:: english

Who will pay for the crisis, them or us?

It was always clear that Argentine president Mauricio Macri governed for the rich and that his economic model would lead to a great crisis. The first affirmation was corroborated by the regressive redistribution of income perpetrated by his government over the last two years. The second has begun to be confirmed with the run on the peso during the last week of May 2018.

What is valid and what is problematic in the theory of super-exploitation

Marini postulated that the Latin American bourgeoisie recreates underdevelopment by compensating for its unfavourable position internationally through super-exploitation. He did not identify the payment of labour power below its value with absolute surplus value or with increasing poverty.
But this sub-remuneration contradicts the logic of the labour market, which determines the low wages of the industrialized periphery. Companies profit from the existence of disparities in wages that are greater than differences in productivity. The unevenness of development is highly conditioned by transfers of surplus value to the advanced economies.
Dependency theory does not require a concept of super-exploitation that was omitted by Marx. There are higher rates of surplus value in the center, but greater restriction of consumption and labour stress in the periphery.
In a portrayal of generalized job insecurity, national differences in salaries between the formal, informal and impoverished exploited are reordered. The extension of the concept of super-exploitation to the metropolis and the disregard of neoliberal globalization both stand in the way of updating the theory of dependency

Argentina: Macri’s neoliberal fantasies

In the middle of his term, Argentinian president [Mauricio] Macri cannot hide the monumental abyss between his promises and reality. The promise was of an influx of dollars to lower inflation, with high growth, job creation, an entrepreneurial boom and eradication of social assistance. A drastic reduction of the fiscal deficit and a flow of money for public works through the ending of corruption was also predicted. It was also proclaimed that the “return to the world” would be rewarded with huge productive financing and an expansion of exports.

Imperialism and dependency: similarities and differences with the Marini era

The main theorist of dependency anticipated trends of neoliberal globalization. He analyzed productive globalization, the centrality of exploitation and the relative weight of surplus value transfers. But the employment crisis exceeds what was envisaged by Marini, in a scenario disrupted by the mutation of the United States, the collapse of the USSR and the rise of China.
The new national and social disparities emerge in an internationalized economy, without correlation in states and ruling classes. This absence of total transnationalization recreates dependency. The semiperipheries present an economic dimension differentiated from the geopolitical status of subimperialism. The “Global South” does not reincarnate the old periphery, nor does it include China. There are solid pillars to renew dependency theory

The Left and Venezuela

The media keep silent about the violence of the Venezuelan opposition and the prevailing repression by the right-wing governments of Latin America. The Right’s strategy of an institutional coup faces serious limits, but the Left must address this new threat, supporting antiimperialist decisions and making a distinction between the capitalist boycott and the government’s ineffectiveness. Adhering to social-democratic standards, the post-progressive “critical left” objects to Chavismo, dismissing the danger of a coup, and mistakenly identifying authoritarianism as the main danger. The dogmatists overlook the main enemy and converge with the conservatives or slip toward passive neutrality. The Right only wants elections it is sure it will win. In these very adverse conditions, the Constituent Assembly re-opens opportunities and points to a re-encounter with radical intellectual though

Trump’s Turbulent Debut

In his first days as President, Donald Trump confirmed he is a reactionary who plans to carry out many harmful measures. While resistance grows on the street, the viability of his aggression still remains a question. But in any case, an accurate analysis of his project is worth more than countless predictions.

Our Fidel

With Fidel’s death Latin America’s principal revolutionary figure of the last century has left us. Amidst our great sorrow at his passing it is difficult to assess his stature. But while emotion clouds any evaluation, the Comandante’s influence[1] can be appreciated with greater clarity now that he has left.

Resistance builds to Argentina’s new president

MAURICIO MACRI, the newly elected conservative president of Argentina, is attempting to push through brutal austerity measures while subordinating his administration to the United States. The only question is: Will he succeed? He won office by a small margin based on dishonest campaign pledges in a political climate that will make gutting the rights of workers and the poor difficult. So which way is the balance tipping at the end of his first three months in office?

Is South America‘s ‗progressive cycle‘ at an end? Neo-developmentalist attempts and socialist projects

The year 2015 ended with significant advances of the Right in South America. Mauricio Macri was elected President in Argentina, the opposition gained a majority in the Venezuelan parliament, and Dilma Rousseff is being hounded relentlessly in Brazil. Then
there are the conservatives‘ campaigns in Ecuador, and it remains to be seen whether Evo
Morales will obtain a new mandate in Bolivia. What is the nature of the period in the region? Has the period of governments taking their
distance from neoliberalism come to an end? The answer requires that we describe the particular features of the last decade.

U.S. setback at Panama Summit

Mainstream media presented the Panama Summit as if it were the beginning of a new era of cooperation. They pondered the end of the Cold War and painted Obama as a model of detente, as opposed to the hawkishness of Maduro.