>In Empire, Negri and Hardt posit that there is no
>outside to Empire...we are all embedded in the nexus
>of global capital and there is no longer an escape
>route through a struggle known as "national
>liberation".
>
>Now we have seen a heroic revolt in Argentina this
>week, but one has to wonder how even the best
>intentioned group that came to power could free the
>country from the clamps of the IMF and World Bank. Is
>it possible or impossible...and what are the political
>implications of this? I would like to hear from
>everyone but am especially interested in the
>economists perspectives.
Argentina's room for maneuver is very limited. It's a small country with big debts. It has less wiggle room than a larger country, like Brazil. If it were to default as a conscious, explictly rebellious strategy, it would be screwed - frozen out of global markets, unable to finance the import of basic goods. Without a change in the creditor countries, or without the formation of a serious and large debtors' cartel, there's not much the Argentinas of the world can do.
One alternative is gone - the USSR. All you anti-Soviet lefties - as much as I sympathize with your critique of the USSR - don't talk much about the international role of actually existing socialism. Without it, it's gone from difficult to impossible for poor countries to do something revolutionary. For all the problems of Cuba, it's still a helluva lot better than Haiti, and it wouldn't be had it not been for 30 years of Soviet subsdies.
Doug