<snip>
>I asked my patron (and the former chair of my dissertation committee
>Lawrence Summers) this same question: why isn't the IMF loaning East Asian
>countries twice as much for twice as long at lower interest rates with less
>conditionality?
> as he politely put it, "neither your friends on the left nor
>your friends on the right want to see a larger, better-funded IMF. Where is
>the political coalition to support increasing the IMF's resources going to
>come from?"
>
>The IMF is not a central bank: it cannot create large amounts of purchasing
>power to pull countries (or the world) out of global recession. It can
>provide temporary injections of liquidity to (somewhat) soften the trauma
>when the world economy (and its own government) have just creamed some
>developing economy. But a kinder, gentler IMF would need to be a
>better-funded IMF.
We have already established on this list that it is no accident that there is little debate about the practicalities of global taxation: Jessie Helms has led Congress to rule that any international agency that promotes this will have its funds cut off.
So the Tobin tax which could raise 200 billion dollars a year within three years, is out of the frame. The incremental steps to change are too steep. It cannot be introduced in specific countries alone, because that would immediately disadvantage them for short term finance.
Nevertheless the picture of global under-capacity which worried heads of state at their summit last year (30% of the worlds work force either unemployed or underemployed) will not have got any better from the Asian and Russian crises.
Besides as Brad has just posted separately, the IMF may be markedly short of funds. There is always the ad hominem argument that a Tobin tax might slow forex instability a little as well as being a source of income.
Allies?
That is important. In the short term it is difficult. Especially if the left either concentrates on domestic reformism or looks with revolutionary disdain at structural reforms on a global level. But in the UK the aid agencies are the most progressive and far sighted, and have built up a degree of campaigning skills. They have access to the respectable churches. It may not be much, but the general synod of the Church of England got the head of the IMF to address them a couple of weeks ago. The main theme was abolishing debt. The Guardian, the London left liberal paper, is running a petition on its web site, which is a bit debatable, but has a phrase not only calling for the writing off of debts of the poorest nations but of reversing the conditions that gave rise to those debts.
Certain western governments are used to writing off the debts of the poorest countries. That does not threaten the global dominance of their capitalism. It does not cause global inflation. Instead the allocation of say $50 billion a years for a development and reparations fund for Africa, would somewhat stimulate the world economy, with a low likelihood of causing global inflation, and could have just bids from major capitalist companies for joint ventures. There is no reason why such companies should oppose that.
Above all a political programme needs to be evolved to put pressure on the IMF. At the moment when the IMF visit, as in Zimbabwe, there is not much focus to mass demonstrations. But neo liberalism was already weakening at the end of the Thatcher Reagan years. Even the World Bank in some of its reports was perceptive. The Asian Tigers, when they were tigers, were an advertisement for investing in education and communications.
The demands need to articulate that the IMF should not insist on root and branch neo-liberalism. Certainly a country needs to become competitive in foreign exchange but the emphasis should be on bringing the masses back into productive employment rather than building an aluminium smelter for export, which will employ only a few thousand people.
The theoretical perspective needs to be emphasised from a marxist point of view. Wealth does not come from capitalist-led commodity exchange alone.
Marxists need to link up on the internet with progressive organisations on world development issues. Progress is quite possible over a three year period.
Chris Burford London