Symbolically the day seemed somewhat to confirm the link Seth referred to between multi-culturalism and the multi-national corporation. It is striking to see blacks and women speaking up for Clinton, and sensing it is more than just a sectional interest. His standing ovation at the UN general assembly so soon after the bombing of the Sudan chemical factory, suggests he is symbolising something entirely acceptable to the most modern sections of capital, which is also recognised in human terms around the world by the bourgeoisie and educated "middle classes". Blair seems to share this image with Clinton.
The clips I could catch of Blair did not on the surface describe a significant departure from neo-liberalism. Indeed he said they were not seeking a "panoply" of restrictions on the flow of finance. On the contrary they wanted more transparent accounting as well as regulation.
But something more may be under the surface, because Blair never moves with open opposition: instead he tries to defuse it. His politics BTW do not seem to me to be quite summed up as social-democratic. He is looking for coalitions, including between capital and labour. I suspect his world economic proposals need to be seen in the same light. An attempt at a global "government of national unity".
The pre-released stories on the front of all the broadsheet apart from the Guardian, give more detail:
According to the Times today:
"drastic" reforms of the IMF and World Bank. (The FT suggested some merging of their functions) arguing they were set up for a world of fixed exchange rates.
but he was not advocating "misguided attempts to control international capital markets or trade". [what of attempts to control that are not misguided?]
He wants "remodelling" of these financial institutions.
Although careful not to criticise the IMF.
He wants
a) greater openness in international financial dealings [what does this mean?]
b) better supervision and regulation of financial operations. [control no! regulation yes!?]
c) greater accountability [to whom?]
d) a better machinery to manage short term crises [how, without throwing money at them? Will this back small countries trying to maintain stability or just boss them about? If this means anything, how can it avoid creating an ability that could partly extend to medium term problems, or even long term problems?]
Timetable. New Labour is hot on timetables, and actually keeping to them. Blair is going to propose these ideas are discussed first by the finance ministers of the G8, and a world summit could be staged later. Other pre-briefings said he wanted to set a target of a year.
The fact that it is going to be done by finance ministers implies quite a deep shared agreement with Gordon Brown, who has called for more transparency in markets. But it is also bearing in mind the strength of the Euro banking finance committee I reported on. The absence of an international regulatory body was also emphasised by Soros in his testimony last week.
What is the difference between control and regulation? The degree of financial subtlety with which it is done, with the more flexible computerised tools now available?
Maybe there will be more detail tomorrow and others hopefully will comment on what it really means.
Overall we can assume that it will reinforce the interests of the most dynamic advanced monopoly capitalist companies, but in a manner that will help the agenda for global bourgeoisie democratic rights. On the surface it will not oppose neo-liberalism and may emphasise the rhetoric of no controls, but it is coming in at a time when neo-liberalism looks battered and incoherent. So the net result of a restructuring will be a more regulated global capitalist economy.
That will be subject to more explicit criticism than the invisible hand of the market can be. It is therefore progressive.
Chris Burford
London.