Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:39:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: "Traditional" vs capitalist values in neo-liberal societies


Louis,

We need to make a distinction between what academics and policymakers say
publically, and what policies are actually implemented. In any case, the
same players (if dead, then their followers) and the same ideology is
still in play. The universities where the theories have been constructed
have shifted somewhat, with the older modernization and democratization
theories coming out of Harvard and the new theories coming out of
Princeton and other elite institutions. The elite policymaking
institutions have proliferated, with the Trilateral Commission and the G7
joining the CFR. The IMF and the World Bank have become much more
aggressive in implementing the overall program of global integration of
the South (and this involves actually delivering polyarchy). But the core
ideology has not changed: to create a single global capitalist system
under the control of a transnational class configuration. This project has
largely been completed, and much attention is shifting now to the
development of a transnational political apparatus, although it is not
clear what form this might take. Huntington, still representing this
configuration, has taken to advancing the thesis that cultural differences
will prevent any successful movement against globalization, for, to
paraphrase, people choose difference over equality and liberation. 

Modernization theory, with its emphasis on polyarchy (liberal democratic
institutions) and economic liberalism (now neoliberalism), has remained
very much the same down through the years. What is different is the actual
policies carried out and the continual transformation of the global
economy. These real policy changes reflect structural and historical-
conjunctural contingencies. The policies carried out from Carter, Bush,
and Clinton (Trilateral Commission) and Reagan (the neoconservative
interruption) have involved a shift from supporting authoritarian regimes
(although always maintaining that standard policy was one of democracy
promotion) to supporting other elite groups in polyarchic formation. 

This transition reflects the culmination of increasing resistance and
rebellion against authoritarianism in the context of greater globalization
and a longstanding debate among academics and policymakers as to what was
the better real approach. The debate began to shift in 1975 with the
Trilateral document "The Crisis of Democracy," authored by Huntington.
This report was in response to the fallout from the Vietnam War, the
CIA/FBI scandals, and Watergate (a simultaneous legitimation and fiscal
crisis on the downside of the most recent longwave) and two historical
conjunctures in 1979, the Iranian and Sandinista revolutions. Moreover,
economic conditions were deteriorating generally all over the globe. The
report calls for a shift from coercive domination to consensual domination
as a matter of global policy. Carter was groomed and installed to begin
this phase of the process, which amounted to a change in direction to
fulfill the larger project of modernization and democratization. In any
event (these events are well-known and don't require me going through the
entire history), polyarchic projects today differ from yesterday not in
theory but in tailoring the policy to fit the situation. 

AA




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---