|
|
» Newsletter » A Note from the Associate
Editor » About
MONTHLY REVIEW’S November
2002 October 2002 September
2002 July-August 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February
2002 January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July-August 2001 June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001 February
2001 Index to Back Issues
AN
INTERVIEW WITH: |
c o n t e n t s » Among the major countries of the world,
the United States has the highest per capita income, and it is often assumed
therefore that the ordinary American is materially better off than his or her
counterpart anywhere else in the world. In fact, this proposition is
practically taken for granted within U.S. national culture, since it is
constantly being drummed into our ears by the media and educational
institutions. Yet, as a logical proposition it is simply false. This was
recently pointed out by Paul Krugman, a leading mainstream economist and
columnist for the New York Times, in an article (“For Richer,” New
York Times Magazine, October 20, 2002) dedicated to explaining exactly why
this national myth is mistaken. “Life expectancy in the U.S.,”
Krugman observes, “is well below that in Canada, Japan and every major
nation in Western Europe. On the average, we can expect lives a bit shorter
than those of Greeks, a bit longer than those of Portuguese. Male life
expectancy is lower in the U.S. than it is in Costa Rica.” REVIEW
OF THE MONTH Officially Washington's current policy toward Iraq is to bring about a “regime change”—either through a military coup, or by means of a U.S. invasion, justified as a “preemptive attack” against a rogue state bent on developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction.* But a U.S. invasion, should it take place, would not confine its objectives to mere regime change in Baghdad. The larger goal would be nothing less than the global projection of U.S. power through assertion of American dominance over the entire Middle East. What the world is now facing therefore is the prospect of a major new development in the history of imperialism. Challenging
Neoliberal Myths: Representatives of the established order were unprepared for the massive 1999 demonstrations in Seattle against the World Trade Organziation (WTO) and remain on the defensive in the face of the internationally coordinated actions against neoliberal globalization that have followed. On an ideological level, they have responded by seeking to undermine the legitimacy of antiglobalization activists, especially those in the developed capitalist world, by claiming that these activists oppose the very policies and institutions that are in the best interest of the poor in the third world. One example: the former head of the WTO, Mike Moore, declared that "The people that stand outside and say they work in the interests of the poorest people...they make me want to vomit. Because the poorest people on our planet, they are ones that need us the most." EXCHANGE John Saul has had an extensive and committed involvement with Southern Africa. His analyses are taken seriously in left circles in South Africa. Sadly, perhaps understandably, his most recent extended visit to this country has left him feeling deeply disappointed ("Cry for the Beloved Country: The Post-Apartheid Denouement," Monthly Review 52, no. 8, January 2001, pp. 1-51). This sense of disappointment is rooted, I would guess, partly in the intellectual, organizational and even emotional energies that Saul, like many others, invested in the solidarity struggle against apartheid, and in legitimate expectations for a post-apartheid South Africa. There is also, and I want to underline my own empathy with his irritation on this score, a hint of personal hurt: "The most startling thing I personally discovered about the New South Africa is just how easy it has become to find oneself considered an ultraleftist!" (p. 1) This sense of disappointment, even of betrayal, is also present in many progressive circles within South Africa, and indeed among many cadres of our movement. Despite all of this there is, I believe, something seriously off-beam in Saul's analysis. 2. Starting from
Scratch?: It is interesting that, on one of the two main fronts of inquiry opened up in my original essay, Jeremy Cronin professes-despite the wounded tone he adopts throughout and for all his talk about my "frozen penultimates," "sneers," and "derision"-to be in considerable agreement with me. This concerns my reading of the overall trajectory of socioeconomic policy that the African National Congress (ANC) government has adopted since 1994. As he puts the point, "Saul goes on to argue that the ANC liberation front has erred seriously on two critical fronts-the choice of economic policies, and the relative demobilization of our mass constituency (except during electoral campaigns). I agree with Saul on both counts." Indeed, he adds, "I agree substantially with the broad analysis of the last twelve years or so in South Africa that Saul makes in his pessimism of the intellect mode," including, it would appear, my criticisms of the "government's macroeconomic policy (the Growth Employment and Redistribution framework-GEAR), privatization policies, excessive liberalization measures, the failure to mobilize our mass base, or concerns about the growing bureaucratization and the influence of an emerging black bourgeois stratum on policy." BOOK
REVIEW A review of From ACT UP to the WTO: Urban Protest and Community Building in the Era of Globalization edited by Benjamin Shepard and Ronald Hayduk. |
L I N K S :
|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
 About the Editors:
Paul M. Sweezy ·
Harry Magdoff If you have any questions or comments |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
| | Top | About MR| Subscribe | Order Single Issue | Back Issues | MR Press | |
|||||||||||||
All material © copyright 2001-02 by Monthly Review |
|||||||||||||
