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

NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives, Debate VIII/2


>From: "Victor O. Story" <story@kutztown.edu>
>Subject: Re: NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives: Debate, V/1

>I don't disagree with Harry's analysis, I even admit he's right I was 
>unfairly badmouthing the Left.  I think nevertheless that the 
>constructive thinking going on involves analysis different from the 
>ideologically charged analysis of state and capitalism.  The language 
>does not fit the problem.  I also think that spending more on education is 
>a wise idea, but not the ultimate solution.  The critique of Mexico in 
>terms of the intrinsic flaws of capitalism simply does not address the 
>particular deficiencies of capitalism in Mexico, and until those 
>problems 
>are dealt with, simply hacking away at capitalism gets us nowhere.  

Victor: I am always glad when we can find SOME space of agreement. I am 
all for "constructive" thinking, absolutely. But as I said to John above, 
as we seek constructive solutions to real problems we want to avoid false 
solutions, i.e., solutions that are not solutions but only leave us where 
we were, more or less (see comment about pots and pans). It is true 
enough that critiquing the "intrinsic flaws of capitalism" does NOT 
address "particular deficiencies". Where we differ, perhaps, is that you 
seem to think it can be efficacious to try to solve particular problems 
one by one and worry about the big picture later. Whereas I, on the 
other hand, suspect (on the basis of experience) that close examination 
of particular deficiencies that we want to address leads us very quickly 
to the big picture and the realization that the big picture (i.e., the 
constraints of capitalism) puts limits on our ability to solve the 
particular problem. 

For example, I'm tempted to take up the issue of education and whether 
or better to what degree more spending is appropriate. In the short 
term I'm sympathetic. It may be that "throwing more money at 
education will not solve all the problems" as conservatives like to say 
in the US, but it is also true as the pundits counter that "less money" 
sure won't solve the problems either. In the longer run (lets start 
now) on the other hand, I'll just refer the curious to Ivan Illich's 
DESCHOOLING SOCIETY and its sequels and to the work of Paolo Freire, 
both of which are concerned with transforming the "problem of 
education" into those of learning which leads to the contemplation of 
very different "solutions"..  

For example, it seems so reasonable, so rational, to 
call for peaceful negotiations and resolution of the conflict in Chiapas 
(and many have done so). I think we all want that. But the major 
obstacle to such resolution is that the Zapatistas and the Mexican state 
differ over fundamentals (i.e., the big picture). The State wants the 
Zapatistas to go back to farming or become politicians within the 
established structures while the Zapatistas want the State to accept not 
only fundamental change in the structures of power in Chiapas but at the 
level of Mexico as a whole.  The state wants to maintain the basic 
economic institutions of Chiapas (business control, the dominance of the 
wealthy over the poor, the extraction for export of local wealth, 
racial discrimination against and exploitation of indigenous people, 
etc), while the Zapatistas want to change ALL that. But WHY is the PRI 
so attached to ALL THAT? Because it is integral to its overall plan for 
capitalist development in Mexico. Because if the Zapatistas achieve 
really fundamental change, even just in Chiapas, the whole structure 
would be threatened. They know it, Wall Street knows it, Roett knew it 
and said it. Clinton has arranged a $50 billion bailout because he 
knows it. The IMF has violated its own rules to put together an 
absolutely monstrous $17.8 billion package because it knows it. 

So, I'm 
afraid that it is not going to be very possible, very often, to "solve" 
a great many particular problems WITHOUT recognizing and addressing the 
contraints on solutions --constraints that have to do with the big 
picture. At any rate, I "hack away" at capitalism in general (like 
hacking away at a weed) mainly in response to those who think it doesn't 
need to be removed for our garden to grow. As a general rule, I'm more 
than happy to take up particular problems and discuss possible solutions. 
I'm also willing to apply Occam's razor and not look for complicated 
explanations when simple ones will do. The problem is: simple 
explanations like simple solutions often wind up not doing the job.


>In fact, there is an argument that because of the inadequacies of the 
>Mexican market, and perhaps more importantly, because of the role of 
>corruption and bossism and favoritism and monopolistic businesses and a 
>market that has never been developed, this argument goes, Mexico's 
>system 
>is not capitalism at all!  Too much of that argument holds enough water 
>to make a focus on larger abstractions about capitalism unuseful.  

Victor: I think that argument is hokum. Corruption and bossism, 
favoritism and monopolistic business have always been integral to 
capitalism, they are not abberations. Capitalism got its start paying 
bribes to parliament to clear the lands. Multinational corporations often 
got their start on the basis of monopoly power (US railroads, central 
Amercian plantations, etc) and so on. "Larger abstractions about 
capitalism" ARE useful precisely because they capture these continuities 
and help reveal the historical ignorance (or obfuscation) behind such 
arguments. Such an argument has been made by some on the Left in Latin 
American for decades to rationalize support for the "historically 
progressive forces of capitalism" against supposed "feudal" remnants. It 
has also been used to rationalize dismissing the peasantry as 
disappearing moments of those remnants. I think the first set of 
arguments were well disposed of by people like A.G.Frank. I think the 
second set were well disposed of by the campesinistas during the debate
in Mexico in the 1970s --even if Warman has forgotten all his arguments.

>The 
>hard work to improve the lives of Mexico's workers involves adjusting 
>the market to serve them more, just as Father Aristide is trying in Haiti, a 
>worse case than Mexico.   

>Victor

Victor: I have no objection to trying to "adjust" the market to improve 
workers lives, as far as it goes. That's what workers do when the fight 
for higher wages; that's what campesinos do when they fight for land or 
for credit or for guaranteed output prices. Certainly the capitalists 
have always sought to "adjust" the market to suit their purposes (expand 
labor supply to lower wages, impose prices on land so the rich can have 
more, restrict credit to those who can pay high interest rates, 
manipulate the relative prices of agricultural inputs and outputs in 
order to squeeze the peasantry --called the "scissors" in the Soviet 
Union). Indeed, the first thing to recognize about the market is that is 
has always been manipulated; that there is not now, and never has been, 
such a thing as a "free market", indeed the term is an oxymoron. At the 
same time, however, recognition of this should also free us from any 
fetishistic attachment to the "market" as such and open us to 
other ways of organizing relationships in both countryside and city. 
Which brings us back to alternatives ...... :-) 

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: