"Social control of capital is necessary for the greater freedom and well being of working people...Concretely it is possible to envision capital controls. The argument that banks and hedge funds would simply go offshore to jurisdictions where regulation is minimal is not a strong one. If the US said that it would not accept monetary transfers into its domestic banking system from banks and other financial institutions located in jurisdictions that do not regulate capital flows in strict fashion, those havens would quickly conform, or the footloose capital would soon leave them for zones where they were allowed access to U.S. markets. If the US were to adopt such procedures, other nations would quickly fall into line. it is the political force needed to make governments regulate--not some natural economic one--that is relevant.." (p. 13).
Tabb doesn't lay out how such a political force could be developed or how it could effect such dramatic changes in the nature of US foreign policy. But if we aren't able to develop an alternative to intervention that leaves us with nothing better than the uterior motives of a Patrick Buchanan/Lenora Fulani or Jeff Sachs..., we could indeed end up with a non-interventionist foreign policy someday that will have us reminiscing for the days of intervention...
Steve
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> >Why not demand that America be a republic, not an empire (no
> >foreign bases, no military interventions overseas, no military assistance
> >to foreign countries, etc.)? That should resonate with American workers,
> >whether or not they are leftist.
>
> Compare & contrast with what Pat Buchanan said the other day:
>
> >As we end this American Century and this decade of national
> >preeminence, we remain a people divided over our role in the world.
> >It is a time for what Catholics call a "retreat," not a withdrawal
> >into isolationism, but a day of introspection. Why is America, its
> >economic and military power unrivaled, its popular culture dominant
> >in the world, so resented by so many. Is it envy? Is it because we
> >are an enlightened nation and they are benighted? Or have we, too,
> >succumbed to the hubris of hegemony?
> >
> >Recall: In 1763, the England of Pitt had crushed her great rival,
> >France, seized her vast American estate, and emerged as the world's
> >only superpower. London reveled in its preeminence. As Walpole
> >wrote, his contemporaries were "born with Roman insolence" and
> >"acted with more haughtiness than an Asiatic monarch." Yet, in less
> >than a generation, Britain had lost the loyalty of its American
> >subjects, who, aided by a defeated vengeful France, expelled her
> >from the 13 colonies that had been the crown jewels of the empire.
> >And all the world rejoiced in Britain's humiliation, as, one
> >suspects, much of today's world might rejoice in ours.
> >
> >I count myself a patriot. But if all this Beltway braying about our
> >being the "world's indispensable nation" and "only superpower"
> >grates on my ears, how must it grate upon Europeans, Russians, and
> >those peoples subject to U.S. sanctions, because they have failed by
> >our lights to live up to our standards?
> >
> >The great foreign policy question before this generation is the one
> >that has bedeviled us since our birth as a nation. Are we to be a
> >city on a Hill, a light unto the nations, Henry Clay's "lamp burning
> >on the Western shore"? Or have we been handed a divine commission to
> >"go abroad in search of monsters to destroy" and impose our values
> >and system on a benighted world? Are we a republic or an empire?
> >Once again, it is time to choose.
> >
> >We are in a unique season. The last Hanukkah of the century is over;
> >the last Ramadan and Christmas season of the millennium are
> >underway. On this eve of a new century, let us cease to hector and
> >discipline the world and try to lead it; let us conform our foreign
> >policy to principles more becoming a godly nation and great republic.
>
>
> Doug
>
>