Thanks for the challenge which makes explicit the sectarian doubt about a reform like this that the original poster correctly sensed in his choice of the title.
Because with the current triumph of neo-liberal economics there can no longer be a socialist revolution in one country. There cannot even be a social-democratic solution in one country. Not in Britain. Not in South Africa. Not in Indonesia. Not in the USA.
The revolution will have to be global. If capitalism will not let us take it on in one country then we will have to take it on, on a world scale. And even though the purists will taunt us for reformism for not having the patience to wait for simultaneous demonstrations of millions in all the capitals of the world, with the lead demonstration of 5 million people converging on the IMF building in Washington leading up to the magical moment when the directors are defenestrated... Even though this would be lovely, and we can cross our hearts as we swear our revolutionary zeal, the horrible thought steals in that some opportunist, and there always are some, will spoil it all by offering them early retirement.
So it is back to reforms, jeers or no jeers. And yes it is a rather interesting precedent that the tiniest of shavings could be carved off the trillion dollars of liquid finance capital circulating round the computer terminals of the world every day. It is even more interesting if some start arguing, even within neo-liberal bodies, that a bit of social regulation might be wise to reduce turbulence in money markets. Perhaps there should even be some socially responsible planning. And if not a bit of planning, who should we planning for?
So does that all mean supporting the UN as a cop for neo-liberalism? No, engaging with the enemy may ultimately be a way of defeating the enemy. It is also aesthetically more dialectical. Indeed the IMF, World Bank, and UN should not be regarded as a dialectically undifferentiated mass. Nor should the UN be regarded as an undifferentiated monolith. Is that not so that UNCTAD may be more of a focus for anti-neo-liberal third worldist perspectives than the Security Council?
Chris Burford
London