[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Argentine's elections
Ken and Jose have made good distinctions between populists with and
without the military, and capitalism that is open and that is closed.
Regarding the discrediting of the military, I suspect that is peculiar to
Argentina. In Peru, Fugimori's self-coup brought the military closer to
direct rule, partly because many people view the civilian parties and
legislature more corrupt than the military! Same in Brazil, there was
talk of a coup if Lula had won - many people prefer the efficiency and
apparent order of military rule - so I think that Ken is right about the
military being discredited only in the case of Argentina. As for Mexico,
the military is quiet, but is serving the PRI well in Chiapas, no?
In my opinion, the larger problem is the one Jose addresses. I probably
aggravate some of you on this point, so I beg your patience here. We
already had a long thread on the failure of the left, and I am not trying
to start that up again. The point here is that if the left has failed,
then wee are left with capitalism. Then we must admit what Jose points
out, that capitalism in the US is not the same as boss capitalism in
Mexico. But at that point, we have a real problem. Because capitalism
in Mexico is not entirely seperate from capitalism in the US. To just
say that Mexico does not have real capitalism is not enough. Mexico has
what it developed trying to copy the US for over a century. The messy
capitalism Mexico has is a result of the same process as that in the US -
the problem becomes, why did the US develop a more just form of
capitalism, and Mexico not? Here the old dependency argument seems to
hold sway. Mexico and other dependent economies seem incapable of
developing a more just form of capitalism as long as they are
subordibnate to the central capitalist economies - Europe and US. If
this is the case, then the neoliberals who advocate reform in Mexico to
cure the ills of capitalism there are barking up the wrong tree. If the
cause of Mexico's underdevelopment is not the Mexican state, the PRI,
protectionism, etc, but rather, is Mexico's relationship to outside
markets, governments, capital - as seen in recent loans since December,
and the pathetic pattern of investment that came with NAFTA - then the
entire argument by the neoliberals is as impotent as the ravings of the
Left! If what I am arguing is true - and I have no real committment to
this argument, I welcome anyone to show me I am wrong, I wish you would,
all this dead-end thinking is giving me a headache (see
alt.thinking.hurts) - but if this argument holds any water, then Mexico
must break out of the pattern of dependent relations with the US and
Europe. I have seen noone on this list deal with this essential problem
adequately. Instead, we have leftists who spout the same tired old
sentiments, and neoliberals who harp on the flaws of the Mexican system
without addressing how those flaws are imposed by the international
market. If the flaws of Mexico's capitalism are intrinsic to Mexico's
history, revolution, PRI, etc, then why do we find those same flaws in
systems all over the world, Jose, mi amigo, eh, eh? Am I having fun yet?
Victor
References: