Fwd [GLW}: No solution can come from elite, meeting told

Norman Mikalac mikalac at SPAMworldnet.att.net
Sun Aug 13 10:47:39 MDT 2000


"These actions could not possibly happen in the world as it now is --
and a world in which they could happen would be a profoundly different
world than the world we currently experience.."

i don't see why my assumptions considering the present world order are
more unrealistic than those supposing a changed world order in the above
quote.

from the studies performed on the relative merits and demerits of the
IMF and WB, the evidence of the last 10 years is inconclusive that these
supranational organizations have increased per capita GDP in many LDCs,
i.e., some studies say YES and others say NO.

therefore, factions (interest groups) in the IMF and WB member nations,
looking at the inconclusive facts, would put enough pressure on their
respective legislatures/executives to stop spending money and advise on
LDCs when the payoffs to both the LDCs and MDCs are inconclusive.

therefore, without member support, the IMF and WB would fold.

therefore, the LDCs would be left to rely on internal trade or their own
multilateral external trade agreements.

so back to my question: will the LDCs be better off w/o the interference
of the MDCs via such supranational devices as the WTO, IMF and WB?

if you think that my assumptions above are too unrealistic, then what
about the realism of assumptions that specify that the world order has
to change dramatically before the LDCs achieve greater per capita GDP?
who wants to wait for those assumptions to occur?  maybe the unrealism
of changing the world order encourages  liberals to want to chip away at
the existing world order instead of waiting for the Left to rearramge
the world first.

norm



Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Norman Mikalac wrote:
>
> > question: let's suppose that we cancel all LDC debts and abolish the IMF
> > and WB (WTO too?).  suppose too that the MDCs don't send any money and
> > tech assistance which they won't w/o some assurance that the money and
> > assistance won't just go down the drain.
>
> This question is utterly vacuous *unless* you first ask, (1) Under what
> political, social, and economic conditions would these acts be even remotely
> feasible? and (2) What are the means (political) by which these conditions could
> be brought about? These actions could not possibly happen in the world as it now
> is -- and a world in which they could happen would be a profoundly different
> world than the world we currently experience.
>
> This error is basic to all attempts to draw up blueprints for the future.
> Socialism would never come about *except* as the result of a protracted
> revolutionary struggle, and that struggle would profoundly change the world in
> which socialism would exist and, more importantly, profoundly change the people
> who carried out the struggle.
>
> The conditions in which LDC debts and IMF power would be abolished would be a
> world in which political and military power had shifted away from the United
> States to large portions of the third world, and the U.S. ruling class found
> itself in a position in which it had to make huge concessions to the Third World
> in order to survive itself. What would bring about such conditions? Answer that
> question before worrying about what the third world would do without the IMF asnd
> First World capital.
>
> Also remember that those IMF loans etc. are *not* things: they are a social
> relation. Think about it.
>
> Carrol





More information about the Marxism mailing list