thinking is constructedwillhaveto
becomea familiar partof thepolit-
icalcultureandzeitgeist through
publiceducation intothe concepts.
As forcountriesof theSouth,
werethereto be delinking to regain
national sovereigntyoverone’seco-
nomy, I think there is a simple
thought experiment thateconomists
shoulddebate about by asking a
questionin thesubjunctive: Would
sucha delinkinghavetheeffectof
making thecountriesof theSouth
betteroff thantheyhavehitherto
beenandthe countries of the North
worseoff?Thesethingsneedto be
debated by economists. I realise that
“betteroff andworseoff”areoften
themselvesideologically constituted
measures,butassumingonecanget
overthoseideologicalfiltersto agree
on a neutralunderstanding of those
terms,it wouldbe a worthwhile de-
bateto haveamongeconomists.
In fact,if youreadtheexchange
between David Harveyandthe Pat-
naiksoverimperialismin thenew
bookby thePatnaikson thesubject
[A Theoryof Imperialismby Utsa
Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik,
November2016],thisdebatehas
already begunin a preliminary way.
It needs to be pursued further.Butit
is veryinterestingto me thatthe only
economiststo be takingthislineof
delinking are fromthe South. It just
showshowfar globalisation has gone
intoshapingthethinkingof even
Marxist economists in the North.
If evenMarxistseconomists of
the North are opposedto delinking,
it is hardly surprisingthat[Francis]
Fukuyama summarised a whole
rangeof Northern thinking about
thecurrent period’spoliticaleco-
nomyas constituting the “endof his-
tory”.He is justsayingwhatI cited
earlierfromFredericJamesonbut
withtheattitudeof applauding it,
while Jamesonwas lamentingit.
(Actually, in thistheywereboth—in
a remotebut not by anymeansfanci-
fulway—anticipated,withneither
applause norlament,in a clinically
brilliantreadingof Hegel by [Alex-
andre]Kojevein lecturesthatwere
very influential in the European
philosophyof the lastcentury.)
I shouldmakeclear, whatshould
be obvious anyway,thatI amnot
equating Lefttheoristsandeconom-
istsin EuropewithFukuyama.Not
at all. I am onlysayingthatexceptfor
a veryfew economists in theSouth
thereis a pervasive embraceof the
inevitability of globalisation and
somevague, mostlyunelaborated,
hunchthata radicalLefttransform-
ationis possiblewithinglobalisa-
tion—captured in someslogans of
eminentLefteconomists suchas:
“Makingglobalisationwork”. In a re-
centarticleinNewLeftReview, ana-
lysing[Donald] Trump’sAmerica,
PerryAndersonsaysin passing that
theLeftshouldbe seekinga “genu-
inelyalternativeinternational plat-
form”.Hedoesnotsaya wordto
elaborate on it. I haveno ideawhat
he hasin mind.
Mindyou,it is not as if delinking
for countriesof the Southwould not
comewithproblemsof its own. The
smallereconomies willbe at a disad-
vantage comparedwith thelarge
countries withdiversenaturalre-
sources,andso therewouldhaveto
be South-South links that would
haveto be formedto protectthe
smallernations.This wouldbe a
quitedifferentformof relinking than
BRICS[Brazil,Russia,India,China
andSouthAfrica].Andthereis an-
otherkindof problemthatoften
comesup in discussionsthese days
regardingtheseissues.Thereis be-
ginningto be a tendencyto say that
sincecountries likeChina (andeven
Indiato someextent)aremaking
their economic presence felt in
AfricaandLatinAmerica,thereare
newimperialismsemerging, andmy
thought-experimental question is
notpowercentresandso it cannot
justbe a matterof the North’sdom-
inationoverthe South. Well,maybe.
ButI thinkthoseareonlycom-
plicating factors. I think we can
countthosefactorsin andholdthose
variablessteady andstillposemy
thought-experimentalquestionfor
economists to discuss,andif the out-
comeof thisdiscussion is thatindeed
theSouthwillbe betteroff andthe
Northworse off, it willbringout the
extentto whicheconomicimperial-
ismby theadvancedcapitalistna-
tionsof theNorth overSouthernnationshascontinued to existsince
the politicaldecolonisationthattook
placeroughlythemiddleof thelast
centuryandespeciallyaccelerated
viafinancialglobalisation fromthe
1980son.Andthatwillobviously
makea strongcasefor countriesof
theSouth to delinkfrom global
finance.Willit notbeveryhardfortheLeft
in countriesof theSouthto gettheir
governmentsto embracedelinking
policies,giventhefactthatthese
governmentsaredominatedbythe
corporateelitesin theirown
countries?SCOPEFORRESISTANCE
Youare certainlyrightaboutit being
veryhard these days.Leftmove-
mentswithinnations are veryweak
for reasons widelyknown, havingto
do withhowneoliberalismhas stead-
ily undermined the bargaining
powerof labourin thelastquarter
centurybothin India and every-
whereelse.Thisis, of course,partly
dueto the creation of a formof em-
ployment thatis impermanentand
part-time andcontractualised. And
thereis alsothestandard“reserve
army”effectthatallowsemployersto
squashthe bargaining power of em-
ployedlabour. In fact,thetwoare
linkedsincethe reservearmyeffectis
partlyto createthatkindof casual
formof employment. All thisis un-
deniable. Thetaskis deeplyuphill.
Butwhatis the alternative?Just
consider, by contrast, whatresist-
ancetherewouldbe at theinterna-
tional level? What does it even
mean?Eversincethe BrettonWoods
institutionswereremantled,we have
witnessed a kindof unleashingof
capitalmobilitythathas,as we have
beensaying, deprived nationstates
of sovereignty overtheirowneco-
nomiesbecauseof anxietiesabout
capitalflight. Butits effecton move-
mentsof resistance is equallyalarm-
ing.So, take,for instance,[Luiz
Inacio]Lula[daSilva]’sinitialsuc-
cessin comingto power[in Brazil].
He cameto poweron thewave of a
tremendous working-class move-
mentwithan impressivelyprogress-
ive manifesto. Buthowmuchcould