Warning: subversive thoughts

The other night Gene made a pretty convincing argument (previous post) that cancellation of odious Third World debt is a moral imperative. I think most people would probably agree on that. Oddly, though, my response was anything but enthusiasm.

-----

For one thing, I wish we had talked more about how debt cancellation would be implemented. That it needs to happen is clear, but how is going to take a more nuanced conversation. For instance, does it mean that rich Western countries (funded by taxpayers) are going to pay the debt for the debtors? or that the IMF and World Bank just wipe the slate clean, as in a bankruptcy? What about the credit-worthiness of the debtor nations?

Jeffrey Sachs is a famous economist who has actually instituted debt cancellation in a couple of Eastern European countries. He has a new book out called The End of Poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. I need to read this.

-----

From the film, one would think that multinational banks run the world. And in a sense, he would be right. Like BJ, I was overwhelmed at the sheer scale of the problems perpetuating the debt crisis. I mean, as he said, we're talking about the laws of the market economy by which the bankers operate. They were simply doing their jobs -- which is to crunch numbers and turn a profit, not to answer to their conscience.

But this isn't the way the world is supposed to work. Where are the checks and balances? Where are the governments representing the people's interests??

The cynic in me can't help myself: Well, of course the governments are now run by corporations (at least the western governments are).

I've been reading Understanding Power, a reader by Noam Chomsky, and it depresses me almost to the point where I don't even want to be an activist anymore. He basically says that the government's enemy is the PEOPLE itself, that they need to be repressed and oppressed in order for the folks in power to stay there. (He goes on to show how this happens in subtle ways , not overseas, but HERE.) And the political structures in place are so entrenched and well-protected (take the tremendous power of lobbyists, for example) that incremental change isn't really going to bring about the REAL change that we need to improve the lives of ordinary people in the world.

Take, for instance, the Democrats and Republicans. How different are the parties nowadays? (And we didn't use to have just two parties either.) How different are their stances on nationalized health care? Or Third World debt cancellation?

I'm sorry. I hope that wasn't depressing to you. Activists DO make strides. Chomsky even says that it was only because of them in the sixties that a lot of atrocities carried out by the US government had to go underground (e.g. Iran-Contra). Plus, Ralph Nader even made it onto the national scene in 2000. I guess what I'm realizing is that:

1. Governmental ethics reform is really important. We need to let our representatives know we're watching, and support any initiatives towards this.

2. As activists we have to focus on the process than on the result. We may never see the fruits of our labor in our lifetime. So why keep fighting? Because to me, the alternative is not acceptable.