The Global Alternative Economic Programme

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Gernot Köhler (clearly not to be confused with the Managing Director of the
IMF, Horst) responded to my post about Japan with something much more
imaginative than his namesake could have produced.

(I picked the post up only so far on the website and I do not know if it
has also come through the e-mail channels.



> a comment on  Burford's post --
>
> In my opinion, Japan's problems are not only Japan's problems but a world
> system problem. I look at this in a global-Keynesian kind of way. The
> capitalist world system tends to generate more supply than demand. There
> is not enough global effective demand in the world system. (Similar,
> Ernest Mandel)One of the "unimaginable" things that one might want to do
> is: do what Fidel Castro wants - namely, send 1 trillion US dollars per
> year to the Second and Third World for real investment in sustainable
> global development. (Instead of fixing the Japanese with Chinese aggregate
> demand, as you hint, fix it - and other economies - with global effective
> demand.) One third of that to be financed out of Tobin taxes. One third
> out of new SDRs. One third out of reversing unequal exchange (exchange
> rate reform). Or by other financing methods. 1 trillion USD is only about
> 3% of global GDP. This approach would benefit workers in poor and rich
> countries. That is something that the "multitude" (Hardt-Negri) should
> demand from the "empire" (Hardt-Negri) and its "colonial offices/offices
> for native affairs" (IMF/World Bank) along with a general abolition of
> "global apartheid". (This line of reasoning is based, as I said, on the
> view that Japan's problems are not only Japan's problems.)
>
> Gernot Köhler Oakville, Canada


This amounts to an alternative economic programme for the world economy.

If they do not accept a radical reform like this, they will be even more
exposed as theoretically, as well as to a significant degree, financially
bankrupt.

I would like to see people seriously respond to this proposal speedily,
either with constructive criticisms or support. I would like to see it
written up for wider distribution to key networks and individuals on the
internet.

I note that Gernot has presented these ideas before

http://csf.colorado.edu/jwsr/archive/vol5/vol5_number2/html/kohler/

but the time was perhaps not right for the spark to catch. Now world
capitalism is on the defensive both economically and politically.

Objections must be met, target constituencies identified, and tasks to be
pursued in disseminating these ideas in more prorammatic form.

It is important that say, workers in Japan resisting a mere programme of
wage cuts and intensification of labour, have some better programme to
point to, preferably one that unites with the rest of the world.

And if the servants of capital do not accept a major reform like this, then
they will be stoking the fires of revolution within a matter of a few years.

We must treat them with contempt long term, but tactically and shrewdly in
the short term. A minimum of a million dollars severance may to each of
them. It will be cheap at the price.

We must reconcile constituencies and interest groups within the converging
tides of protest.

The marxist objection to Keyensianism might be found in


> "The sum of the values in circulation can clearly not be augmented by any
> change in their distribution, any more than the quantity of the precious
> metals in a country by a Jew selling a Queen Anne's farthing for a guinea."
>
> --- Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Chapter V, "Contradictions in the General
> Formula of Capital", p 163, International Publishers, NY.


"Leaving aside any debate about anti-semitism - and in the context of the
day, I do not think that is an appropriate assumption to hold about Marx,
and I do not know what is obviously a reference specifically - nevertheless
the thrust of the argument here is that the total values in circulation
cannot be increased by simply asserting, plausibly and emphatically, that
they can.

Where Keynesian initiatives might however be logical from a marxist point
of view is when they mobilize into the economy productive forces that have
been stagnating up to this time, which can then create use values and
exchange values comparable to the money fed into the economy, so that the
exchange value of the money does not drop, because it represents a larger
pool of products of labour in the form of commodities. This is more than a
"change in their distribution".

While it has become dangerous for individual national economies to risk
inflation by inappropriate Keynesian measures, the risks are far less in
the world economy. And there are vaste areas of productive forces that are
idle or under utilised because they do not have competitive technology to
attract sales, and in turn permit the accumulation of some profits locally.

So if 1/3 of the total workforce of the world is either unemployed or
underemployed, then Keynesianism is a serious proposal from a marxist point
of view too. It may also be progressive because it relatively dilutes the
power of centralised old capital, and because it places on the agenda the
rational management of the economy, rather than relying on blind
fetishistic forces.

So - who will support this proposal?

What needs to be done, by whom,  when, where, why and with what results?

 And who are the key allies to take advantage of the rapidly developing
agenda up to the IMF/WB meeting at the end of the month?

Chris Burford

London.