Re: Conclusions

Dear Richard:
At 04:05 p.m. 02/01/01 +0000, you wrote:

"No, I don't particularly think we need a 'clean slate'. 
Rather, I see no way to address any of our problems 1until the stranglehold
of the current regime is removed.  When we remove that stranglehold, we
will still have our existing societies and infrastructures to work from.
Our 'clean slate' will be our ability to re-invent the future
unhampered - it will not be a 'clean slate' in the sense
that everything must be built from scratch".
 
Even if not everything must be built from scratch after overthrowing
capitalism, the desired NEW WORLD ORDER will not be able to work smoothly
for a VERY long time, if past history gives us any clues.

You then go on:
"Seattle convinced them of no such thing.  I have yet to see one shred of
evidence for such a view.  You might want to pick up the latest issue of
"Third World Resurgence" magazine (website: http://www.twnside.org.sg),
whose cover says "Seattle: One Year After - The Situation is Worse". One
article, entitled "Liberalization goes on, even without multilateral
talks", is headed by this statement by UNCTAD Secretary-General Rubens
Ricupero: Since the collapse of WTO talk in Seattle in 1999, the
industrialized countries have been pushing through their trade
liberalization agenda outside of the framework of the WTO. The anti-WTO
demonstrations, and the earlier anti-MAI movement in Canada, are like
stones thrown in the way of a rushing river.  They don't stop it; the flow
just goes around them".

There are many declarations from insiders and decisionmakers from both the
industrialized and developing countries, indicating that they are aware of
the central fact, that
WHILE IN ECONOMIC THEORY GLOBALIZATION SHOULD BENEFIT EVERYBODY,
IN PRAXIS AFTER ABOUT 10 YEARS OF PROGRESSING GLOBALIZATION, THE GREAT
MAJORITIES IN BOTH WORLDS ARE WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE.
Unfortunately I have not systematically saved them, but I did file away one
by Camdessus. Here is part of it:
"farewell speech" of Michel Camdessus, Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). On Feb. 13, 2000, the day before he was
to leave office after 13 years (the longest term of any Managing Director),
Camdessus addressed the Tenth United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development in Bangkok. He said some very radical things.
He started by noting what he called the paradox of the present world
economic situation: "promise - unprecedented prospects in certain fields -
but financial instability and 'exclusion,' the so cruel situation of the
poorest and the anxieties of so many in the world." 
He said we must recognize that "there are serious reasons for this
anxiety." He called on everyone to "recognize that poverty is the 'ultimate
threat' to stability in a globalizing world."
After all the speeches we have had from the IMF and its ideological
consorts about the primacy of growth as an economic objective, Camdessus
now tells us: "It is recognized that the market can have major failures,
that growth alone is not enough, or can even be destructive of the natural
environment or precious social goods and cultural values. Only the pursuit
of high-quality growth is worth the effort."

One last quote:
 "If you think the regime can be persuaded to give up power simply by
arguments, then more power to you.  You can join the ranks of NGO's and
others who are currently pursuing that strategy.  Those efforts, far from
making progress, are steadily losing ground. It's not that I don't like
such an approach, I simply see no practical or theoretical reason to see
any hope for its success."

I agree that arguments alone have no chance. What I suggest is channeling
the efforts of protestors from all over the world into slowly taking over
existing parties and institutions FROM THE GROUND UP. Strategies for such
actions is what ought to be discussed.

Paul