Speaking of no weak s...

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Wed Apr 12 12:31:25 PDT 2000



> Milliken is a nationalist capitalist. Buchanan is a nationalist
> capitalist politician. Most of the people I know who are going to A16
> are neither of those creatures. Most are antiracist and
> antiimperialist, and quite a few are anticapitalist. Why do you
> insist on conflating them?

Well if they are arguing for social clauses, I don't agree. If they're there to fight PNTR and protect American jobs, I am quite ambivalent. Max seems confused about what I am saying, . . .

[mbs] Am I ever.

which is simply that American capital probably needs the expanded base of Chinese labor to avoid a breakdown crisis of overaccumulation (watch the pick up in US accumulation after some of those postal funds are released into the global securities markets); if he wants to hasten that crisis, he should oppose PNTR, not because it will save American jobs but because it will do the opposite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[mbs] That part I understand. I don't agree with it but I understand it. You invoke the fabled breakdown crisis in the sky. And no, I am not interested in hastening a world depression, nor would I look forward to one.


>>>>>>>>

If leftists are there to demand shut down of IMF, then I need to have some idea of how exchange rate crises and panic capital outflows are going to be dealt with because I don't think in the absence of IMF policies, those sorts of things are not going to happen--Brad has been making this point. If they're there to protest structural adjusment programs, fine, that makes more sense in my opinion.
>>>>>>

Flash: Council Communist turns into his opposite! Mao Tse-Tung, call your office.


>>>>>>
If they had been there to stop the Wall Street Treasury complex from forcing capital liberalization on any and all countries, that would have been a lot more sense. After all, they're in Washington, permanent home of the Treasury. But they'd probably find more support for that within the World Bank than the US Congress, no?
>>>>>

[mbs] Of course preventing untrammeled capital market liberalization is the goal. It's the most important part of the whole thing, from labor's standpoint.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list