Bolivar versus Washington | 73 comments (73 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 1)

The ALCA promotes free trade between nations and the free movement of private capital, while the ALBA promotes regulated and subsidized commerce as well as the strict regulation of transnational corporations. It is a new formulation of the old debates between free trade and protectionism; between "laissez fair" and statism. These problems arise in the debate between the classic and neoclassic economic doctrines, today manifested as neoliberalism and structuralism.
That is as far as I'll go into what is an academic discussion.

I protest, that is not an academic discussion. That (free movement of private capital) is the key economic issue behind the debates on globalisation, and it's all but academic.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 01:31:23 PM EST

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

What I meant, dear sir, is that the discussion into economic doctrines (Ricardian versus neostructuralists) could get a bit thick for what is a diary of this nature. Does that gel with you?

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 01:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (4.00 / 3)

We can do thick and academic.

But I find the identification of socialist policies (let's call them by their true name) with protectionism bizarre.

The so-called free trade economies are more than capable of putting up tariff barriers if they feel it's in their interests. It's as much a capitalist phenomenon as a socialist one.

The core of the issue is whether wealth is concentrated among the very rich or distributed among everyone else. Again, this has nothing to do with protectionism.

It worries me that an academic would believe that it does, because it suggests that his framing is de facto economic and sealed against any other kind of social metric.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 02:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 1)

What is socialism? Is there one all-encompassing definition for socialism? Is it a mode of production? Is it a political party? If the latter is the case, can socialism then exist within a capitalist multiparty context? Can you pinpoint a definition for me? Or perhaps more pertinent is how many countries fit the (or a given) description of "socialist". Case in point - Not all countries that belong to the Socialist International are "socialist", according to a given definition.

Also could you be a bit more specific in what you are referring to. If you are referring to my colleague's article, wherein he states: No hay que ser parte del "núcleo duro" (socialista) para participar en los programas del ALBA, I think he is referring to the nucleus being Cuba and Venezuela. We can also discuss if either of them qualify as "socialist".

I guess in your eyes, I have committed the sin of being an economist. Nevertheless I am perhaps too flexible in my use of hte terminology (which often doesn't jibe well with academics).

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 02:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (4.00 / 2)

You can quibble over terms and dictionary definitions, but the roots of socialism - and communism for that matter - are simple enough. I made it easy by putting them in the next sentence.

Is Chavez a socialist? He has nationalised key industries and redistributed wealth for public benefit, so I'd say yes. He may, or may not be, a dictator. Being a dictator is orthogonal to the socialism/capitalism axis and doesn't deal with that particular question in any direct or useful way.

As for the sin of being economist - the only sin in being an economist is assuming that it's the only useful way to understand how the world works.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 04:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 1)

I'll buy your last sentence.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 04:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 1)

I'll take PayPal. :)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 08:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (4.00 / 2)

As many understand socialism it is first and foremost a political ideology that is deeply rooted in economical theory. In general that is not any different from other political ideologies.

That said socialism is in essence the equal distribution of wealth in society and that has to be done by taking control over the means of production, that is advocating a specific economic system although in different degrees (some people advocate taking absolute control over the means of production others advocate just taking partial, even minimal, control over the means of production: Communism/Marxism vs. Social Democracy).

There are no countries that are members of the Socialist International, only political parties.

And yes, I believe it is possible to have a socialist party advocating and executing socialist policies within a pluralistic political system that have a mixed or capitalist economical system. You just have to be able and willing to differentiate between a political system and the economic system even if the two systems are interdependent.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 04:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

I don't think that Socialism has ever (or can ever)come to terms with the increasing prevalence of "Intellectual Property" and a "Knowledge-based" Society.

How would be spread that "Wealth" around equitably?

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 05:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Redistributive taxation (none / 0)

They (the gov't authority) will reach into your pocket, remove a Euro and give it to Freddy, who doesn't have one.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 05:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Redistributive taxation (none / 0)

You're talking about Income. I'm talking about the Means Of Production, although I guess I should have said so...

Redistribution of Income doesn't get us very far, does it?

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 05:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now there is an interesting dichotomy! (none / 0)

I think Europeans cast the threshold at a different point than do North Americans, no? I mean, "socialism" in America is understood to encompass public ownership of the means of production (even if partial) while excluding the redistributive nature of taxation, while Europeans would include both, no? Furthermore, I don't think Americans would consider Social Security as "socialist". Anyway, my overall impression is that Americans have this aversion to "socialism" that the Europeans don't have.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 06:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now there is an interesting dichotomy! (none / 0)

I think that perhaps the defining feature of the North American / "Western" model is the attitude to individual "ownership" and private property rights.

More than any other aspect. And this appears to me to be entirely consistent with what you say.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 06:35:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

Well, you are right that socialism is an ideology that emerged in a society were commodities were touchable. In todays society when knowledge/education and service is an ever increasing "commodity" some would say that this makes some of the old political ideologies irrelevant. I do not think so. As long as knowledge and services can be converted into money and hard currency the old rules still apply. One aim, is the equal and free distribution of education, another is to redistribute the tax revenues the state gets to the lesser fortunate in society.

As long as knowledge generates money they can be redistributed.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 06:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Economic "miscegenation" rules! (none / 1)

Precisely my point. In fact there does not exist pure (or perfect or absolute) socialism nor capitalism, for that matter. We are a product of both and there are elements of socialism and capitalism in all economies. Who, then, sets the thresholds?

By the way, thanks for correcting my mistake on the SI.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 05:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 1)

But I find the identification of socialist policies (let's call them by their true name) with protectionism bizarre.

One of the key points made by Polanyi in questioning market fundamentalism, was the protectionism is natural, while lazziez faire is planned. Which is to say the lazziez faire can only occur under a set of conditions where things like the limited liability company, strong contract law, and stable property rights exist.

So lazziez faire requires state intervention in order to exist. Can you imagine the cost if the limited liability insurance provided by governments to publically owned companies had to underwritten by private insurers? Or would they even be able to find an insurer willing to take that risk at any cost?

Remember that socialism and protectionism come from much the same place, social self defense against the tendency of the market to break all things down to matters of maxmizing utility regardless of the human cost.

It's the triumph of the formal over the substantive (Weber), so that unmitigated capitalism falls prey to sacrifice the human aspect of life in pursuit of ideological goals.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 02:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

Protectionism assumes there's such a thing as a nation state, and that introducing barriers to trade will increase the prosperity of a state. Except to the extent that a political mechanism exists by which barriers can be agreed and enforced, it has nothing specific to say about the internal politics of that state.

That's why I found the assumption bizarre. Even if there are historical reasons for assuming they come from the same place - which I think is a fair point, even if I don't agree that the reasons are all that relevant today - there's still the problem that we're really talking about a complicated collection of issues here.

Simple trade tariffs and capital extraction are only notionally connected. You can certainly have either without the other, and you can find either or both within nation states that tend towards progressive politics.

The underlying point is that thinking solely in terms of free trade vs laissez faire is a somewhat old fashioned world view when capital is bouncing around the planet at near instantaneous speeds.

"Will my CD player cost me an extra 3%?' is much less relevant to local and world politics than 'Who profits from the profit on it?'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 04:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Regarding this point (none / 0)

The underlying point is that thinking solely in terms of free trade vs laissez faire is a somewhat old fashioned world view when capital is bouncing around the planet at near instantaneous speeds.

I agree and would go one step further to add "interest groups" and hence politics to the whole equation. The US, for example, champions free trade in the information and knowledge intensive sectors while showing itself very reluctant (along with Europe) to do the same in the agricultural sector (which is of prime importance to many poor developing countries).

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 05:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Regarding this point (none / 0)

...champions free trade in the information and knowledge intensive sectors while showing itself very reluctant (along with Europe) to do the same in the agricultural sector...

There may be a natural reflex, as in being able to feed ones self, involved here.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 07:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Regarding this point (none / 0)

You mean we can't eat dollars (or euros?)

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 08:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Regarding this point (none / 0)

Point taken, but there's no denying the US and EU subsidies are hurting the Third World.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 09:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Regarding this point (none / 0)

The US and EU champions "free trade" with our rules to protect our advantage (also known as TRIPS) in the information and knowledge intensive sectors. If it can be done with the agricultural sector (patented GMO crops), then there will be "free trade" in that area too.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 08:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is the subsidies (none / 1)

in the US and EU, that are unfair.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 09:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is the subsidies (4.00 / 2)

Of course they are. EU and US promotes unfair trade - that is, trade that is advantageos to EU and US - in all sectors. It is just a bit harder to do in the agricultural sector and still promote it as "free trade", so it ends up glaring obvious.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 07:23:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

Hopefully we can find a way to talk about the difference between ALCA and ALBA in terms other than "Ricardian vs. Structuralist". And free movement of capital is not Ricardian.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 06:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

Its funny that the discussion (so far) turned out to be precisely what I was trying to avoid (too theoretical).

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 07:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (4.00 / 3)

Welcome to ET, would you rather this thread be filled with pictures of cats as had become the norm at some other sites?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 07:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ROFLMAOTIME!!! N/T (none / 0)

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 07:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ROFLMAOTIME!!! N/T (none / 0)

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 07:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

free movement of capital is not Ricardian

Neither is it Heckscher-Ohlinian either, although there are versions ...

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 07:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bolivar versus Washington (none / 0)

It seems all these models assume full employment.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 04:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Full employment (none / 0)

along with a heap load of other unrealistic assumptions. Notice that "market failure" never makes it into any of them?

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 12:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bolivar versus Washington | 73 comments (73 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

by gmoke - Nov 28

Clean Energy Wire's Fact Sheet on Upcoming Dutch Election

by gmoke - Nov 12
7 comments

Top Diaries

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

Clean Energy Wire's Fact Sheet on Upcoming Dutch Election

Recent Diaries

Stoltenberg: A Big Win for Ukraine

Mark Rutte: Using the Nation to Become Secretary General

December 2023

Netanyahu Tells Biden Fu*k Off

Keeping Up with COP28

A Sort-a Truce Extended 24 Hours

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

NeXiT the Trump Era of Dutch PM Wilders

Erasure of Palestinians the Zionist Dream

21st Century Pax Americana and Violence

Dublin Far Right Riots After Knife Attack

Clean Break From Peace to War

Woodrow Wilson's Collapse and the Peace Movement

A Children's Sing-Along Annihilate Everyone In Gaza

Xi - Joe Launch a New Communication Probe

The Israeli War Hoax of 40 Beheaded Babies

If Palestinians Are 'Animals'? What Are the Israelis?

Gaza Atrocities and the UN Fail

Clean Energy Wire's Fact Sheet on Upcoming Dutch Election

Broadening the War to Lebanon and Syria-Iraq

Occasional Series