On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> returning to the net, my answers to Bruce McFarling criticisms and questions:
>
> Bruce:
> > In this case, the 'social disaster' that Cuba has
> > experienced has been to be a bit poorer and a bit healthier,
> > under a government that is from a bit to a lot more authoritarian,
> > depending on the Caribbean country it is being compared to. And
> > the substantial difference between the post-Castro and pre-Castro
> > comparison is the part about Cubans being a bit healthier than
> > comparable neighboring countries, because it was both poorer and
> > more authoritarian than average before it adopted the "communistic
> > isolate" strategy.
> sure Cuba was not a real isolate but Soviet satellit (this Communistic
> w-empire was as I believe, following D.Chirot, was isolated in many
> aspects from world cap. economy.) One should take into account
> enormous economic aid of USSR to Cuba.
Just as, when considering the cases of Rep. Korea and Taiwan
one should take into account the economic aid of USA to these formerly
'frontline' states.
> At the same time I confess that the custom for anti-reading of
> Soviet ideological information (in this case on pre-Castro regime)
> played a bad joke here with me.
The best (as in most effective) propaganda has a substantial
element of truth mixed in. The pressing poverty of the majority of
the Cuban people contrasted to the wealth of a small elite is part
of the truth component of the mix. On the other hand, I don't know
of any evidence that the Castro regime has solved the problem of
succession, so to me the questions are how the post-Castro regime
maintains some of the good that Castro's government did against
the pressure that can be expected from the United States to
throw the baby out with the bathwater, and how Cuba re-integrates with
the economies of the rest of the Caribbean.
> Bruce:
> > The question *does*
> > presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank /
>
> no, it presupposes only that all main capital and respectable international
> resources should be envolved into new wide humanistic-oriented coalition, why
> not IMF besides all others?
What you claim is the only presupposition *still* presupposed that
this development is possible *with* the IMF / World Bank / etc. Because,
if the participation of these institutions is antagonistic to development,
then that is reason enough that they should be excluded. To label them as
'resources' doesn't address the question of what they are resources *for*.
What do we make of an institution faced with a small island nation of
about 100,000 people, with both imports and exports at about 50% of its
GDP, who advises that the nation should reduce barriers to trade and
increase its degree of openness, and if it does not it will not recieve
the IMF 'stamp of approval' and access to international credit that goes
with it? It is an open question whether or not it can be used for
development, but if it someone wishes to argue that it can, it seems that
they should specify how the IMF is going to be reformed to take up such a
different role from the one they presently play.
> > TNC's etc, and the track record in that respect is not very strong.
> > Regarding the East Asian countries that are cited above as providing
> > examples of the potential available to peripheral countries, it is
> > arguable whether they did so by working with IMF / WorldBank / TNC
> > 'development policy', or by working around it.
> really no, the fortunate constellation of historical, geopolitical, and
> cultural factors helped them
Yes. So that it is quite possible this constellation of factors
helped them work around the obstacles presented by the IMF / WordlBank /
TNC 'development policy'. For example, their ability to go around the
back of the multi-national economic institutions to the US, and plead a
special case to the U.S. State Department: if the intervention of the US
for geopolitical reasons is required to overrule the normal decisions of
the multi-national economic institutions in order to permit support for an
effective development policy, that sounds like the multinational
institutions are obstacles that must be overcome. One way to provide the
some of the same benefit to nations that are in positions with less
leverage is to eliminate the obstacles altogether.
> it is really so, as I pointed in my book 'the structure of
> civilization...1992' the reason is that periphery needs not (only)
> money but accepting new social and cultural patterns (education,
> infra-structure, life-style, political culture, legal culture, etc).
> without aid of this type no money (from IMF or elsewhere) will help
Precisely. But it does not follow that *any* type of new social
and cultural patterns will do the job: in fact, the difficulties faced by
different nations suggest that the effective combinations are likely to be
far outnumbered by the ineffective combinations. And it therefore does
not follow that the new social and cultural patterns that will be promoted
by the IMF / WorldBank / TNC / etc. multi-national economic institutions
are social and cultural patterns that will help. Since it does not
follow, it is a point that must be established in order to support the
argument that the IMF / WorldBank / TNC / etc. multi-national economic
institutions can be useful as resources for economic development policy.
And that is a point that must be established in order to support a call
for to draw on the 'resources' of the IMF / WorldBank / TNC / etc.
muti-national economic institutions in support of development. Labelling
them as resources does not automatically qualify them as useful in the
development process.
>...
> there some favorite for IMF examples (Hana, Tanzania) but I am not an expert
> here and by no means I am a proponent of IMF (its policy of opening Russia
> only for grasping by the West her raw resources seems to me revolting)
> at the same time I see no serious counter-arguments why not to consider
> IMF as one of potential members of new humanistic coalition
I'm not arguing against considering it: I'm simply arguing that
since the proposal is to include a system of economic institutions that
are not *presently* playing that role, the position that they can be
reformed to play that role cannot be taken on faith. That positions
requires presentation of *how* these institutions will be reformed to
play this role.
> has IMF humanistic demagogy? yes, and so it is possible to play on it
I don't see the relevance of the IMF demagogy. The folkviews
that are prevalant in an institution regarding what it is doing and why,
and the actual impact of the institution, are not always closely
related. How do you propose to play on IMF 'humanistic demagogy' to
modify the structure of the institution?
> once again, Bruce, why not to discuss principal problems of ways of
> moving to more humanistic future?
Some would argue that the system of multi-national economic
institutions including the IMF, WorldBank, Trans-National Corporations,
and others *are* one of the principle problems. You are supposing that
they can be reformed to provide part of the solution. I can't address
your argument that they can be reformed in this way until I see it.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au