Hi Chris, thanks for your comments.
I think the main possibility on the table right now is the nationalization of finance, which is at the top of the Beijing statement. Capitalist governments all over the world are being forced, out of desperation and contrary to their ideology, to at least partially nationalize parts of the financial system. They of course intend that these nationalizations be bail-outs of the financial capitalists and be temporary. But these desperate government actions have opened the door for the possibility of a different kind of outcome. We should at least try to interject into the public debate the entirely reasonable proposals that the government should exercise control over the financial institutions that are receiving government money and that these nationalizations be permanent. The most obvious and most possible candidates for full and permanent nationalization in the US are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are already almost fully nationalized. And even Paulson is saying that the government intends to manage these companies with social goals (i.e. increase credit in the housing market), rather than the maximization of shareholder value. We should propose as forcefully as we can that this nationalization and priority on social goals be permanent. This would give the government control over housing finance, which is important in itself and also could be a first step toward more general government control of finance. Similarly, the Treasury purchase of $250 billion worth of bank preferred stock is intended to be "non-voting" stock. We should insist that the stock have full voting rights (and also dividends should be suspended and mortgages that these banks own should be written down as quid pro quo). These are not pie in the sky demands. Rather ther are an entirely reasonable and logical extension of what the government is already doing. If the government can provide credit in a crisis, then the government should also continue to provide credit in normal times in order to avoid crises in the future. Chris, you are probably right that the most likely outcome of the current crisis is more regulation of capitalist finance. But we have the opportunity, and I think the obligation, to try to transform capitalist finance into public finance which would serve the interests of the people. What do you think? Comradely, Fred P.S. I happen to be in Argentina right now attending two conferences. There was a cartoon in one of the newspapers last week about the recent Argentinian nationalization of private pension funds. One of the cartoon characters said: We are just following Yanqui imperialism! To some extent, that is what I am suggesting: we should take advantage of what the capitalist governments themselves are being forced to do, and push them as hard as we can to the left. Quoting Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I must admit I had forgotten about UNCTAD, and I had no idea that organisations like this were finding venues in Beijing. I don't think we are going to be in any situation like "dual power" but we are entering very strange territory and rapidly. All the force of the capitals that survive (which will be 90%) will want a more coherent stable global situation so they can ride out the trough and start accumulating more easily again. That is a given. Also because of their long term monopolistics tendencies they will not object to some measures that plan more rationally on a global scale - eg they could make a lot of money out of an accelerated market in environmentally relevant products and services. In terms of power politics we are at the point of seeing the abject collapse of an attempt at world hegemony by one power. No other power is going to be so foolish as to try to rush in and offend everyone. In particular you can see that the Chinese are moving extremely tactfully - hence perhaps why they gave some financial assistance to this conference. If they join the new Group of 20, they will still want a lot of cover before revealing their hand. The most obvious carve up for them if they thought like a great power of 100 years ago, would be to do a deal with the new US administration to redivide the world, keep Japan on side, neutralise India, get a more dominant position in Africa - and that is why they won't do it! - certainly not in anyway that could easily be recognised as such. And as for Obama, "forever sizing up",as this article argues http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/26/news/26kantor.php what vacuum could he fill? It is an intriguing picture of a very intelligent chamaeleon, warm personally and administratively practical, but without any hard directions himself, and prone to go off into wistful and ironical dreams Unless he doesn't want to serve out two terms he is likely to see his satisfaction in bridging different parts of the world with which his life was connected. That does not include China, but he would be quite capable of reading the briefings about a restructuring of the IMF with some of the idealism with which it was originally set up. Gordon Brown would have definite ambitions about the IMF but is keeping a low profile now, probably for that reason. It will be interesting to see how closely and fast the UK and the US governments want to cooperate about their similar economic and social problems. Sarkozy has all the traditions of French dirigism behind him. Angela Merkel is head of a Christian Democratic party that embodies significant social democratic influences, and she grew up as a pastor's daughter in East Germany. Putin is a dirigist, and would like to control the oligarchs better, but is likely to be open to approaches from Germany and China he badly needs the global economy to start burning gas again. So yes, expect the world to start looking rather rapidly much more like a Swedish model of capitalism.including yes, some serious interest in reducing the vast range of income inequality - not least because consumer capitalism of the west would love to have a more prosperous market on a global scale. So extremely oddly, I think we are entering an arena in which Gramscian ideas of civil society, including a global civil society, as contested terrain, are relevant. Muh to be vigilant about, and it is absolutely not socialism. It will not be "social production controlled by social foresight" but there will a much greater consensus and readiness to use various mechanisms to ensure that the still mysterious and magical accumulation of capital, is "regulated" somewhat more coherently. That might be a step in the right direction. Now would any of the ideas in conference you link to, fit in with that Fred? Chris Burford London ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:44 PM Subject: [Pen-l] Beijing statement on democratic economic reforms Below is the link to a tremendous proposal for democratic economic reforms in response to the current economic crisis. The statement is the result of a conference two weeks ago in Beijing sponsored by Asia-Europe People's Forum and the Transnational Institute and Focus on the Global South. It is along the same lines as the Caracas statement, but more detailed and more comprehensive. http://casinocrash.org/?p=235#more-235 We should be trying to figure out how to interject these proposals into the current policy debates in the US. Any ideas? Fred ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
