East Timor, Clinton, & the World Bank

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Peter Van Heusden wrote:
>As Carrol and Yoshie have repeatedly pointed out, we are in no sense
>actors at this stage. When we consent to support imperialist armed forces
>(necessarily Australian in this context), we in no sense develop the
>working class as a (collective) actor. We should consider these questions
>not as abstract theoretical questions (and I would argue that it is pretty
>clear that C and Y, despite opponents' claims to the contrary, have not
>considered these questions in an abstract theoretical fashion), but as a
>guide to action. We should identify the actors involved in the current
>situation, and assess what our interventions may be, and what the results
>of these interventions might be.

I don't know if it makes sense to try to talk to Chris B seriously on
questions such as this.  On PEN-L, he's recently astonished progressive
economists subbed to it by his dialectical thought that 'a proposal for the
IMF to become autonomous' of the member governments is a progressive one
that leftists should support.  The following samples PEN-L responses to the
inimitable Chris Burford Thought:


>From: "Patrick Bond" <pbond at wn.apc.org>
>
>> From:          Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
>> The International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies, Geneva, issued a
>> report yesterday calling for the IMF to be made independent of national
>> governments. This is a progressive demand, both in its political
>> significance and in its rationality in meeting the developing needs of
>> imperialism and the world economy. By treating global money at its most
>> abstract, it prepares the ground unwittingly for greater social control on
>> the world economy.
>
>Chris, man, have you checked the balance of forces recently? Are you
>on some kind of a century-long trajectory of reformism?
>
>The only vaguely potentially progressive thing I can see in such a
>fantasy scenario, which would not be approved by any
>nation-state I've heard of, is that the bastards will overdose on
>power and self-confidence and crash the global financial system all
>the faster, hence loosening their presently murderous stranglehold
>on the world's majority.
*****
>>I can assure you that any proposal for the IMF to become more independent
>of member governments will be DOA in Washington. That's a personal
>guarantee. I doubt that IMF officials would dare to embrace such a
>proposal, but I would be delighted if they did so: we'll squash them.
>>
>>-bob
*****
>>Charles Brown wrote:
>>
>>>But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the
>>>bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments,
>>>really , anyway ?
>>>"Who" is the IMF ?
>
>Doug:
>
>>"The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy
>>offshore." - MIT econ prof Rudi Dornbusch (the same guy who said that
>>the upside of the Asian crisis was that Korea became a wholly owned
>>subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury)
*****

To me, the virtue of the Chris Burford Thought lies in its predictability,
be it on the IMF or the Aussie-led 'peace-keepers.'

Yoshie