Reform of IMF

[Max Sawicky]

> Max Sawicky:
> >Now our ecological consciousness brings us so far as to
> >oppose development in the Third World.  It that's the
> >content of "revolutionary things," then I'm more than
> >agnostic.
>
> Max, I believe you are using the wrong word here. "Development" is what
> goes on in countries that are free from foreign domination. What
> goes on in most third world countries is what is called "exploitation."
For example, when oil companies drill in Ecuador, ship the profits off to
Wall Street banks, and leave the country a mess that is useless for fishing
> or farming, this is not development. It is exploitation.

I assume you are not referring to Marx's technical
definition of exploitation, but simply to the unjust
drain of resources from one nation to another, or
from a nation to a class, if you like.  But the
context was different.  I understood Mark's reference
to Chris as aimed at development, not de-development.
South Korea, not Ecuador.  Now there is little doubt
that SK workers are exploited, but neither is there
any doubt that they are much better off today than
25 years ago.  That's development, not without
contradiction, but progress all the same.

Capitalist development in the manner of SK is
something to which all underdeveloped nations
aspire to, and properly so.  It would be preferable
for such development to proceed under ecologically-
sensitive auspices, but this is the usual ideal,
'third way' which we can dream about and strive
for but often fall short of.

My real target is efforts under left pretenses
to prevent imperfect development, the result of
which is the exploitation to which you refer.
Red-green beats red, but red always beats green.
If red necessarily precedes green, then greens
are a problem for red.

Cheers,

MBS