delinking does not equal autarky (J O'Connor)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Patrick Bond wrote, quoting Jim O'Connor:
>
>>  > I do believe, and am presently working on this question and lots 
>>of related
>>>  ones, that the choice is between a plurality of national/regionalist models
>>>  of development, where first things come first, like eradicating poverty, on
>>>  the one hand, and a single global model of development under the rule of
>>>  the US, on the other.
>>
>>This is also being pursued by Bello, Amin and the like...
>
>Is this like social democracy in one country?
>
>Why have so many state-centered alternative development regimes in 
>the so-called Third World gone bad? Hardt & Negri have a theoretical 
>answer: that national liberation struggles turn sour once they 
>achieve state power, because the nation-state is a realm of 
>hierarchy and exclusion. They also argue that the "nation" doesn't 
>exist separately from a state - that it is, in fact, called into 
>being by state formation - so that ethnicized exclusion is part of 
>the pacakge. I'm not completely convinced, but it's a coherent 
>theory. It's not for nothing that I keep pointing out that Patrick's 
>"technical" examples of how to do alternadevelopment - Smith's 
>Rhodesia and apartheid SA - were odious regimes, which fit in rather 
>well with the Hardt/Negri theory. And what about Mahathir - a 
>repressive bigot, perfectly willing to oppress the Malaysian working 
>class (and expel immigrants), but something of a hero to some of the 
>left for his use of capital controls. Please convince me why H&N's 
>theoretical argument is wrong.
>
>Doug

The classical Marxist answer is that socialism in one country is 
doomed to poverty & that socialism in one poor country is reduced to 
dire poverty.  This answer makes more sense than Hardt & Negri's. 
The state = political power.  No political power = no socialism, in 
one or many or all countries.

The problem for Marxists has always been that while objective 
conditions for the building of socialism are better in rich nations, 
objective & subjective conditions for taking state power are much 
better in poor nations.

If we ever get socialism going in the USA, it will be very 
successful, for no other nation will bother it given the USA's 
supreme military power, whereas socialism that is started in a poor 
nation will be attacked by the American Empire.

Since it is very difficult to get socialism going in the USA, 
however, _in the meantime_ folks on the periphery have to do 
something for themselves -- hence Pat's program of de-linking & 
regionalism -- instead of simply waiting for the American proletariat 
to rise up (which may or may not happen, since socialism is not 
inevitable).

Yoshie