the HiPC thing? and Re: Marx on free trade

rc-am rcollins at netlink.com.au
Wed Sep 29 06:36:50 PDT 1999


hey listers, what's the deal with the HIPC (hiccup?) thing, is the threat of reneging on debt so great, greater than the threat that wiping debt can serve as a bad example to all those lazy do-nothing, want-a-handout types? can i party now, or should i wait to read the fine print?

Chaz wrote:


> Well, you aren't quite sure that it wouldn't in some cases.<

we can't be sure of anything, without our crystal balls.


> Think of it this way. One of the clearcut reorganizations of regional
hegmonic blocs in a manner that imperialism considers in its favor is NAFTA, no ? This seems the opposite of protectionism for Mexico, Canada and Brazil, et al. So, to negate this is some sense would involve a "protectionism" from neo-free trade (FT). <

i'm not sure it's so simple. what would be better for the workers of the region: protectionism or integration? NAFTA was kind of a faux integration, ie., it was a trade agreement which is still auspiced by the 'protectionism' of US capital via the domination of the US currency. i still think there are other more interesting paths to pursue, including regional agreements between workers' organisations, for instance. it's also interesting that (re max's comments on the US) the passage of NAFTA might well have been a factor in subsiding the chauvinism in the US.


> It is especially my role as a Marxist in the U.S. to oppose "my own"
capitalists first, no ?<

umm... how can that be a rule for you, but not a rule for others (as in your formulation below)? in any case, distinguishing national capitals from (?) other national capitals and global capital is not where i would begin to establish the framework for a politics on these issues. acknowledging that the surplus, even that being pumped out of one place, is not for all that a national surplus -- it's already global, if only in the sense of the circulation of 'dead labour' and the capital that is 'invested'.


> A better phrasing from my standpoint would be neo-colonial national
liberation and self-determination in a dialectical unity with proletarian internationalism, but , you know , people start calling you dogmatic when you talk like that.<

not dogmatic, but it sure vies with derrida for incomprehensibility. <g> in any event, 'national liberation' is no longer going to have the anti-capitalist qualities (if it ever really did) that you or i would like to see. there was a time when dogmatic marxists regarded national liberation struggles as an attempt to enhance the power of a local petty bourgeoisie. whether as cabral remarked, this struggle would lead inevitably to the "suicide" of the p-b, or whether it merely becomes a means to decompose working class organisation remains a moot point. there is certainly little evidence that there is any developmental path available to all, and the passage through so-called national liberation seems to be, at best, the formation of regional capitalist hegemonies and, at worst, the prelude to conflicts proxied variously through religious or 'ethnic' wars, with IMF statelets ranged all the ways in between.

Angela _________



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list