[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Argentine's elections
Listeros,
Ken Price expresses an idea - that Mexico is in a stage of
development like the US was in 100 years ago - that neoliberal critics of
the PRI love to cite, but it is this very point that makes these
neoliberals lose their credibility. There is not a serious scholar in
the world who would make this argument. Ken is insisting on ignoring 50
years of knowledge. It is 1995 in Mexico, not 1895. Mexico is not
building 19th century industry for a 19th century market - Mexico is
building late 20th century businesses for todays world market. Arguing
that Mexico is in the past may feel good to proponents of capitalism, as
it is a way for them to avoid facing up to the failure of capitalism to
develop democratically in Mexico, but the argument is useful only as a
sermon to the converted. Businessmen like the idea because it is
self-justifying. But there is no way that Mexico can go through a
historical process of development that will mirror the USA 1895-1995 -
the USA was not Mexico of today in 1895 was it? Did the US have a more
developed industrial neighbor with the relationship it has with us? Did
the US seek to open its markets via a NAFTA?
The comparison is false. Here we have reached the dead end of the
neoliberal argument. It is historically shallow. The question is not
how Mexico can relive the last 100 years of US history - it cannot - the
question is how Mexico can find its own way in the 21st century. Nothing
in the US past provides a model.
Victor
Follow-Ups:
References: