire in the Americas"
was a brilliant attempt to apply the lessons of the Sandinista revolution
to US politics. I was so impressed with it when I read it that I bought ten
copies and sent it out to people I knew from the SWP. I think that Roger
became somewhat disoriented in the 1990s under the influence of a kind of
Chiapas postmodernism that was sweeping the left. At the core of this trend
was an almost anarchist distrust in the state, accountable no doubt to the
collapse of the USSR. In a way it reflected the disillusionment that set in
after the defeat of Daniel Ortega in the 1990 elections. Roger lost the use
of his legs after a terrible accident while surfing in the Pacific off the
coast of Nicaragua, but this has not stopped him from being an effective
spokesman for the Latin American revolution in all its forms.)
Argentine President Faces Off With IMF
by Roger Burbach
Znet, February 20, 2004
Buenos Aires. President Nestor Kirchner of Argentina is emerging as the
leading nemesis of the International Monetary Fund and the private
financial speculators in South America. Assuming office in May 2003 with
less than a quarter of the popular vote, he now enjoys 85% support in the
opinion polls due in large part to his determination to take on the
neo-liberal policies that lead to the country's economic collapse in 2001-2.
During the crisis Argentina defaulted on portions of its international debt
that stands at over $140 billion. Kirchner has now thrown the G-7 nations,
the leading capitalist countries, into a quandary with his declaration that
the private investors who bought about $50 billion in government bonds in
Argentina in the 1990s will receive only 25% of the face value of their
bonds. Kirchner argues the bondholders gambled on Argentina during the
heady days of the corrupt, neo-liberal government of Carlos Menem, when
some bonds paid upwards of 30% annual returns. Caring little about what
these exorbitant rates meant for the Argentine people, the Kirchner
government argues the bondholders should now reap the results of their
speculative adventures that helped fuel the boom and bust of the Argentine
economy.
During 2002 and 2003 the IMF, the World Bank and other international
financial institutions lent new funds to Argentina in hopes of keeping the
country from opting out of the international financial system. There were
even signs that some of the lending institutions were backing off from
their history of enforcing dramatic cutbacks in basic social programs and
balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. In early 2003, the
Inter-American Development Bank lent $1.5 billion to help shore up the
country's social programs, including the special government payments of
about $50 a month to the heads of household who were unemployed. Due in
large part to the government's decision to insist that the domestic economy
came first and that social spending needed to be increased, the country's
economy in 2003 grew at 7.5% percent after having contracted by over a
quarter in 2001 and 2002.
However just last week the finance ministers of the G-7 nations who meet in
Monterrey, Mexico, insisted the government must "be more flexible" in its
debt renegotiations with the private bondholders. Beholden to the financial
and political dictates of the G-7 countries, the IMF and the World Bank are
both pressuring the government to change its approach. The IMF called the
Economics Minister, Roberto Lavagna, to Washington to renegotiate the
release of a loan for $8 billion later this month while the World Bank has
already held up a loan for $5 billion that was scheduled for release on
February 11.
The government however is giving few signs of budging and has hinted it may
even suspend debt repayments to the IMF and the World Bank. On February 4,
Lavagna released a report pointing out that these institutions continued to
drain the country of financial resources even during the midst of a severe
economic crisis. In 2002 and 2003, they lent $9.3 billion to the country
while collecting $16.6 billion in old debt. In other words due to the
repayment demands of institutions like the IMF and the World Bank the
country suffered a net loss of over $7 billion.
full: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=5014

Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org