Abstract
Amidst the carnage of the First World War Lenin saw global capitalism as a system of monopoly competition and imperialistic nationalism which had become ‘a shell which no longer fits its contents … which must inevitably decay … [and] will inevitably be removed’.1 He anticipated a general socialist transformation which, in the event, was to be initially confined to his own country. Elsewhere the capitalist system lived on, but in circumstances which could only serve to confirm rather than negate his diagnosis. The Versailles settlement, correctly viewed by Keynes as a recipe for disaster, imposed burdens on the weaker areas which made it impossible for them to rebuild, while the overwhelming strength of the USA, compounded by an irresponsible protectionism, caused it to appropriate an increasing proportion of the world’s surpluses. The greater part of the world’s population lived in colonial subordination, with industrialisation blocked by the self-interested policies of their occupying powers.2
the avoidance of unemployment or under-employment, through the achievement and maintenance in each country of useful employment opportunities for those willing and able to work and of a large and steadily growing volume of production and effective demand for goods and services, is not of domestic concern alone, but is also a necessary condition for the achievement of the general purposes and objectives of the Charter, including the expansion of international trade, and thus for the well-being of all other countries.
(Havana Charter for an Intemational Trade Organisation, Article 2,1,1948)
The correction of maladjustments in the world economy of the magnitude of those which confronted the world after the last war and will again confront it at the end of this war cannot be left to market forces. The necessary adjustments will have to be carefully planned if we are to avoid a repetition of the international economic chaos of the interwar period.
(H. W. Arndt, The economic lessons ofthe nineteen-thirties, 1944, p.297)
Non-intervention in the market cannot apply when there is no more market. (C. G. Langoni, former Governor of the Central Bank of Brazil, Euromoney, October 1983, p. 20)
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
V. I. Lenin, Imperialism (Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1970, p. 178/9.
W. A. Brown, The United States and the restoration of world trade (Washington: Brookings, 1950) p. 45.
M. Kostecki, East-west trade and the GATT system (London: Macmillan, 1979) p. 3.
J. S. Mill’s words, Principles of political economy (London: Longmans 1980) p. 352.
H. W. Arndt, The economic lessons of the nineteen-thirties (London: Cass, 1972, first issued in 1944) p. 296. This view did not meet general approval in the Chatham House group and was opposed by Sir Andrew McFadyean and Professor A. G. Fisher.
Ibid., pp. 297–8.
See, for example, J. Williamson, A new SDR allocation? (Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1984).
Independent Commission on International Development Issues, North-South (London: Pan, 1980); Common crisis (London: Pan, 1983).
I have developed this argument at length in E. A. Brett, International money and capitalist crisis (London: Heinemann, 1983) chs 3 and 4.
See in particular R. Kaplinsky, ‘The new international division of labour and the Transnational Corporation’, 1984, manuscript; within three to four years we can apparently expect the capital-labour ratio in the textile industry to move from 20:28 to 80:20, thus decisively ending the advantages now enjoyed by Third World producers. Dr H.-S. Graf Zu Münster, personal communication.
For Bull, the current system exists as an ‘anarchical society’ (p. 51) governed by a high degree of self-regulation and therefore capable of order (H. Bull, The anarchical society (London: Macmillan, 1977) especially pp. 47–51). By excluding the problem of uneven development from the analysis he is also able to ignore the fact that anarchy leads to uncontrolled disorder unless it is based upon an equitable structure of distribution and democratic political regulation.
G. Lukács, History and class consciousness (London: Merlin, 1971) p. 63.
Arndt, The economic lessons, p. 300; See also H. Laski, A grammar of politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1925) p. 587.
J. M. Keynes, ‘Proposals for an International Union’, in H. G. Grubel, World monetary reform (London: Oxford University Press, 1964) p. 66.
Independent Commission on International Development Issues, North-South (London: Pan, 1980) p. 244.
H. Chenery et al., Redistribution with growth (London: Oxford University Press, 1974);
C. Thomas, Dependence and transformation (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974).
An important exception is A. Nove, The economics of feasible socialism (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983) together with Thomas, Dependence and transformation, and Chenery et al., Redistribution with growth.
A useful discussion of these issues can be found in H. Radice, ‘The national economy — a Keynesian myth?’, Capital and class, 22, 1984.
In A. Gorz, Strategy for labour (Boston: Beacon, 1967) Part 2.
Published in S. Holland (ed.), Out of crisis (Nottingham: Spokesman, 1983).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1985 E. A. Brett
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brett, E.A. (1985). Conclusion: Out of Anarchy?. In: The World Economy since the War. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17896-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17896-4_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-37200-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-17896-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)