----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 5:59 PM Subject: Re: New approach to debt called for
> Christian:
>
> >3. If you want those institutions reformed, it seems to me you got to
begin
> >with the political cultures in the G-7--and especially the U. S. and
Great
> >Britain. Until their political representatives feel themselves beholden
to
> >something other than Anglo-American neoliberalism, nothing like IMF
reform
> >is gonna happen.
>
> Chris:
>
> I think that is probably the unimaginative block in your thinking. You
> assume that because US politics is hegemonic nothing can happen that does
> not confirm to its restrictive processes, and you cannot see a progressive
> way ahead in the US.
>
Well, no, I don't assume that. I just see no reason to believe that the United States will forgo its privileges. When the Bretton Woods institutions were formed, Keynes had to accept considerably lower drawing rights for countries in deficit positions because Congress said so. (Keynes essentially wanted a blank check written by the U.S.; the U.S. offered $2 billion.) Sure, the U.S. authority in the present is different. But despite the fact that the IMF voices concerns over U.S. monetary policy, for example, it has followed Fed and Treasury's recommendations to the letter at crisis moments--as it did in Asia. That made the situation worse, at least in the short and medium term.
So, sure, it's true that lots can happen at the IMF that doesn't have an explicit U.S. imprimatur. But I see no reason to believe that the IMF would do anything that would weaken the U.S. rentier class' position. Whether or not you and I believe it's true, financial interests believe--or cynically misrepresent--that a Tobin Tax or something like it will stifle the creativity of markets. Until you can convince them of something different, I don't think that proposal is going anywhere.
A progressive way ahead in the U.S? I think, for starters, that leftists should leave the Democrats to die in the short term. Until there's some left version of the Christian Coalition, nothing much is going to happen.
>
> >4. No, by the way, I'm not necessarily in favor of "world government,"
> >whatever that means.
>
> Whyever not?
>
Well, as I said, I don't necessarily favor it because we've already got
it--it's called U.S. hegemony, as you said--and it sucks from top to bottom.
I've got little enough to say about "world governance" as it is, and the
nation that I live in has a good deal to say about what happens. So, when
you put the question that way, I can't help but say no. World governance on
different political terms--like, ones that even marginally honored a notion
of social democracy--might be different.
Christian