On International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank
This
text is a lecture we held in Prague on January 4, 2001.
I think
one should deal with the movement against IMF and World Bank which
in most cases goes together with a critique on neoliberalism, globalisation
and imperialism, but also multinational companies etc. The reason
is that the arguments of that movement all are somehow critical
towards capitalism and states or statehood in general, which have
to be in the centre of critique of society, as they are themselves
the structure of society on which everything else is based. That
means all the things people need for their lives today are produced
by way of capitalist production, and all these things have the form
of commodities. The only aim, the only purpose of production in
capitalist society is, according to Karl Marx, the expansion of
value, of capital, or the restless never-ending process of profit-making
by exploiting human labour power. The democratic state ensures that
this process can go on, basically by guaranteeing the right of ownership,
of property.
But to
come back to that movement, calling itself anti-capitalistic, I
think that people involved there often make some basic theoretical
mistakes, so that they often hold and support ideologies instead
of criticizing capitalism.
Firstly,
they often personalize social relationships. That means, they are
constantly looking for groups, persons or institutions that shall
be responsible for exploitation and the poverty and misery people
are confronted with in capitalist society. Such groups and institutions
are, for example, the IMF and World Bank or WTO, but also big multinational
companies such as McDonalds, Shell, Microsoft etc. Even single persons
such as Bill Gates, George Soros or the President of the United
States shall be responsible for people`s misery. According to older,
mostly marxist-leninist theories, the monopoly capitalists, being
only a few powerful and rich people, are responsible for everything.
The problem
about such theories is that there are no single persons or institutions
deciding consciously or making a plan how to do the worst to normal
people. They don`t even have much freedom in their decisions, in
their way of acting, as in capitalist society, there is no owner
of capital being able to decide not to exploit people anymore. If
he or she did so, he or she would lose his or her capital and thus
become a worker who possesses no means of production, but only his
or her labour power. As a worker, he had to sell his labour power,
that means to work for wages. Thereby, he directly supports capitalist
production and its aim, as he produces value and surplus value.
All people need to sell something, be it their labour power or any
other commodities in order to survive. So no one alone can get out
of this circle, they all have to play their part in this terrible
game called capitalism. The IMF is just an agency, another instrument
for capitalist goals within the worldwide market. But I will come
back to that later.
The problem
of personalising social relationships is that not a single institution,
not the wealth of some people, not multinational companies etc.
but capitalism itself is the thing to overcome. Leftist theories
often forget that this is the only consequent way to achieve a society
in which the satisfaction of human needs is the aim, where wars
make no sense anymore. Small and local companies as well as the
big multinationals do not have the aim of improving the living conditions
of people, but they want and need to expand their capital. Although
owners of capital may be assholes as private persons sometimes,
they do not act as capitalists out of evil or immoral motives/reasons,
or because of a bad character trait. This personalised explanation
some leftists suggest within their argumentation is the wrong one.
As I said before, owners of capital have no other choice than exploiting
people unless they want to become workers. Marx said that the expansion
of value, be it in the form of money or commodities, becomes the
subjective aim, the sole motive of the operations of the capitalist,
who functions as capital personified and endowed with consciousness
and will. That means that the one who "acts", who is the real subject
in capitalist society, is something non-human. It is the value which
has to expand. But of course it is not visible. What is visible
are the persons who just execute that will, that aim.
Another
problem of personalising social relationships they become social
relationships by the exchange of commodities is that it is not
only a wrong analysis of capitalism, but also a dangerous one. The
German National Socialists also had a kind of critique on capitalism:
They considered the Jews to be the representatives of the sphere
of financial capital, which should be the bad, rootless side of
capitalism, whereas the sphere of production, the productive capital,
should be the good, the German one. Anti-semitists project anything
they do not understand about capitalism, anything abstract, such
as the money, on the Jews and on their "evil characters". Within
their image of the world, the Jews are extremely powerful and secretly
control the whole world. They re considered not to work for their
money, but to just let it work for them and to drain dry, that means
to suck out the Germans, the non-Jews. They are considered to be
extremely rich in contrast to the poor normal people. What I want
to say is that some arguments of anti-capitalist and leftist movements
are of the same structure, of the same pattern, as the anti- semitic
ideology, although the people themselves may not hate Jews or want
to eliminate them like the Nazis did or even know about this similarity.
What leftists
often look at, is the surface of capitalist society, that is the
symptoms or the effects of people's lives, but they do not grasp
the reasons of it. The reasons they consider to be bad character
traits of rich and powerful people. It is the same with politicians:
You cannot only blame them as individuals for the violence and brutality
the state does to people even though the job they chose is a brutal
one always involving domination -, but you have to criticise thee
state as a whole, as an institution that puts people in prison,
carries out wars etc.
In a way,
the critique on IMF should be similar. It is not evil itself but
an instrument, a means of the successful nations which have the
majority of votes there, to keep all the other nations in the state
of being useful for the expansion of wealth of the rich nations.
In reality, that means that the IMF grants credits to countries
which have a deficit in their balance of payments, so roughly spoken,
the imported or bought more than they exported or sold to other
countries. With the help of these credits, they are able to take
part in the worldwide market and have trade relations with other
countries.
No country could survive on its own, it will always have to conduct
imports and exports. But in order to do this, to have money that
is accepted by other countries, it must obey the international trade
rules. That means, for example, to balance out such deficits with
the help of IMF credits. So these countries stay members of the
worldwide market and can thus be used by other countries to make
profits, but at the same time "survive" somehow. Of course, it is
not as easy as it might look: In order to get a credit from the
IMF, the country has to fulfil certain conditions. Among others
there are
· The lowering of expenditures of the respective state. This means
in most cases less welfare and social expenditures of any kind.
· The increasing of taxes. In most cases, this is worst for poor
people who have to give more of their little amount of money to
the state.
So the IMF credits and its conditions which, roughly spoken, are
meant to create a normal capitalist state and economy, are by no
means meant to serve the people in these countries. But this goes
with nearly all other measures of states and with the aim of capitalist
production as well.
Making
the IMF a more democratic institution, as some groups claim, so
that all countries have the same vote there, would not necessarily
mean any real improvements, because the general function, the purpose
the founders of IMF had in mind, would not be any different then.
Furthermore, capitalist society or the world market would not be
a better one if decisions were taken more democratic, by more participants.
It always involves compulsions and pressures, for example the pressure,
the necessity to work for wages in order to survive.
Also the claim for the abolition of IMF is a problematic, a two-edged
one: If the countries of the Third World were not granted any credits
anymore and thus were no members of the worldwide market, living
conditions there would probably even worse. An economy not working
at all, a country where no capital exploits the people, would be
much worse than an economy which is dependent on other countries.
These consequences are often forgotten by leftists, in contrast
to the Republican Party of the USA which also claims for the abolition
of IMF. But they want to get rid of it because they do not want
to grant any money to the poor countries. They think it is not profitable
enough and consciously accept the fact that they would become hells
where even more people die of starvation.
So, let's
not fight against institutions but against capitalism as a whole
and statehood as well so that there are no more rich and poor people,
but society which is there for the needs of people, a society where
no more commodities, money or laws are produced.
up
|