[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Argentine's elections

At 11:08 14/5/95 -0400, Victor Story wrote:

>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?

Both Peru and Brazil transitioned from military governments fairly recently.
In the case of Peru, it was a left/far left military junta. Most of the
Peruvian airforce still uses Russian equipment. Brazil had a center-right
military. In both cases, the factor that drive the military out of power was
the total mess they made of the economy. In Peru, the military gave way to
the APRA and Alan Garcia, who made a bad economy even worse.What brought
Fujimori to power, in the opinion of many Peruanos, was the widespread
corruption under Alan Garcia and by Alan Garcia. Having traveled many miles
over roads repaired by Alan Garcia's government, I can assure you that tax
money was not spent in public works improvements!

>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? 

In some ways, the current "capitalism" in Mexico is similar to what existed
in the USA a century ago. Due to limited competition, restricted imports and
an absence of anti-trust legislation or enforcement, individuals, companys
or groups have managed to gain control of certain markets. In those markets,
the "free market" has ceased to operate, and capitalism has become
"monopolism", to coin a word. The same defects that eventually distroy state
control of markets and production come into play under this process. As soon
as anything changes to force open the market to imports or competition, the
members of the monopoly group have to either adapt or die. Mexico is in
thatr phase of development.

>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?
>
Where foreign investment is obliged to enter into partnership with local
capital in order to enter a market, as was the case in Mexico for many
years, then you often find that the local practice of tightly controlled
markets is the norm. The locals provide the knowledge of local marketing
(meaning cartels and monopoly) while the foreigners provide the technology
and happly take home the extra profits available when you don't have to
fight too hard for sales. Once the market is truly open, and controls are
imposed on attempts to artificially supress competition, the market truly opens.

Ken Price

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-+-+-                                 Kenneth M. Price
                PanAmerican Consulting Associates, Inc.
            <>Greenville, SC, USA <> Irapuato, Gto. Mexico <>  
    kenprice@sunbelt.net <> kenprice@mcimail.com <> 72646.2107@compuserve.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-+-+-
Follow-Ups: