>>What happens if the Congress, feeling pressure from the left and the right,
>>sharply curtails funding for the IMF/IBRD ? Does global capitalism/imperialism
>>automatically come to an end ?
Doug wrote:
>No it won't, but I think it might complicate the life of
>cap'ism/imp'ism. Since they think there's something spontaneous,
>almost genetically programmed about capitalism, the right often
>forgets that state coercion is essential to the propagation and
>maintenance of capitalism. Without the Bretton Woods institutions, it
>would have been much harder to restructure the Southern hemisphere
>the way it's been restructured over the last 20 years: they're the
>lead dogs of neo-neocolonialism, a real executive committee of the
>world bourgeoisie. Without them, or with less of them, what would
>happen? I don't know, but it might be interesting to find out.
I now write:
I agree w/you that the IMF more or less acts as the executive committee of the G7-based finance K and TNC's. From what little I know about Latin American/African debt crises of the early- to mid-1980's, the IMF was instrumental in making sure that separate First World banks/govt's didn't cut separate deals w/their insolvent creditors, organizing and implementing a united front of North against South. (Actually the model of "relative autonomy of the multilateral international quasi-state" might fit better than the "executive committee of the world bourgeoisie" model, except for the fact that the IMF directors/staffers have a "revolving door" relationship w/the big banks of the world, no ?). But, at the risk of constructing an easily demolishable straw man again (and rightfully being corrected for doing so), don't groups like 50 Years is Enough focus too much on the IMF/IBRD, and not enough on the various blocs of finance K (banks, institutional investors, speculators, etc.) these institutions serve (of course, that runs the risk of "reifying" and "personifying" finance K as well, w/potentially nasty anti-Semitic overtones). When Volcker sent interest rates through the roof and basic commodity prices tanked in the late 70's/early 80's, what choices did most Third World countries have, if they wanted to remain players in the global economy, save slashing their education/health spending, overexploiting their natural resource base, inviting more TNC investment, etc. (I'm ruling out the possibility of Amin-style "delinking" on the grounds of likely imperialist intervention, improper alignment of class forces w/in TW countries, and sheer unfeasibility) ? It seems the most noxious thing the IMF did _as the IMF_ was to deal with indebted TW states separately and prevent them banding together collectively and demanding massive debt liquidation (a la Jubilee 2000), the resurrection of a basic commodity price stabilization scheme, or other elements of the NIEO.
As far as speculating what would happen to global capitalism w/out the Bretton Woods institutions, Jim O'Connor wrote recently that one good reason to support China's entry into the WTO is that the WTO will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
[Maybe I'm unfairly jaded about the "50 Years is Enough" crew b/c a) in my mind they're closely identified w/the opportunistic and self-promoting Global Exchange folks -- after Seattle I don't think this requires much explanation, and b) their public line is "anti-globalization," w/the various aforementioned pitfalls of a discourse that doesn't deal w/imperialism and inter-capitalist rivalry].
Doug wrote:
>I've been wondering about this. Much of the Northern anti-WTO
>movement is based on solidarity with the people of the South - who
>are, after all, "people of color." Why is there so little affinity
>for this movement among "people of color" in the U.S.? Doesn't it
>call into question the whole category, the assumption of common
>interests among non-Caucasians?
>
>Since a lot of the U.S. anti-WTO movement is campus based, why is
>there so little interest among black and Latino students in it? I
>wonder if a lot of "minority" students are more interested in getting
>a piece of the capitalist action than they are in challenging it
>systemically? I'm pretty out of touch with campus life, which is why
>I'm phrasing these as questions.
Elizabeth "Betita" Martinez wrote an article on this, which I believe was cited w/a URL link on this list a while back (although it might have appeared on another list). I won't bother paraphrasing her argument, since I didn't read the article very closely.
While I have been an instructor and teaching assistant at various and sundry campuses in the Bay Area (SF St. San Jose St., UC-Santa Cruz), I can't say I've paid very close attention to campus-based organizing. From my narrow and probably jaundiced perspective, however, I'll try to build a portrait.
At the working-class/lower middle-class schools where I've taught (the respective "States"), most "students of color" are extremely busy w/full course loads and part-time jobs, and most of them are trying to work their way up into the lower ranks of the salariat (in the Bay Area, especially the lower ranks of the high-tech salariat). Most are apolitical if not apathetic (which certainly does not distinguish them from white kids of all social classes), and to the extent they know anything about or want to do anything to mend the ills of global capitalism, there's a big focus on -- surprise !!! -- Nike, the Gap, etc. sweatshops in the periphery, with all the strengths and limitations of that movement (what with 50 Years is Enough, Global Exchange, etc. around, the Bay Area has been a hub for the campus-based anti-sweatshop movement). Also, to the extent that these students are political, they're really more tuned in to domestic/state/local issues -- Props 187 and 209, police brutality, educational inequality, etc. But most simply aren't political, and are drop-dead busy trying to earn decent grades and working to pay the bills (not just tuition and room/board, but also bills on personal computers, Volkswagen Golfs, concert tickets, and other aspects of the "socially necessary consumption basket" in the era of Silicon Valley's cost-of-living-inflating hegemony). I've seen research which indicates that more and more working-class/lower middle-class students are working 20, 30, 40 hours a week, presumably not only to finance their increasingly costly educational and housing needs, but also in a futile effort to "keep up w/the Joneses" -- i.e. the kids of upper-upper middle-class and upper-middle class households who don't have to work part-time jobs, get dough from their parents for new DVD players, CD's, and threads, and go on vacation to Hawaii or the Caribbean every so often. Materialism with a hip (and in some cases, "politically correct") edge is all the rage of young'uns of all races and classes in this so-called "Gilded Age." The ethno-culturally based service organizations and fraternities/sororities are also really big on the "State" campuses, as they are most places -- a world where "politics" is defined as volunteering to pick trash off the side of the highway to make the world a better place. I guess those Etzionian MTV superstar/NBA superstar AdCouncil pieces have done their work.
As for the (many fewer, w/the exception of Asian-Americans) "students of color" in the upper-middle to upper-upper-middle class school where I've spent a good deal of time (i.e. UCSC, where a lot of kids' parents have gotten nearly rich b/c of the "wealth effect" of the NASDAQ boom), activism on issues related to global capitalism is somewhat more prevalent, but the campus delegation to Seattle was (to my incomplete knowledge) principally white and largely anarchist in orientation -- and most "students of color", regardless of their financial standing or that of their parents, find anarchists from nearly rich families off-putting. In fact, I think there is a tendency for many "students of color" to assume that anyone who "dresses down" (as many anarchists do) is a so-called "trustafarian," regardless of that person's financial situation or politics. There has been some really good multi-racial organizing against the prison-industrial complex (with ties to the Mumia movement) and for keeping the university racially diverse and affordable, however.
Warning -- the above is solely the opinion of the author, although it is based in some more-than-casual observations.
John Gulick