[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives, VII
On Sat, 29 Apr 1995, Alexander Wyeth Ruthven wrote:
>
> 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."
>
Wyeth: A number of things. First, can't we drop formalities in this
all-so-informal-cyberspace and use first names? Second, I'm glad you
agree that socialism (as we have known it in the 20th Century) = state
capitalism. This is an understanding that has a long history, but is
a minoritarian one. Too much of the Left either identified with the
Soviet Union (China, Cuba, etc) or had a vested interest in finding some
other characterization to accept this view. The Right, of course, also
did not want to accept this view because it wanted to defend capitalism
in general not just one form of capitalism. To do so would have
undermined its anti-communist rhetoric and analysis and led to a much
more sophisticated and risky debate. Third, I do not argue that state
capitalism "equals" neoliberalism. There are some who DO argue that
neoliberal capitalism is a subset of state capitalism, but then they use
the term "state capitalism" as a general characterization of the entire
capitalist world since the 1930s. I don't find this very helpful,
precisely for the reasons you suggest: differences matter. However, at
the same time, so do similarities, so does a commonality in fundamental
structures, behaviors, orientations, etc. These things matter too. While
one doesn't want to be reductionist, one also doesn't want to lose sight
of the fact that you are standing in a pine forest as you study
variations in the size and shape of different trees' needles. (Ooo, where
did THAT come from? From the fact that I've been lecturing lately on
ecological crises and Deep Ecology, I think). "Neoliberalism" is a
particular strategy/ideology pursued by capitalist policy makers in this
period, as in Mexico. It differs from past strategies/ideologies, such as
import-substituting development, or Keynesianism, for example.
Neoliberalism as a strategy looks to the market to discipline the working
class, waged (industrial, services, agriculture) and unwaged (peasants,
students, housewives), and as an ideology it justifies the strategy with
appeals to so-called New Classical economic arguments (which are
really recyled old classical theories) about free markets, the virtues of
competition, the bankrupty of state planning, etc. So "neoliberalism" is
indeed a "variation" on the theme of capitalism, in the sense that it is
a strategy/justification for a certain kind of management of capitalism.
I can not even imagine an advocate of "neoliberalism" who would deny that
the system to be managed by neoliberal policies is capitalist. Fourth, I
believe that when I spoke of tweedledee and tweedledum I was NOT refering
to the choice between socialism and capitalism, but between political
candidates in Peru! What I HAVE argued is that the concept of "socialism"
which many have fought for in Latin America has never been extricated
from capitalism, and thus its pursuit has been well-intentioned but
missdirected. Elsewhere (in an essay on "Socialism" in Wolfgang Sach (ed)
THE DEVELOPMENT DICTIONARY, London: Zed, 1992) I have argued at length as
to why I think "socialism" should be abandoned as a conceptual point of
departure for thinking about transcending capitalism, so I won't repeat
those arguments here.
> 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
Wyeth: I am not arguing that state capitalism (Soviet-style) and
Western capitalism organized via neoliberal strategies both fit the usual
neoclassical economic definition of an "economy". I am arguing that they
can both only be usefully understood as variations of capitalism, i.e.,
the organization of social life via its subordination to endless work.
("Usefully" means useful for those trying to craft a better world.)
Now, making this case involves lots of different kinds of arguments
because this is NOT the way capitalism is usually defined. Let me just
evoke one such argument at an ideological level, and one at the level
of production. First, the parallels between the "work ethic" of Western
Capitalism and the Soviet "worker-hero" are striking. John Henry in the
West, Stakanhov in the East. In both cases you have a celebration of
work as the be-all and end-all of life. Both justify life sentences of
hard labor for virtually the entire population. Second, in both
organizational forms the central preoccupation of economic policy is
social control via the imposition of work through investment, i.e., the
redeployment of profit to create or intensify jobs. Thus the equal
preoccupation with any "unemployment" that goes beyond that which is
functional for the system (overt unemployment or underemployment in the
west, covert or hidden unemployment in the East). Thus the preoccupation
with the structuring of "non-work" time so that it merely produces or
reproduces the willingness and ability to work (e.g., schools as
disciplinary training for jobs). As I said above, I agree that "the
Devil is in the details", however, that understanding should not lead to
an abandonment of theory, i.e., the attempt to formulate general
statements about an array of phenomena, including statements about what
those phenomena have in common. Otherwise, in your attempts to
liberate yourself from one way of life you don't like you might wind up
jumping out of the pot but into the frying pan, and wind up fried
instead of boiled, so to speak, and definately NOT liberated.
> 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."
Wyeth: For the most part I agree with your characterization of the
"nonaligned movement", grosso modo. But what that characterization shows
is that my "line of reasoning" is NOT AT ALL like the Cold War logic of
non-alignment. As you say, its spokespeople were NOT trying to create a
new economic paradigm (certainly not after Nehru turned his back on
Ghandian ideas) much less a new way life that subordinates the "economic"
to the rest of life --as I have discussed.
> 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.
>
Wyeth: As I think your argument shows, against itself, that it is a
mistake to separate the economic from the political, and the Zapatistas
haven't done that. They have been quite articulate in their denunciation
of both the lack of democracy in Mexico AND the exploitation and
suffering which the authoritarian regime has been managing for its own
benefit. When you talk about the PRI buying off the opposition you are
talking about not just politics but economics. About the managerial
structure of the economy, from the Minister of Finance down to the
caciques, from the Central Bank to the drug trade. As for whether the
Zapatistas have a critique of capitalism, well, I would recommend that
you read the piece that Marcos penned in 1992 called "Chiapas: The
Southeast in Two Winds" as well as other writings with equally articulate
critiques of the way capitalism has sucked the blood from the human and
natural veins of Chiapas. And as I said in an earlier exchange (#IV of
this thread), I have found no evidence that Marcos has either called for
or envisioned somekind of "capitalism with a human face" that might be
constructed by reforming its present organization. I also fail to see
any evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that the Zapatistas want
"a place at the table", i.e., to share power with the present ruling
class. I think you must be confusing them with so-called opposition
political parties like the PRD which definately wants a place at the
table, just like the PAN. The Zapatistas have been absolutely clear that
they want a completely new table, not a place at the current one. That
is why they called for grassroots discussions aimed at rewriting the
Mexican constitution and then organized the first CND at Aguacalientes
--now destroyed by the Mexican government precisely because they could
see in even its material bones, the shadow of a future "table" to which
they would not be invited. One of the ways economics and politics are
inseparable is that the PRI "buys" people off not only through money but
through their incorporation into the structure of political power. The
Zapatistas have refused both Faustian pacts.
> 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
Wyeth: You know, there is, and there is not, class warfare in the
Lacondon Jungle, as elsewhere in Mexico. I would say that the Mexican
state is definately waging class war to coerce everyone who is currently
in revolt and not behaving properly back into the subservient role of
"worker". I think the Mexican government understands that very well. Just
as outside advisors such as Riodan Roett (once of Chase Manhattan Bank)
understand. In his infamous report calling for the "elimination" of the
Zapatistas, Roett did not hesitate to speak of the "Mexican working
class" and to raise the issue of how much they could be squeezed to solve
the crisis of debt and credibility. On the other hand, those who are in
revolt are, precisely because of their revolt and because of their
attempts to construct alternative ways of being, more than "workers" or
"campesinos". In their revolt they transfigure themselves. They
transcend their status of "working class" to become many things, many
self-defined things. As their subjectivity escapes the dynamics of the
accumulation of capital, so do they escape "class", and their
struggles become more than "class struggle". But to see this and then
interpret this powerful and exciting movement as a mere demand for a
"voice" in a tragic opera scripted and orchestrated by others, is to miss
the real drama of what is at stake. The Zapatista revolt has reverberated
around the globe because their actions (forceful resistance to repressive
capitalist policies) and their words (giving voice to not only their
rejection of current policies but also to their desires for radical
alternatives) have expressed the needs and desires of people all over the
world, not merely in Chiapas. They HAVE a "voice", Wyeth, and it is one
that is being listened to and answered far beyond Mexico.
Harry
======================================
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173
USA
Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 442-5036
(off) (512) 471-3211
Fax: (512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave@mundo.eco.utexas.edu
======================================
Follow-Ups: