Chapter 10: The Enforcers of Unequal Trades

This is a chapter from the book, Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century. Visit that link for more information about the book.

Part II: External Trade: Capital Destroying Capital

Chapter 10. The Enforcers of Unequal Trades

“The heart of the GATT—Bretton Woods system is what is known as MFN—most favored nation.”1 GATT, NAFTA, WTO, MAI, GATS, and FTAA, though supposedly defining equality, bend weak nations to the will of powerful nations. That process determines which nations will industrialize and which nations will remain as providers of resources for imperial-centers-of-capital. Those needed as allies and permitted to industrialize will accumulate capital and those reserved to provide natural resources to feed those industrial nations will remain poor and in debt:

Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms. Dozens of countries must compete for shrinking export markets and can export only a limited range of products because of Northern protectionism and their lack of cash to invest in diversification. Market saturation ensues, reducing exporters’ income to a bare minimum while the North enjoys huge savings…. The IMF cannot seem to understand that investing in … [a] healthy, well-fed, literate population … is the most intelligent economic choice a country can make.2

An IMF managing director claimed, “An international institution such as the fund cannot take upon itself the role of dictating social policy and political objectives to sovereign governments.” That this, “politely put, is rubbish” is obvious, given the control exerted by the IMF/World Bank/GATT/NAFTA/WTO/MAI/GATS/FTAA/military colossus:3

Many people learned for the first time at Seattle [first major anti-globalization protest] of the existence of the QUAD, the Quadrilateral Group of Trade Ministers, which was formed in 1981 and acts as an informal committee guiding the global trade regime. Before public meetings of the WTO, members of the Quad—the United States, The European Union, Japan, and Canada [all CEOs of, or closely connected with, global corporations]—meet privately, making key decisions without the participation of other representatives of the world community. Once the QUAD reaches agreement, a larger, select group of twenty to thirty countries are invited to come together in informal meetings. Only after that do the 143 members of the WTO discuss and vote on proposals that are typically, by this point, faits accomplis. The poor countries of the world are forced to fall in line by the pressure of the economic and political muscle arrayed against them.4

Howard Wachtel explains further:

When the WTO replaced GATT on January 1, 1995, all of the GATT rules and its 47 years of precedents were folded into the WTO…. The WTO is an organization of some 500 highly paid professionals, mostly lawyers … [which] make significant decisions about international trade out of the public’s view. It has no written bylaws, makes decisions by consensus, and has never taken a vote on any issue. It holds no public hearings, and in fact has never opened its processes to the public. … Its court-like rulings are not made by U.S.-style due process. Yet WTO today [because it has a dispute settlement mechanism with enforcement powers] rivals the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in global importance…. Three minimalist GATT principles continue to operate through the WTO. The first is the famous most-favored-nation status (MFN): Products traded among GATT members must receive the best terms that exist in any bilateral trading agreement…. [The second:] Goods produced domestically and abroad must receive the same “national treatment”—equal access to markets…. [The third] is “transparency,” which requires that any trade protection be obvious and quantifiable—like a tariff…. The WTO has the authority to resolve disputes and to issue penalties and sanctions.5

A further attempt to structure inequality into law, the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI), was described by Business Week as, “The Explosive Trade Deal You’ve Never Heard Of.” The then Director General of the WTO called the secretive MAI rules as, a “Constitution for a single global economy.”6 Structural adjustment demanded by the IMF/ World Bank/GATT/NAFTA/WTO/MAI/GATS/FTAA strictly forbid government support of developing world industry. Yet Japan’s industry paid possibly only 30% for its industrial capital (the public paid the rest). U.S. states and cities pay ransoms in the form of tax breaks, land donations, below cost services, wage subsidies, and outright cash incentives for industries to be built in their region. High tariffs were placed on imported manufactured products, low or no tariffs on raw materials.

An established infrastructure (roads, airports, harbors) is already in place in the developed world, built and maintained with public funds. Agriculture and industry in the wealthy world receive enormous support in the form of payments for land development, price supports, export supports, payments for leaving land idle, as well as major tax breaks. Germany subsidizes her mining industries to the tune of $85,000 per miner and “more than a third of annual U.S. government spending, an estimated $448-billion, consists of direct and indirect subsidies for corporations and wealthy individuals, in direct violation of free-market principles.”7 Not only are there massive subsidies and protections for imperial-centers-of-capital, the United States has some level of embargo against over 70 countries, 66% of the people on earth.8 As structural adjustment rules deny dependent nations the right to protect their industry and agriculture, all these advantages are denied the developing world.

Society is a machine efficiently producing social needs and the well-developed, highly-subsidized, transportation, education, and research systems of the developed world mean it can produce much more efficiently and cheaply than the undeveloped world. This gives insight into why structural adjustments insisted on by the IMF/World Bank/GATT/ NAFTA/WTO/MAI/GATS/FTAA reduce supports in these crucial areas. So long as a belief can be imposed upon emerging nations that is the opposite of how every successful nation developed, they can never be a serious industrial threat to the imperial-centers-of-capital and their resources will always be available to the imperial nations for less than full value.

Cuba was able to develop an education and health system equal to America precisely because she escaped the clutches of the IMF/World Bank and the structural adjustments they would have imposed.9 When former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz was eased out of the World Bank for suggesting they relax those structural adjustment rules he was asked by interviewer Greg Palast of the London Observer if any nation avoided the fate of structural adjustments. Stiglitz replied, “Yes! Botswana. Their trick? They told the IMF to go packing.”

That 90-minute interview on BBC Television’s Newsnight went much further and confirmed everything we are outlining about these imposed structural adjustments. A reading of Palast’s The Best Democracy that Money can Buy: The Truth about Corporate Cons, Globalization, and High-Finance Fraudsters (2003) tells us that the purpose of this unspoken and disguised economic warfare through imposed structural adjustments is specifically to hold down the price of developing world resources and labor and to transfer that wealth, natural and processed, to the imperial centers. Joseph Stiglitz was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. We would hope the primary reason was to reward him for his courageous stand.

The Greatest Peacetime Transfer of Wealth in History

The corporate assault on labor started in earnest in 1972 and gained substantially more momentum under Reagan in the early 1980s. Even as “the real per-capita gross domestic product … climbed by a third,” before the 1997-99 increase in labor pay, that policy had reduced wages for 80% of Americans, with the poor losing the most. Simultaneous with that loss, the share of the national income and national wealth held by the wealthy climbed to levels normally seen only before collapse of economic bubbles or revolutions. The income share of America’s richest 20% and poorest 20% stood at 30:1 in 1970 and at 78:1 in 1999. “Probably no country has ever had as large a shift in the distribution of earnings without having gone through a revolution or losing a major war.”10

Gone unnoticed by most in the developed world but felt crucially in the poor countries were the same assaults ongoing against the developing world. The Reagan/Bush team had, through their subtle monopolization of finance capital (financial warfare) imposed a far more severe Reaganism/Thatcherism on the world. During their 12 years at the helm of government, IMF/World Bank loans came with structural adjustment conditions: all who take such loans to devalue their currency, lower their import barriers, remove restrictions on foreign investments, remove subsidies for local industry, lower their social welfare funding, pay lower wages, reduce government in general, and expand production and export of their timber, minerals, and agriculture. The result was almost universally the same: wages went down, hunger increased, health care decreased, education decreased and the price of developing world export commodities went down. The purchasing power of commodities exported by poor nations in the year 2000 were 40% of their purchasing power 30 years earlier and Professor Lester Thurow anticipates their price to collapse another 60%.11

Meanwhile, these same managers-of-state did precisely the opposite for poorer nations within their trading bloc. They easily agreed that West Germany must put $1.5-trillion into the former East Germany to simultaneously build industry, social infrastructure, and buying power.12 And when Greece, Portugal, and Spain, relatively poorer than the rest of Europe, wanted to join the Common Market, these leaders implemented a 15-year plan that reads as if it came right out of Friedrich List’s protectionist classic. This included “massive transfers of direct aid … to accelerate development, raise wages, regularize safety and environmental standards, and improve living conditions in the poorer nations.”13 Emerging former colonies receive no such care for developing consumer buying power and protection of tender industries so their economies can become viable.

The inefficiency of capitalism as currently structured is highly visible in the rejoining of West and East Germany. Though it will eventually succeed, that expenditure of $1.5-trillion has, at this point in time, failed. Even as massive amounts of money were being transferred from West to East over half a million East Germans moved to West Germany and yet the official unemployment in the East is still 17.5% while that in the West is 7.5%.

Why this is so is rather straightforward. West German labor and industry can produce all the products necessary for East Germany, no West German industry is going to voluntarily release a part of its market share, and no West German worker is going to voluntarily give up his or her job. Both industry owners and workers are solidly within the current flow of commerce and they are not about to voluntarily give any of that up.

Without a change in capitalism’s philosophy similar to the support and protection provided by Germany for East Germans and that provided by the European Union to Spain, Greece, and Portugal, the economies of other East European and Central European countries will never gain equality with Western Europe. Quite simply, Eastern and Central Europeans industrialists do not have the technology, industrial capital, and finance capital to compete with Western industries, their labor is not paid enough for their economies to accumulate that capital, and the capitalists and labor of Western Europe will not willingly share.

The day may come, theoretically, when the wages of all Europe will equalize. But by that theory the wage levels will be that of the lower-paid nations. West Europeans will never tolerate their standard of living dropping anything close to the level of the East and West European industries will do everything possible to prevent the lowering of the value of their industries to a level that would permit product sales to workers receiving East European and Central European wages.

The difficulty in bringing Eastern and Central Europe’s white, Western Christian, Western-cultured, nations in as equals into an allied European imperial-center-of-capital, even when that is the desired goal of managers-of-state of those imperial centers, emphasize the even greater difficulty nations of people of color on the periphery of empire have of entering the flow of world commerce as equals. One can set all the rhetoric of equality and rights aside. Since Western wealth is built and maintained through the periphery providing cheap resources and labor, equality for peripheral nations with different cultures cannot be in the plans of the managers-of-state of those imperial centers.

Those managers-of-state are not about to abandon a plan that has been so hugely successful for them. In 1970, the poorest 20% of the world’s people received 2.2% of the world’s income while the richest 20% received 70%. By 1990, the poorest 20% received only 1.4% while the richest 20% received 83.4% and this differential can only have increased sharply as currency values on the periphery of empire collapsed in 1997 and again in 2002.14 When the universal result is low resource export prices and increased poverty in the developing world, the IMF/World Bank/ GATT/NAFTA/WTO/MAI/ GATS/FTAA/military colossus can hardly claim its intent was to develop those countries:

Structural Adjustment [demanded by the IMF] is best summed up in four words: earn more, spend less. While such advice might be valid if it were given to only a few countries at once, dozens of debtors are now attempting to earn more by exporting whatever they have at hand; particularly natural resources including minerals, tropical crops, timber, meat and fish. With so many jostling for a share of limited world markets, prices plummet, forcing governments to seek ever-higher levels of exports in a desperate attempt to keep their hard currency revenues stable. The “export-led growth” model on which the fund and the World Bank insist is a purely extractive one involving more the “mining” than the management—much less conservation—of resources.15

Susan George’s “earn more, spend less” is a quick snapshot of futile attempts to break out of debt traps. Their efforts are futile because trades are so unequal that the weak and impoverished just go deeper into debt as their irreplaceable natural resources flow to the imperial-centers-of-capital to service their ever-increasing debt with its compounding interest.

The purpose of IMF/World Bank Loans to the Periphery of Empire

“The IMF has repeatedly stated that it is not, and was never intended to be, a development institution.” Neither was the World Bank: “The fundamental goal of creating markets for industrialized countries’ exports was written into [its] charter.”16 That means that debt traps and mercantilist dependency were the goals all along. Most investment in the developing world has been geared toward producing low-priced commodities for corporate industries to fabricate into products for the developed world. Investing in development of resources to produce the same product in various parts of the world ensures a surplus of those commodities at low, or very low, prices. The need to service their debts compels the dependent developing world to produce more and more of the commodities desired by the developed world. Through simultaneous investments in various parts of the world in commodities desired by the developed world, surpluses develop and, as low wages ensure there is little buying power and thus no markets in the developing world, prices are kept low for the imperial-centers-of-capital. It is really the old colonial plantation system that once produced for Europe, restructured on a massive scale to produce for the industrialized world.17 (Please consider the subchapter “The Periphery of Empire is a Huge Plantation System Providing Food and Resources to the Imperial Center” of Chapter 13 as an integral part of this subchapter.)

The IMF/World Bank/GATT/NAFTA/WTO/MAI/GATS/FTAA colossus lays down the rules of unequal trade and the military forces of the imperial nations are there to enforce the rules. The developing world is expected to lower its living standards and export more minerals, lumber, and food, all to pay debts that did little for its economic development. Typically those debts were incurred for investments to extract resources, produce agricultural exports, and build the infrastructure to ship these commodities to the developed world. From the late 19th-Century to shortly before WWII, when empires had absolute control of their colonies, the price of primary commodities dropped 60% relative to manufactured commodities prices and leading economists had their bets on another 60% decline.18 During the battle between the imperial-centers-of-capital over the wealth of the undeveloped world (WWII), the developing world was better paid for their resources and labor and they paid off their debts. But, after that war, imperial capital again gained control of the rules of unequal trade and that pre WWII success of low import prices and, under the flag of free trade, high export prices for the imperial-centers-of-capital in the first half of the 20th-Century has been far exceeded in the second half.

America’s Foreign Trade Act is littered with discriminatory options, allied imperial nations’ trade laws are similarly unequal, and under these discriminatory laws the buying power of developing world commodity exports in the year 2000 dropped to a fraction of that in 1960. The low pay for their resources and labor created the developing world’s debt of $2.5-trillion (2002) and it is that debt which places the final chain of low-wage slavery upon the developing world. Financial warfare (IMF/World Bank), economic warfare (those laws just described), diplomatic warfare (sanctions against any who resist), covert warfare, and overt warfare are each a link in those enslaving chains. The final chains will be the courts. Any who attempt to break out will have their commerce in world trade attached. That will bring the economy of any country to an immediate halt.

Investment in the same primary-export commodities throughout the developing world competes for markets creating surpluses and low export prices. As those export commodity surpluses build there is little investment in local industry for local consumers. As wages are too low to provide buying power, the products and services needed for the local population’s everyday use are not produced within that society and thus there is no balance of industry, social capital, local purchasing power, commerce, and markets for a prosperous market economy. The dependent countries end up “producing too much of what [they do not] consume, and consuming too much of what [they do not] produce.” This denies these people their natural comparative advantage and creates dependent economies. Then, while the prices of developing world commodities plummet because of excessive investments in export products (as opposed to balanced investments and adequate pay in a regional economy to create buying power), the prices of developed world products soar, the very signature of a successful mercantilist dependency policy.19

In only seven years, the price of a tractor for Tanzania, measured by the export value of Tanzanian sisal, doubled. The relative value for rubber exporters dropped 300% between 1960 and 1975. Cotton exporters lost 60% of their buying power in the same time span.20 In 1996, prices for primary commodities exported by the developing world were the same price as 21 years earlier while prices for their imported manufactured products had soared, forcing the developing world to export more and more while importing less and less. The austerity rules of the IMF/World Bank/GATT/NAFTA/WTO/MAI/GATS/FTAA seldom restricts the purchase of arms, toys for the elite, or consumer purchases from the developed world which is paid for through the sale of their precious resources.

To become prosperous or maintain prosperity, the developed world knows they must educate their citizens, they must provide them with health care, they must build transportation systems so people and goods can be moved, they must support the building of efficient industries to process their natural resources, they must pay their labor well to generate consumer buying power, they must maintain a healthy economic multiplier through a proper balance between manufacture of their own consumer products and their imports and exports, and they must not permit their wealth to be claimed by another center of capital through unequal trades.a

However, managers-of-state of the imperial-centers-of-capital simply do not stand up and acknowledge that what is right for the wealthy nations is even more right for the impoverished world whose resources and labor are exploited for the benefit of those imperial centers. Their slogans of peace and rights are not only meaningless; they are actually covers for financial, economic, diplomatic, covert, and overt warfare. After all, these managers-of-state have spent centuries perfecting the political, legal, and military mechanisms that maintain the rules of trade in their favor.

These managers-of-state are highly intelligent, they have massive resources, they are not working in a vacuum, and they are not reacting to oppression upon the imperial center. They are only reacting to others’ efforts to break out from under their oppressions. We have provided only a broad outline of the Grand Strategies of corporate imperialists. Author Robin Hahnel explains what happens when the financial warfare plans, the economic warfare plans, and the diplomatic warfare plans succeed and all the ducks are lined up in a row for the corporate imperialists to slaughter:

Multinational corporations and banks will soon have reacquired the most attractive economic assets the developing world has to offer, at bargain basement prices. They may succeed in doing this in a fraction of the time—the next 3-to-5 years—it took progressive and nationalist developing world movements and governments to [regain] control of their natural resources from colonial powers—50 to 100 years…. All of the gains of the great anti-imperialist movements of the 20th-Century may soon be wiped out by the policies of neo-liberalism [corporate imperialism] and its ensuing global crisis. What may become the greatest asset swindle of all time works like this: International investors lose confidence in a developing world economy, dumping its currency, bonds, and stocks. At the insistence of the IMF, the central bank in the developing country tightens the money supply to boost domestic interest rates to prevent further capital outflow in an unsuccessful attempt to protect the currency. Even healthy domestic companies can no longer obtain or afford loans so they join the ranks of bankrupted domestic businesses available for purchase. As a precondition for receiving the IMF bailout the government abolishes any remaining restrictions on foreign ownership of corporations, banks, and land. With a depreciated currency and a long list of bankrupt local businesses, the economy is ready for the acquisition experts from Western multinational corporations and banks who came to the fire sale with a thick wad of almighty dollars in their pockets…. [In Thailand alone,] ‘foreign investors have gone on a $6.5-billion shopping spree this year [1999], snapping up bargain basement steel mills, securities companies, supermarket chains, and other assets.’21 (Be sure and compare this quote with Heather Cottin’s article on George Soros destabilization foundations, “George Soros, Imperial Wizard, Master-Builder of the New Bribe Sector, Systematically Bilking the World,” CovertAction Quarterly, Fall 2002).

In a final analysis, if control cannot be maintained by financial, economic, and diplomatic means, then the covert forces are called upon. If those combined efforts cannot stem a break for freedom on the periphery of empire, the navy, marines, and army are called out, intelligence agency wordsmiths lay the propaganda base of an enemy, if necessary an aggression pretext is engineered, and another break for freedom is militarily suppressed.

Friedrich List Supports for the Developed World, Adam Smith Structural Adjustments for the Developing World

“The developing world has a simple answer to the question of primitive accumulation [of capital]: the West stole it.”22 The wars struggling over resources and markets, the poverty within the underdeveloped World, and the poverty remaining in the “wealthy” countries all testify to the bankruptcy of this residual-feudal, neo-mercantilist, corporate-mercantilist, policy as a route to a truly free and prosperous world.

The IMF/World Bank/GATT/NAFTA/WTO/MAI/GATS/FTAA/ military colossus insists that nations on the periphery of empire reduce their education, reduce their health care, eliminate supports for industry, reduce the wages of an already impoverished labor force, and enforce the developed world’s monopoly on industrial technology. The entire process imposes unequal trades upon the periphery of empire.

The funds to purchase industries, when weak nations are forced to privatize publicly-owned businesses, are primarily in the developed world. Thus, the same powerful people who impose these harsh conditions upon the weak are the ones who buy up their resources and industries at a fraction of true value when those harsh conditions trigger a collapse. Not only does privatizing the world’s industries and resources under corporate imperialism provide opportunities for the investment of subtly-monopolized capital and control of industries, resources, and markets, but a portion of that monopolized capital (a small portion) owned by the emerging “robber barons” of the dependent nations gives the appearance of equality and makes it difficult to identify and target a nation, or block of nations, as an enemy imposing the harsh conditions of financial warfare.

That the structural adjustments forced upon the developing world are exactly opposite the policies under which every wealthy nation developed tells us the managers-of-state of the imperial-centers-of-capital know exactly what they are doing. Their Grand Strategy is to impose mercantilist unequal trades; that formula—high pay divided by the low pay squared—as outlined in Chapter one, to lay claim to the wealth and the labors of weak nations.

The Privatization of the Commons of other Societies

If land, energy, water, or other basic needs are monopolized, others must pay a monopoly price. That a railroad, a water company, an electric company, a natural gas company, a TV cable company, a telephone company, or a garbage company can provide cheaper services because of competition is pure fiction. Two railroads, two water lines, two electric lines, two gas lines, two TV cables, two telephone lines, two sewer lines, and two garbage companies serving the same customers would be economic nonsense.

The only possible way competition could enter into basic services to a community is if the community contracted the building of the infrastructure (they then own those structures) and if they then took bids on operating those services. Basic services to a community publicly owned but privately operated would preserve everyone’s rights to the modern commons while retaining the benefits of competition. Yet the structural adjustment rules of the IMF/World Bank/ GATT/ NAFTA/ WTO/ MAI/ GATS/ FTAA/ Military Colossus demand that societies on the periphery give up their rights for local control of land, resources, water, and even basic services.

These structural adjustments and the violence outlined in previous chapters suppressing weak nations’ breaks for freedom are only extensions of the violent privatizations of the commons during the Middle Ages. The one difference is that it is the commons of other societies which is being privatized and claimed by the wealthy of the imperial centers. Thus the real purpose of the IMF/World Bank/ GATT/NAFTA/WTO/MAI/GATS/ FTAA/military colossus is to monopolize resources and services worldwide for the owners of capital.

But why is capital insisting on privatizing the world’s water systems, electric systems, natural gas systems, et al, and doubling, tripling, and even quadrupling the charges? In spite of the enormous waste of capital destroying capital, despite the waste of wars, and despite the waste of monopolies within internal economies (see the first five chapters of this author’s Cooperative Capitalism) capital accumulations are so enormous there are no other safe and profitable areas to invest it. An analysis of the capital and resources wasted within those three areas of the economy will conclude that the alleviation of poverty in 10 years and sustainable development of the world within 50 years under democratic-cooperative-(superefficient)-capitalism is an achievable goal.


  1. Due to the economic multiplier, a small amount of wealth siphoned from a nation or region can become a big loss. Zambia had 40 small industries producing clothes for Zambians. A flood of used clothes from America undersold those producers, those industries all closed down, the multiplier factor went into reverse, and the number of impoverished Zambians rose rapidly. Back to text


  1. Lester Thurow, The Future of Capitalism: How Today’s Economic Forces Shape Tomorrow’s World (England: Penguin Books, 1996), p. 131, 137. Back to text
  2. Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), pp. 143, 187, 235. Back to text
  3. George, Fate Worse Than Debt, Chapter 3, especially pp. 53, 93. Back to text
  4. William K. Tabb, The Amoral Elephant: Globalization and the Struggle for Social Justice in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001), pp. 9-10. Back to text
  5. Howard Wachtel, “Labor’s Stake in WTO,” The American Prospect (March/April 1998), pp. 34-38. Back to text
  6. Tabb, The Amoral Elephant, p. 196. Back to text
  7. Frances Moore Lappé, World Hunger: Twelve Myths (New York: Grove Press: 1998), p. 98; Ousseynu Gueye, “Let African Farmers Compete,” World Press Review (October 2002), p. 12. Back to text
  8. Laura Karmatz, Alisha Labi, Joan Levinstein, Special Report, “States at War,” Time (November 9, 1998), pp. 40-54; Donald L, Bartlett, James B. Steele, “Fantasy Island and Other Perfectly Legal Ways that Big companies Manage to avoid Billions in Federal Taxes,” Time (November 16, 1998), pp. 79-93; Donald L Bartlett, James B. Steele, “Paying a Price for Polluters,” Time (November 23, 1998), pp. 72-82; The Banneker Center’s Corporate Welfare Shame Links,; Thomas Omestat, “Addicted to Sanctions,” U.S. News & World Report, June 15, 1998, pp. 30-31. Back to text
  9. Speech by Cuban President Fidel Castro at the Group of 77 South Summit Conference, April, 2, 2000. Back to text
  10. Richard Douthwaite, “Community Money,” Yes, Spring 1999, pp. 35-37; “In Fact,” The Nation, March 25, 1996, p. 7. Read also John Gray, False Dawn (New York: The Free Press, 1998), especially Chapter 2, and Peter Gowan, The Global Gamble: Washington’s Faustian Bid for World Dominance (New York: verso, 1999). Back to text
  11. Thurow, The Future of Capitalism, p. 67; Frederic F. Clairmont, The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism (Goa India: The Other India Press, 1996), p. 308. See also: Fidel Castro, Capitalism in Crisis: Globalization and World Politics Today (New York: Ocean Press, 2000), p. 57; speech by Cuban President Fidel Castro at the Group of 77 South Summit Conference, April, 2, 2000; Gray, False Dawn, pp. 39-54. See also: Duncan Green, Silent Revolution (London: Cassel, 1995), pp. 22-57, especially pp. 44, 50, 100-111, 131-36, 200-22; Susan George and Fabrizio Sabelli, Faith and Credit (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1994), pp. 18-19, 31-33, 65-72, 126-25, especially 130-34, 161, 216-22; Graham Hancock, Lords of Poverty (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1989). Back to text
  12. Lester Thurow, Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle Between Japan, Europe, and America (New York: William Morrow, 1992), p. 89. Back to text
  13. AFL-CIO Task Force Bulletin on Trade (1992). Back to text
  14. Harry Magdoff, “A Note on the Communist Manifesto,” Monthly Review (May 1998), p. 12. Back to text
  15. Susan George, The Debt Boomerang (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1992), pp. 2-3. Back to text
  16. Arnold J. Chien, “Tanzanian Tales,” Lies of Our Times, January 1991, p. 9. See also Michael Barratt Brown, Fair Trade (London: Zed Books, 1993), p. 108. Back to text
  17. subchapters “Conceptually Reversing the Process” and “The Periphery of Empire Functions as a Huge Plantation System” in Chapter 13; also Duncan Green, Silent Revolution, especially Chapter 4; Hancock, Lords of Poverty; George and Sabelli, Faith and Credit; Philip Agee, Louis Wolf, Dirty Work (London: Zed Books, 1978), Chapter 11. Back to text
  18. Thurow, The Future of Capitalism, p. 67; Fidel Castro, Capitalism in Crisis: Globalization and World Politics Today (New York: Ocean Press, 2000), p. 57; Clairmont, The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism, p. 308. Back to text
  19. Hancock, Lords of Poverty, pp. 47-75, especially p. 65; George, Fate Worse Than Debt, especially pp. 62, 78. Back to text
  20. Susan George, How the Other Half Dies (Montclair, NJ: Allen Osmun, 1977), p. 17. The developing world exports sugar and imports candy, exports iron and imports machinery, exports timber and imports paper, exports oil and imports fuel and petroleum products, et al. Back to text
  21. Robin Hahnel, “Capitalist Globalism in Crisis,” Z Magazine, March 1999, pp. 52-57. Back to text
  22. Walter Russell Mead, Mortal Splendor (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987), p. 197. Back to text
Be Sociable, Share!
Be Sociable, Share!

Chapters for “Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century

This is a chapter from the book, Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century. Visit that link for more information about the book.