[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Neoliberalism, Socialism, and the Zapatistas
I have been reading the Victor O. Story-Harry Cleaver debate with great interest
and decided to add my $0.02 worth.
I am unsatisfied with Mr. Cleaver's argument that the failure of "socialism"
SUPPORTS his position that the capitalistic economic system is fatally flawed.
The argument that socialism=state capitalism is true, but I am not willing to
to make the leap Mr. Cleaver does that state capitalism=neoliberal capitalism.
Mr. Cleaver contends that state capitalism and neoliberalism are merely
"Variations on a theme" and that a choice between socialism and capitalism
in much of Latin America is a choice between "tweedledum and tweedledee."
Insomuch as state capitalism and neoliberalism are both economic systems that
try to allocate scarce capital resources in order to maximize economic growth
then yes, they are both "variations on a theme." But I feel it is faulty
reasoning to use this very general similarity as a basis to say the two
systems are equal, if not identical. One might as well argue that a watermelon
and a human being are both "variations on a theme" because they are both carbon
based lifeforms that consist of more than 90% water. The Devil is in the details
Mr. Cleaver's line of reasoning is reminiscent of the nonaligned movement that
arose in the Third World during the Cold War. Mr Cleaver wishes to find some
middle way, and economic system that is neither capitalism nor communism.
However, the nonaligned movement had more to do with politics than it did with
economics, because most of the Third World merely adopted a mixed-economy (state
intervention without total state ownership of all capital) that proved to be
the worst of both worlds. The nonaligned countries were not trying to create
a new economic paradigm, they were saying to both the US and USSR "We're not
taking any sides in your little conflict, so keep us out of your little
proxy wars."
Similarly, I think the Zapatistas' demands are more political than they are
economic. The Zapatistas are not merely demanding economic relief from the
government. If that were the case, then the Top-down Mexican state would
have been able to buy them off with some economic concessions. The PRI
has been able to buy off dissent for years with any number of tightly
controlled state-run ventures, PRONASOL was the most recent and most
extrvagant.
What the Zapatistas want is for their voices to be included in the economic
decision making process. The Zapatistas and the Mexican people are fed up
with having their economic well-being dictated by a handful of technocrats
at SPP, PRONASOL, and Hacienda. I don't think the Zapatistas are arguing
that capitalism is evil, I think they are demanding a place at the table
that has been denied them during years of neoliberal reform that has been
controlled exclusively at the federal level.
It isn't class warfare that's going on in the Lacondon Jungle, it's the people
demanding accountability from an unresponsive state. That is why the Zapatistas
are such a threat to the PRI. In the past, the PRI has been able to swing to
the left when it suited them to do so. Such games will not work with the
Zapatistas. They don't want a handout, they want a voice.
Therefore, I do not think that the ongoing debate on Mexico94 that the
Zapatista Rebellion is an indictment of NAFTA or of capitalism. The
Zapatistas are not struggling for a new economic paradigm, they are struggling
for a political system that will incorporate popular will into the economic
decision making process.
Saludos,
Wyeth
--
A. Wyeth Ruthven
5 Rogers, Newcomb Hall Station
Charlottesville, VA 22904
awr2k@Virginia.edu