Part 5: AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL: DELINKING

Part 5:  AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL: DELINKING 

I use here the term "delinking" that I proposed half a century ago, a term that contemporary discourse appear to have substituted with the synonym "de-globalization". I have never conceptualised delinking as an autarkic retreal, but rather as a strategic reversal in the face of both internal and external forces in response to unavoidable requirement for self-determined development. Delinking promotes the reconstruction of a globalization based on negotiation, rather than submision to the exclusive interest of the imperial monopolies. It also makes possible the reduction of international inequalities.

Delinking is necessary because the measures advocated in the tw, the imperialism of the Triad, forced to retreo previous sections can never really be implemented at the global scale, or never at regional level (e.g. Europe). They can only be initiated in the context of State-Nations with advanced radical social and political struggles commited to a process of socialization of management of their economy.

Imperialism, in the form that it took until just the end of Second War world, had created the contrast between industrialized imperialist centers and dominated periferies where industries where prohibited. The victories of national liberation movements began the process of industrialization of the periferies, through the implementation of delinking policies required for the options of self reliant development. Associated with social reforms that were at time radical, these delinkings create the conditions for the eventual "emergence" of those countries that have gone furthest in this direction -China leading the pack, of course.

But the imperialism of the current era, the imperialism of the TRIAD forced to retreat and "adjust itself " to the conditions of this new era, re-build itself on new fundations based on "advantage" by which it sought to hold on  to the privilege of exclusivity that I have classify in five categories. the control of:

-technology

-access to natural resources of the planet

-global integration of the monetary and financial systems

-Systems of communication and information

-Weapons of mass destruction 

 

The main form of delinking today is thus defined by the cha, llenge of these five privileges of contemporary imperialism. Emerging countries are engaged on delinking from these five privileges, with varying degrees of conrtrol and self determination, of course. While early success over the past two decades of delinking enable them to accelerate their development, in particular to industrial development with the liberal system using "capitalist means". This success has fueled delusions about the possibility of continuing on this path, that is to say, emerging as new "equal capitalist partners". The attempt to "coopt" the most pretigious of these countries with the creation of G20 has encourage these ilusions.

By which the current ongoing implosion of the 'imperialist system' (called 'globalization') these ilussions are likely to dissipate. The conflict between  imperialist powers of the TRIAT and emerging countries is already visible AND IS EXPECTED TO WORSEN. If they want to move forward, the societies of the emerging countries will be forced to turn more toward self reliance modes of development through national plans and by strengchening South-South cooperation.

Audacity, under such circumstances involve engaging vigorously and coherently toward this end, bringing together the required measured of delinking with the desired advances in social progress

The goal of these radicalization is threefold:  the democratization of society, the consequent social progress achieved and the taking of anti-imperialist position. A commitment to this direction is possible, not only for societies in emerging countries, but also in the re-colonized through structural adjustment programs of the 1980s. Their people are now in open revolt, wheter they have already scored victories (South America) or not (in the Arab world).

Audacity hear means that the radical left in these societies must have the encourage to take measures of the challenges that they face and to support the continuation and radicalization of the necessary struggles that are in progress. 

The delinking of the south prepares de way for the deconstruction of the imperialis system itself. This is particularly apparent in areas affected by the management of the global monetary and financial system since there is the result of the 'hegemony of the dollar'

But be wared: it is an ilussion to expect substitute for this system "another world monetary and financial system" that is better balanced and favorable to the development of the peripheries. As always the search of "a consensus" over international reconstruction from above is mere wishful thinking aking to waiting for a miracle. 

What is on the agenda now is the deconstruction of the existing system -its implosion-and reconstruction of national alternative systems ( for countries, or continents or regions) as some projects in South America has already begun. Audacity here is to have the courage to move forward with the strongest determination possible, without too much worry about the reaction of imperialism. (the frame of Hegel come to mind: de pienso luego existo is replaced by actuo luego existo).

The same problematic of delinking/dismantling is also of relevance in Europe which is a subset of globalization dominated by monopolies. It is thus obvious that here there is not alternative to audacity. Disobeying the rules imposed  by the "european constitution" and the imaginary Central bank of the Euro is just imagination. Though it is unavoidable pre-requisite for the eventual reconstruction of 'another europe' of peoples and nations.

In conclusion: audacity, more audacity, always audacity. What I mean for audacity is therefore:

(1) for the radical left in societies of the imperialist triad, the need for an engagement in the building of an alternative anti-monopoly social block  

(2) for the radical left in societies of the peripheries to engage in the builging of an alternative ANTI-COMPRADOR social block

It will take time to make pogress in building these blocks but it could well acelerate if the radical left takes on movement with determination and engage of making progress on long road to socialism. It is therefore necessary to propose 'strategies' not out of the crisis of capitalism.

We are in a crucial period of history. The only legitimacy of capitalism is to have created the conditions for passing on to socialism understood as a higher stage of civilization. The none radical left are in fact none strategies. They are merely adjustment to the implosion of the capitalist system.

The none radical left will not stop the triumph of capitalist barbarism.

Audacity is what is necessary  to bring about the automn of capitalism that will announce the implosion of current system and by the births of an authentic spring of the people, a spring that is really possible.

 

 

Part 4 DE-FINANTIALIZATION: A WORLD WITHOUT WALL STREET

Part 4

DE-FINANTIALIZATION: A WORLD WITHOUT WALL STREET

 Nationalisation/ Socialism of Monopolies would and in an itself abolish the principle "shareholder value" imposed by the strategy of accumulation in the service of monopoly rents. This objective is essential for any bold agenda to escape the roots in which the management of today economy is mired. Its implementation pulls the rag out from under the feet of the fictionalization of management of the economy. Are we returning to the famous "euthanasia of the rentier" advocated by Keynes in his time?. Not necessarily and certainly not completely. Savings can be encouraged by financial rewards, but on condition that their origin (household saving of workers, business, communities) and their conditions of earning are precisely defined. The discourse on macroeconomic savings in conventional economic theory hides the organization of exclusive access to the capital market of the monopolies. The so called "market driven remuneration" is then nothing other than the means of guarantee the grows of monopoly rents.

Of course the nationalization/ socialization of monopolies also applies to banks, at least the major ones. But the socialization of their intervention("credit policies") has specific characterirstics that requires an appropriate design in the Constitution of the the directorates. Nationalization in the classical sense of the term implies only the substitution of the states of the boards of directors formed by private share holders. This would permit in principle, the i,plementation of banks credit policies formulated by the State - which is not small thing. But it is certainly not suficient when we consider that socialization required the direct  participation in he managment of the bank by relevant social partners. Here the "self-managnkingement of the banks' by the relevan social partners. Here the 'self management' of the banks by their staff would not be appropriate. The staff concerned should be certainly involve in decistions about their working conditions, but little else, because it not the place to determine the credit policies to be implemented.

If the directorate must deal with the conflicts of interest of thos who provide loans (the banks) and thouse who receive them (the "enterprises") the formula for the composition of directorates must be designed taking into account what the enterprises are and what they required. A restructuring of the banking system whisch has became overly centralized since the regulatory frameworks of the past two centuries were abandoned over the past four decades.

There is a strong argument to justify the reconstruction of banking specialization according to the requirements of the recipients of the credits as well as their economic function (provision of short term liquidity contributing to the financing of investment in the medium and long term). We could then for example create an 'agricultural bank' or a coordinated ensemble of agricultural banks whose clientele is not only of farmers and peasants but those involve in the 'upstream and down extreme of the agriculture described above. The bank 'directorate would involve in the one hand the bankers (staff officers of the banks who would have recruited by the directorate) and other clients (farmers, peasants and other upstream and downstream entities).

The de-finacialization of economic managment would also requires two set of legislation. The first concern the authority of a sovereig State to ban speculative funds (hedge funds) operation in the territory. The second concern pension funds which are now major operators in the financialization of the economic system. These funds were designed -first in the US of course to transfer to employees the risks normally incurred by capital, and which are the reasons invoked to justify capital 'remunerations'!. SO, this is scandalous arrangement, in clear contradiction even with the ideological defense of capitalism!  But this 'invention" is an ideal instrument for the strategies of accumulation dominated by monopolies .

The abolition of pension funds is necesary for the benefit of distributed pension systems, which by the nature required and allow democratic debate to determine the amounts and periods of assesment and the relationship between the amount of pensions and remuneration paid. In a democracy that respect social rights these pension systems are universally available to all workers. However, at a pinch, and so as not to prohibit what a group of individuals might desire to put in place, suplementary pensions funds could be allowed.

All measure of de-financialization sugested here lead to an obvious conclusion:  A WORLD WITHOUT  WALL STREET, to borrow the littlle of the book of Francois Morin, IS POSSIBLE AND DESIRABLE!

In a world without wall street  the economy is still largely controlled by the Market. But these markets are for the first time truly transparent, regulated by democratic negotiation among genuine social partners. For the first time also they are not longer adversaries as they are necessary under capitalism. It is the "financial market" opaque by nature and subjected to requirement of management for the benefit of the monopolies- that is abolished. We could even explore whether it could be useful or not to shut down the stock exchanges, given that the rights of property, both in their private as well as social form would be conduced "differently". We could even consider wheter the stock exchange could be re-established to this new end. The symbol in case "a world without Wall Street" nevertheless retain its power.

De-fictionalization certainly does not mean the abolition of macro-economic policy and in particular the macro management of credit. On the contrary, it restore its efficiency by freeing it from ita subyugation to the strategies of rent-seeking monopolies. The restorations of the powers of the national central bank not longer "independent" but dependent on both the State and markets regulated by the democratic negotiation of social partners, gives the formulation of macro credit policy its effectiveness in the service of socialized management of the economy.

Part 5:  AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL: DELINKING 

 

WRONG AND RIGHT WAYS TO FIGHT IMPERIAL POWER

 

WRONG AND RIGHT WAYS TO FIGHT IMPERIAL POWER

WRONG AND RIGHT WAYS TO FIGHT IMPERIAL POWER

Part One: ORIGINAL TITLE:

WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE BEEN PROPOSED?

By Authors:

Aurelien Bernier : Desobeisson a l’ Union Europeenne; Les mille et Une nuits, 2011

and Jacques Nikonoff:  Sortir  de :’euro : Les mille et une nuits, 2011

( I guess they are 2 socialists from Europe)

(To make more attractive this reading I divided the full article in parts and put a new title:

WRONG AND RIGHT WAYS TO FIGHT IMPERIAL POWER

I placed some comments at the end, meanwhile I placed: First wrong response, second, third ++ resp.

 

First wrong response: “MARKET REGULATION” (financial & others). These are initiatives that monopolies & governments claim they are pursuing. In fact it is only empty rhetoric designed to mislead public opinion. These initiatives can’t stop the mas rush for financial return that is the result of  the logic of accumulation controlled by monopolies. They are therefore  a false alternative.

Second wrong response: a return to the past-war models. These response feed a triple nostalgia:

(1)    The rebuilding of a true  “social Democracy” in the West

(2)    The resurrections of “socialisms” founded on the principles that governed have in the twenty century in Europe

(3)    The return to formulas of popular nationalism found in the peripheries of the South.

These nostalgias imagine it is possible to “roll back” monopoly capitalism, forcing its regress to what is was in 1945 ( at the end of big recession: 1939-1945, that was the time of FDR in America). But history in Europe never allow such return to the past. So, capitalism must by confronted as it is today. Not as we would have wished by imagining the blocking of its evolution. However these longings  continue to haunt large segments of the left throughout the world.

Third wrong response, the hypocritical one: the search for ‘HUMANIST CONSENSUS’, I define this illusion as PIOUS WISH in the following way: the illusion of consensus among conflictive interest feed the interest of rich people, especially if they are religious persons. Some people called theocratic and racist-etnocratic manipulation of minds. Other people called naïve ‘ecology movement’ to those who profit from this ilusion. (The current Pope was accused of this aberration by one lady from South America who accuse him of this hypocrisy in a Vatican meeting “You help the neonazi movement in Chile against the elected – socialist government of Allende. You are neo-nazi, she said to him in public.) His humanist consensus was destroyed.

Four wrong response, The illusion of the past. Decir que el pasado explica el presente sin invocar lo especifico y las diferencias del  context lleva a un tipo de culturalismo equivocado que solo puede ser aceptado por las Iglesias y sectores etnocraticos o racistas que no tienen un apice de amor por la democracia, y la Libertad de expression. Este tipo de culturalism solo sirve a los duenios del poder economico y politico en el pais.

Fifth wrong  bias: the false priority of personal freedom. Soy “democrata” y eso me crea Libertad para ocultar mi fraude electoral. Al argumento y discurso que estos lanzan en la prensa nacional se le atribuye “supreme value”  y quien quiera discutirlo puede ser enjuiciado por financistas. Esta forma de manipular la democracia , la desacredita y reduce el status de la democracia a una ‘tragic farce’. Esto conduce a la violencia bi-partidaria y al possible separatism de Estados y regions frente a la Union Federal. En el US hoy vivimos este problema y la Victoria o derrota de los REPS en las elecciones de NOV para el Congreso puede crear base para el caos politico porque inmediatamente pedirian la renuncia de Biden.

 

QUE HACER?

Esta claro que el futuro de America no depende del pasado, depende de los comntextos politicos, sociales y economicos que hoy enfrentamos.

Quiza el FRAME DE HEGEL: LOS 4 TRIANGULOS del mismo tamanio contenidos  en UNO, PODRIA AYUDAR

See Hegel Frame.

En este frame el triangulo de arriba es el ESTADO donde la democ-vs- dictadura lo define la constitucion

El 2do triungulo es la Sociedad con clases sociales y elites que negocian status para sobrevivir

En el tercer y 4to triangulo contiene la realidad subjetiva (pienso luego existo) y la realidad objetiva (actuo luego existo). Este fue el esquema de analisis y accion usado por los Europeos y es el frame que yo use como Profesor de Sociologia en Peru.

Mi catedra se llamo SISTEMS THEORY y el frame de Hegel lo disemine en varias universidades de Peru-Chile

Entonces lance la propuesta de 3ra opcion politica para el US. A esta 3ra opcion habria que entregar el 20% del poder politico para romper con el Viejo Sistema duopolico (REPS and DEMS) que hoy conduce al caos en las elecciones para el congreso en Nov (si ganan los REPS para el congreso desconocen al Presidente Biden) y peor aun para las elecciones a President el 2024.

Si se introduce la 3ra opcion, el 2doPartido mas votado se llevaria el 30%  y el Pdo ganador se lleva el 50%, cualquiera sea el # de votos obtenidos. Esto requiere cambiar el Sistema electoral y es muy dificil que esto ocurra pues no se quiere evitar al caos que viene. No se quiere abandonar el Viejo Sistema Duopolico que conduce al desastre total

Si se reforma el Sistema electoral No importaria el numero real de votos obtenidos: LO QUE HABRIA QUE SALVAR ES LA UNIDAD NACIONAL y asi  lograr el optimo-paretiano: LA RECONCILIACION NACIONAL Pero esto  requiere modificar la ley electoral. El como hacerlo no es el problema de fondo, el porque hacerlo si es lo que importa.

 

SO, WHAT IS TO BE DONE Part 2

HERE SOME AUDACIOUS PROGRAMS FOR THE RADICAL LEFT done by original authors

I will organize the following general proposals under three heading:

1-Socialize the ownership of monopolies

2-De-financialise the management of the economy

3-De-globalise international relation. Socialize the ownerships of monopolies

 

The effectiveness of the alternative response necessarily requires the questioning of the very principal of private property of monopoly capital. Proposing to “regulate” financial operations, to return markets to ‘transparency’ to allow “agents expectation” to be rational’ and to define the terms of a consensus on these reforms without abolishing the private property of monopolies, is nothing other than throwing dust in the eyes of the naïve public. Monopolies are asking to “manage” reforms against their interests, ignoring the fact that they retain  THOUSAND  and one ways to circumvent the objective of such reforms.

The alternative social project should be to reverse the direction of the current social order produced by strategies of monopolies, in order to ensure decent wages growing in parallel with the productivity of social labor. This objective is simply impossible without the expropriation of the power of monopolies.

The “software of economic theories” must be reconstructed (in the words of Francois Morin). The absurd legal action is and the impossible of economic theory of “expectations” expels democracy from the management of economic decision making.  Audacity in this instance requires radical reform of education for training not only economists but also all those called to occupy management positions.

Monopolies are institutional bodies that must be managed according to the principles of democracy, in direct conflict with those who sanctify private property. Although the term “commons” imported from the Anglo-Saxon world, is itself ambiguous because always disconnected from the debate on the meaning of social conflicts (Anglo-Saxon language deliberately ignores the reality of social classes) the term could be invoked here specifically to call monopolies part of the “commons”.

The abolition of the private ownership of monopolies take place through their nationalization. The first legal action is unavoidable. But audacity here means going beyond that step to propose plans for the socialization of the management of nationalized monopolies and the promotion of social struggles yhat are engaged on this long road.

I will give here a concrete example of what could be invoked in plans of socialization. Capitalist farmers in developed countries, like ‘peasant farmers’ (mostly in the South) are prisoners of both the upstream monopolies that provide inputs and credits and the downstream ones of which they depend for processing, transportation and marketing of their products.. Therefore they don’t have real autonomy in their ‘decitions’. In addition, the productivity gains they made are siphoned off by monopolies that have reduced producers to the status of ‘subcontractors’. What a possible alternative?

Public institutions working withing a legal framework that would set the mode of governance must replace the monopolies. This would be constituted of representatives of :

1-farmers (the principle interest)

2-upstream units (manufacturing of inputs, banks) and downstream (food industry, retail chains) and

3-consumers

4-Local authorities (interested in natural and social environments: schools such as, hospitals, urban planning and housing, transportation)

5- THE State (citizens)

 

PART THREE :

Representatives of the components listed above would be self-selected according to procedures consistent with the own mode of socialized management, such as units of production of inputs that are themselves management by directorates of workers directly employed by the units concerned as well as those who are employed by the subcontracting unit and so on. These structures should be defined by formulas that associate management personnel with each of these levels, such as research centers for scientific, independent and appropriate technology. We can even conceive of a representation of capital providers ( the small “shareholders”) inherited from the nationalization, if deemed useful.

We are therefore talking about institutional approaches that are more complex than the form of “self-directed” or cooperative that we have known.  Ways of working need to be invented that allow the exercise of genuine democracy in the management of the economy, based on open negotiation among all interested parties. A formula is required that systematically links the democratization of society with social progress, jn contrast with the reality of capitalism which dissociate , which es reduced to the formal management of politics, from social conditions abandoned to the “market” dominated by what monopoly capital produces. Then ansd only then can we talk about true transparency of markets, regulated in institutionalized forms of socialized management.

The example may seem marginal in the developed capitalist countries because farmers are the very small proportion of workers (3-7 percent). However, this issue is central to the South where the rural population will remain significant for some time. Here access to land, which must be guaranteed for all  (with the least possible inequality of access) is fundamental to principles advancing peasant agriculture (I refer here to my previous work on the question “peasant agriculture” (or traditional and folkloric). The necessary progress of peasant agriculture does require some modernization (although this term is a misnomer because it immediately suggest modernization via capitalism) . More effective inputs, credits and supply changes are necessary to improve the productivity of peasant labor. The formulas proposed here pursue the objective of enabling these modernization in ways an in spirit  that is ‘non capitalist’, that is to say grounded in a socialist perspective.

Obviously the specific example chosen here is one that need to be institutionalized. The nationalization/ socialization  of the management of monopolies in the sectors of industry and transport, banks and other financial institutions should be imagined in the same spirit while talking into account the spicifities of their economic and social functions in the constitution of their directorates. Again these directorates should involve the workers in the company as well as those subcontractors, representatives of up-stream industries, banks, research institutions, consumers and citizens.

The nationalization/socialization of monopolies address a fundamental need at the central axis of the challenge confronting workings and people under contemporary capitalism  of generalized monopolies. Its is the only way to stop the accumulation by dispossession that id driven the management of the economy by monopolies.

The accumulation dominated by monopolies can indeed only reproduce  itself in the area subject to “market management” is constantly expanding. This is achieved by excessive privatization of public services (dispossession of citizens) , and access to natural resources (dispossession of citizens) and access to natural resources (dispossession of people). The extraction of profit ’independent’ economic units by the monopolies is even dispossession (of capitalist!) by the financial oligarchy.

 

Part 4

DE-FINANTIALIZATION: A WORLD WITHOUT WALL STREET

 

UKRAINE SUFFER A WAR BETWEEN RU & US-NATO

UKRAINE SUFFER A WAR BETWEEN RU & US-NATO

AT THE COST OF CIVILIAN POPULATION

 

By Hugo Adan

Director of NUEVA DEMOCRACIA

Octubre 13, 2022

 

1 At political level the Russia victory was the DEMOCRATIC CONSULTATION TO THE NATION VIA REFERENDUM

2 At military level Russia capture the main nuclear site of Ukraine

3 But the bombing and sabotage of Russian points was responding by affecting civilian population. Why? Because US-NATO used clinics, hospitals, schools and other civilian sites to attack and bomb RU soldiers.

4 The main victory of US-NATO was to use UN and other related institutions to isolate Russia with horrendous false stories of abusing kids and women. This ‘victory’ in the global press  have not real base. It was a relative false victory based on UN treason to their main task: to fight for dismantle of nuclear weapons at world level. How much money they receive for this treason? Nobody knows yet.

5 The FUTURE OF UKRAINE  depends on military destruction of US-NATO mercenaries. They control the nuke site of POLAND and they threat to use it against Russia. IF happens, WW3 will START. How to capture this nuke site either by Russia or by UN delegates, is one of the sources of REAL FUTURE  FDOR UKRAINE

6 The option is to force UN to negotiate a PACT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND US-NATO to dismantle the Nuke site captured by RU and the nuke site in POLAND. Then we say that the UN really exist and PEACE WILL COME TO UKEAINE. The REST IS EASY TO NEGOTIATE.