Dear Bruce,
your question is quit legal
> Some would argue that the system of multi-national economic
>institutions including the IMF, World Bank, 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
I shared our dialogue with a friend who proved your position telling about
deplorable results of IMF activity in Africa (f.e. Mosambique): deepening
social gap, bloody conflicts, etc
He also noted that IMF is just an instrument of the system and
the agenda is how to change the system, not instrument. I agree.
This point makes our discussion very close to the thread of Wagar/Chase-Dunn
w-party. See my sketch of principal strategy 'how to change the system'
in my recent answer to Chris.
At the same time 'reforming an instrument'(say, IMF) can and should be ,
from my viewpoint, one of partial activities in this strategy.
What I mean here, can be named "an academic monitoring of international
institutions' policies".
The main task is to organize a regular comparing of
real results of these activities in various countries with proclaimed goals
and philosophy of given institution.
The left tradition is to make this work a crushing critique of
'an obstacle for progress'. According to the approach of 'splitting elites'
and 'new-coalition-making,' that I keep trying to promote in wsn, I suggest to
"pack up" this monitoring as a cooperation, an academic responsible aid
(non-excluding definitely addressed criticisms).
As far as I know experts of very high range (mainly from Harvard,
London School of Economics, etc) do their best in IMF. It seems they know
nothing of WST, at best they take it as one of many left post-Marxist approaches
that can be neglected. This attitude should be changed after meeting with
well-based theoretically and empirically analyses of their activities.
Their work in IMF is temporal (not more than 3? years).
They are all very anxious of their future career,
their names, etc. That's why I think these folks cannot neglect such academic
initiative, because without communication and cooperation the public effect
of such monitoring can occur very troublesome for them personally.
First it can be a project based on Internet (Web) resources, then direct
contacts with IMF should be arranged, then publications in academic and
later mass journals, TV, newspapers, etc should be planned.
Evidently sooner or later the effect of 'instrumentality' will enter
into play, i.e. TNC, intern. banks, main core powers (see the last msgs of
R.Moore with whom I mostly agree) and other elites will try
to stop or block up this academic control of their instrument of
world dominance. But one may expect also that some of these forces find this
activity profitable for their internal competition, for publicity and academic
support of their policies, etc. Here I remind my old thesis that
world capitalism is not a monolith and we must seek and use all possibilities
for splitting the elite of world political-economic power.
Surely, nor I, neither anybody can guarantee the efficiency of cooperation
between officials of intern.institutions (say,IMF) and WS experts. But the
general principles of conflict resolution (formulated by K.Boulding if
I remember well) tell that direct communication between conflicting sides is
almost always more preferable than their isolate activities (usually connected
with mutual irritation, misunderstanding, hatred and longing to crash
'the obstacle').
I realize that I have not answer 'how to change IMF' as a thing, because it
is not a mere thing, it consist of people with their own subjectivity and
image of situation and of their work.
I suggested the form of communication and maybe cooperation
(no wonder of appearance of research grants for this work) with them.
my best regards
Nikolai
PS Thank you Bruce for support and sophisticated development of
the idea of using already existing regional unions in the way to more peaceful
and humanistic world order. Your idea of non-overlapping of fields of interests
between core powers is very strong. Great.
not all but
'new' part of members of this institution (the princile of elite-splitting).
Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy
Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html