From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Fri Mar 18 2005 - 08:36:36 EST
Alejandro:
See http://www.worldbankpresident.org for some other related stories
on this topic.
Over on PEN-L, Patrick Bond wrote:
> [...] what about those of us -- I'm surely not the only one -- who consider this
> appointment a delightful turn of events?
> There are plenty of us:
> * who would delegitimize the World Bank and will have a much easier time of it now;
Patrick even went on to claim that Wolfowitz was an "excellent choice for WB
president."
Easier time of it now? This strikes me as fanciful thinking reminiscent of the
"Nach Hitler, Uns!" ("After Hitler, Us") 1932 KPD policy. The idea is that the
selection of Wolfowitz allows for greater "transparency" and therefore helps to
build resistance to the WB and Neo-Liberalism. This was similar to the KPD
policy which thought that after people were exposed to fascism and see its
iron fist in practice then this will lead to increased resistance to fascism and
the KPD will be elected into power. It didn't work in Germany. Why should we
think it will work now? (NB: Of course there are differences and thus this
analogy is not entirely accurate: e.g. bourgeois democracy nowhere directly
enters into the picture in the WB or the selection of its president.)
But Mike L agreed with Patrick:
> Exactly, Patrick! Now, what about the ILO being headed up by someone
> from Coca-Cola or Walmart? Not quite the same, of course [...]
If the WB now actively and publicly supports "regime change" in Cuba and
Venezuela will that also be an excellent development since more people
will see the "transparency" of WB policies? I doubt that the Cuban and
Venezuelan masses or their leadership would view it in such a positive
light.
What do you and others on the list think? Is it a good thing for the working-
class that the Neo-Con Wolfowitz was selected to lead the WB?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 19 2005 - 00:00:02 EST