From A Globalized Capitalist Public Sector and World Fascisation Towards Popular Rejection and Substitutions

Dr. Adel Samara, Palestine

Contribution to the International Communist Seminar
"Imperialism, Fascisation and Fascism"

Brussels, 2-4 May 2000

After two decades of imposing of neo-liberal economic policies, and after the subjugation of most of the peripheral states to the market ideology and when the slogan of "liberalization of trade" as a magic stick to terminate poverty and after the Third World’s application of the neo-liberal , the World Bank, and the IMF’s prescriptions which are essentially commands, after all these, more and more of the popular classes in the Third World discover that their nations become no more sovereign or that this is their final end. The national economy no more protected by the national state, the national bourgeois no more the protector of its national market. It is not the defender of the national market which suppose to be monopolized by its own products. The classical economic analysis, which states that each national bourgeois surely insist to control its own national market under the slogan of protecting its national economy, and for the sake of its interests, has been collapsed.

Most of the regimes in the Third World declined to no more than a self —rule regimes, if not colonies. Their markets are widely opened to the foreign (center’s products). Their industries obliged to become a mere sub-contractors to the foreign companies, or simply melted, and left the market or it is in the way. The profitable public sector companies has been sold to foreign ones by a little prices, capital of the center bought what it prefer of the periphery’s national assets especially and lately in the "Tigers" of South-east Asia Brazil, and the Russian federation.

The other face of the problem is that the weaken of the national liberation movements in the Third World that it failed to develop a new versions of militant organizations who are able to oppose this new version of globalization. That is the reason why the "opposition" to globalization stay limited into the ruling classes who are, i.e. the same classes who in fact strengthened dependency.

The role of neo-liberalism no more limited into the economic and political instance. It is extended into the cultural one as well. Through its succession in adapting with the new developments and renewed itself, capitalism in the center absorbed the threat of a new wave of national and social liberation in peripheral countries that the capitalist regimes of the center devote a lot of effort to contain the threat of radical intellectuals by supporting the NGOs, which in other words a part of the "Marinz of US Imperialist Culture" like ( Human Rights Organizations, teaching democracy groups, the non-governmental governments…etc) in the Third World to corrupt, by high salaries, travel tickets, luxurious offices, pretty secretaries…etc, as much as possible of the leftist, and nationalist cadres in a campaign to invade and terminate the cultural struggle and resistance against imperialism. These intellectuals has been and still are targeted by imperialism in a preventive plan to block the role of organic intellectuals from initiates a new social national radical movement. By doing that, imperialism is in fact re-educating peoples in peripheral countries by capitalist culture, consumerism, market ideology, subjugation…etc.

Doing that, capital is in fact succeeds in destroying all economic, cultural and political development in the Third World. The few exceptions who were escaped of this, like Iraq and Yoguslavia, has been the aim of a savage destructive wars uses all weapons including those who are closed to nuclear ones.

There is no doubt that capitalism in the center succeed in its old aim to contain the Soviet Union (following its dis-integration) and China (by open door and latter by membership in the WTO) into the World capitalist system.

This development of what so-called globalization is by no means a unified one. It is in fact two forms of globalization, one for he center and another for periphery, but in one world system. For the center, globalization means a leading role, a position of domination and exploitation on the world scale. It is the transfer of the working productive capital and activation of the Foreign Direct Investment FDI to be based in periphery. It should be noted that the transfer of industry from center to periphery is relatively substitute the liberalization of trade since the core products are produced in periphery itself. But its main danger is that it challenges and terminates the possibility of periphery’s regional self-reliance. Globalization for periphery means dependency and being placed where the center decides for each peripheral country in the context of world division of labor.

For the center, globalization means marketing its products globally, liberalization of trade and the suffocation of the Third World industries. It is to block any national heavy industry in periphery, and making its rulers an agents for transferring their country’s surplus to the center either in a form of net capital or as high prices for cheap imports. It is speculation globalization enabling the hot money to buy fast, and leave fast as well, the cheap assets when the crisis here or there taking place.

This duel globalization argues against globalization, and specially the pretend of those who are marketing globalization as if it is imperative, and no way to resist it, or that a rejection of globalization means autarky. The issue became is how to distribute and re-distribute the core industries in periphery’s countries which provide the cheapest labor power, raw material, and the availability of a compradoric regime which repress the working class and offer the most flexible "i.e. cheap" investment law to attract FDI. This, in addition to the two main targets who are: the targeting of the largest number of consumers. That is why, the United states insist on keeping a strong trade relationship with China and India, and that the availability of money liquidity is the reason why the same United States is occupy the Arab oil countries.

The World threefold crisis: crisis of Soviet Block’s disintegration, the decline of non-aligned movement and the current crisis in the capitalist centers on the one hand, and the lack of a clear alternative on the other has been associated with a change in the social structure of accumulation on the world scale.

The world witness changes which are pushing towards the creation of international political capitalist class center . A class alliance between all ruling capitalist classes each according to its own economic, political and cultural capacity and accordingly, its position in the world capitalist stratification. This is in parallel with a sharp increase of poverty and unemployment even in the center itself. Inside center, accumulation and monopolization of wealth continued in the hands of continuously decreased number of bourgeois. But the main variable is that this increasing took place in the recent years at the cost of the gains which the working classes achieved through a long class struggle especially in the post Second World War era., i.e. relatively enough salaries, the luxury state, low unemployment, women work….

What neo liberalism offers now is low wages, non-guaranteed jobs, unemployment, Catholic church’s fundamentalism which preaching for women to stay home, be nice mothers, and to never compete males in any jobs, and to limit themselves in jobs which males are unable naturally to conduct, (biological reproduction of society). As a mater of fact, There are 30 million poor people in the United States, according to the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Statistics. .

The social structure of accumulation on the World Scale breeds extensions for itself in the previous "socialist" countries. Following revisionism of Khrutheiv and later Brezeniev, the Nomemklatura elite in the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe were increasing their control over the economy and society to the extent that they succeeds in disintegrating the social bases of these regimes while maintaining for themselves the political power.

Accordingly, a social structure of accumulation has been developed in these countries represented by a speculative and Mafia nepotist capitalism which control the industrial base in Russia cheaply. One of the characters of this capitalism is that it let the foreign capital to buy, cheaply, the local asset. It is important to note that the new joint ownership is limited into the assets of the Third World not those of the center. The result internationalization of capital covers at once industry, industrial capital, financial capital and all of these are led by ruling classes of the center.

At the bottom of this pyramid of the social structure of accumulation comes the Third World bourgeois who’s role is to repress its masses as the main mechanism to guarantee its role as an agent to facilitate and protect the transfer of wealth to the center. For this role, the Third World bourgeois donated assistance in military, financial and police training forms. These donations are a "rent" for its political role. Many of these regimes are living according to their "role" in protecting the imperialist interests, marketing free market ideology, arguing for liberalization of trade, "resisting terrorism" and finally, "normalizing the relationship between their masses and the bloody capital and imperialism.

This international social structure of accumulation is the nucleolus for a World Fascist government which is already represented by billionaires and millionaires in center and periphery.

The Way How Financial Capital Dominates and Cements a Fascist World System

One of the main developments which follows post-war boom era is the dominant role of financial capital. Part of the story of this rise related to the large deficit in the US current account in the 1950s and 60s which increasingly deteriorated in the period 1974-1983. The US economy’s crisis begins following to 1967’s policy of post-industrial society. This opened the way for dollar to transcend the determined gold level and the exchange rate. "The sharp deficit increase in the first period was due primarily to a large advance in government expenditures, while the second period it was the result of both a rise in outlays and a receipts shortfall. However, concerns the large current account U.S account deficits of the fifties and the sixties which, together its capital exports, resulted in an outpouring of U.S. dollars, and which were decreed under the Bretton Woods system to be "as good as gold". They led the formation of the Eurodollar market and, eventually , to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system itself. Another episode was the petro-dollar deposits following the oil shocks, which put enormous funds at the disposal of the metropolitan banks, made them the key actors in the "recycling" process, and reduce the IMF to a mere "gendarme of finance capital" The point, however, is that through these episodes, globalized finance capital rose to a position of pre-eminence.

For instance, "While Dow Jones has just hit 11,000 , increasing 1,000 points in 24 trading days in late March, the machine-tool builders’ association, which is known as the American Association for manufacturing technology , announced that for February, machine tool consumption in the United States had fallen 51% between February of this year and February of last year.

There are three interaction curves which cant function separately says Richard Freeman ," the financial aggregates, the monetary aggregates and the physical-economic input/output . The top most curve represents financial aggregates. That ‘s the financial bubble. Just to give you an example, in the United States, the capitalization, or valuation of all stocks is more than $16 trillion. The latest figures that we have worked up for the value of derivatives, which are just bets, is $55 trillion".

But Patnaik says that, this financial capital differs from what Lenin wrote about in at least three ways, First, the finance capital in Lenin’s conception was nation-based and hence nation-state aided, while the new finance capital was international, both in the sense of sucking in finance all over the globe… Second, this finance capital operates not in the context of inter-imperialist rivalry, as in Lenin’s time, but of imperialist powers acting in greater unionism. This does not imply that contradictions among them do not exist. Thirdly, Contemporary finance capital is not "capital controlled by banks and employed by industrialists‘ (to use Hilferding’s words quoted by Lenin).It is not the "coalescence of bank and industrial capital" (as Bukharin put it) of a particular imperialist country, but globalized finance drawn from all over and searching for quick profits, usually in speculative activities. In short, much of this finance capital operates in the form of ‘hot money’ flows"

The issue here is not limited in the limits of an international financial amount, but in the fact that a capitalist international class nets which operates this amount. Here again, the issue of two globalizations imposed itself. While this amount of finance capital is international one, its national roots are evaporates in the case of the Third World share, and strengthened in the case of the center. As an example, the Arab finance capital in the imperialist centers lost its national roots to the extent that it is used in the costs of aggression against Iraq, the invasion of Somalia and the support of Israel. Accordingly, not only finance capital in periphery lost its roots, but the capitalists themselves lost their roots as well. The homeland for the peripheral finance capitalists became their bank account which deposited who monopolize and manage finance capital.

The peripheral capitalist regimes who adopt the neo-liberal policies did in fact facilitate transfer of surplus to the center either by direct exploitation, the sale of public sector and in general the privatization policies.

Arab Oil regimes was a main supplier of money liquidity to the finance capital. By transferring oil surpluses to the western banks after the two main oil prices adjustments (called shocks) 1973 and 1980, they provide these banks with capital to lend the Third World countries who contribute in this money through paying higher oil prices. i.e. the money paid by Third World countries including some Arab countries has been returned back to them in form of loans. This created a bad image about all Arabs indiscriminately.

Dr Saa’doun Hamadi noted that because Arab oil has been sold less than the proper prices to maintain the purchasing power of barrel at its level of 1974, Arab oil countries lost between 1987-1995 an amount of $519860 billion. Even Tunisia, which is the smallest Arab oil producer lost $433 million in one year 1995, and lost in the same period $2688 million . To maintain the purchasing power per barrel at its level of 1981, the Arab countries lost $ 225266 million. The total losses of Arab countries in the period 1987-1995 were $15546907 million, i.e. which is more than $1.5 trillion dollars. These amounts gained by the ten states which import Arab oil and export goods and services to Arab countries".

These Arab surpluses, which easily and voluntary flown to the imperialist centers, became large part of the debt burden over the peripheral countries. It is flown voluntary because:

"…at the time when oil prices has been challenged by a drastic decline in 1978, Saudi Arabia increases its oil exports (oil production) in 1994 from 3438 thousand barrels per day to 7388 thousand barrels. The same done by Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates UAE… Saudi Arabia adopted a duel policy. Inside OPEC meetings, Saudi Arabia was supporting the limiting and quota production, but when Kuwait and UAE increase their production Saudi Arabia increase its production as well pretend that the quotas system became useless and if it will continue committed with, it will loose its markets for others who did not committed. That is why the oil price declined below the price which fixed by OPEC, $18 per barrel until it reaches $7 by 1990, and probably less than that".

There is no doubt that several factors contributed to this Arab oil regimes policy. First: The capitalist center is in fact dominating the decision making in these countries. Second: That these tiny countries are unable to absorb large developmental projects which needs a regional cooperation and self reliance, this in addition to the fact that these regimes unable and not ready to deal with or generate dynamics of development, because it believe that oil rent is guaranteed and enough to meet what regimes, not people’s, "needs". This made it easy for these regimes to let oil surplus flow freely to the western capitalist banks. Third: These dependent countries are coordinating with the Western politics and banks more than Arab neighbors. This is an indicator of the absence of the national factor. And Fourth: This is an indication for the weakness of the Arab national movement.

The Arab assistance and donations policy is the same of Arab oil surpluses. In the period between 1962-1983, Arab oil countries distribute $9426, 73 million dollars in form of assistance..

Liberal and neo-liberal polices always attributing for them selves the role of opening world doors for a free movement of goods, services, labor and capital. This pretend is highly repeated recently under the cover of liberalization of trade on the world scale in a pretend that openness benefiting all countries. While it is benefiting the core countries which employ workers who are able to produce competitive goods in the world market. This ability is a self protection for the core countries because most of the poor countries haven’t much to export on the one hand and the same core countries are always impose restrictions on the Third World exports on the other.

There are many conditions still imposed over the flow of the peripheral products to the core markets. Finance capital is the most benefited of liberalization policies especially as a hot money and through the new facilities, either in the governmental policies of encouraging FDI or through the developed telecommunications and internet. The more open policies in periphery, the more minimizing of the peripheral state control over its own markets and sovereign its land. Accordingly, a new forms of dictatorships are emerging in periphery, which leaving their borders open for foreign capital, goods and services. This in parallel of having a strong, well armed police to rule easily the working class and the whole society, while the Third World migrant labor in the center continuously attacked by fascist groups.

These Third World regimes are more like a self-rule administrative regimes, not independent ones, new forms of self rules. The economies of these regime are more and more operated by the IMF, WB, which are controlled by the states in the center, terminating the public sector which employ large number of the labor force, while through transfer of surplus to the center, the core states are in fact financing jobs for their own workers.

Thus, while decentralization increasing in the center, the same core regimes strengthening their fist over the world economy through the IMF and WB , WTO and the world investment organization. This centralized administration over the world economy is itself a globalized world public sector controlled economically by the international financial institutions and socially/politically by repressive regimes in periphery. This is the economic and political foundation of the creation of a world fascist regime.

The peripheral comprador state is paving the way for MNC and merchant banks by supporting reactionary regimes there who are terminating public sector, opening their markets, producing legislative decrees which facilitates the FDI and repressing the working classes. Achieving that, the core countries are not in urgent need for direct military aggression. They are creating and operating their "global sector" as if it is an internal matter. The United states have a "respected" word in appointing a prime minister or minister in most Arab countries, in negotiations between Silvador’s regime and the revolutionaries…etc

Under the name of a world village, liberalizing of trade, mutual interdependence and, privatization…the MNCs are transferring wealth and surplus to the core countries which create new jobs, albeit they are of low wages. This explain really what a globalized capitalist public sector means. It is a finance for the core state, it is an operation of the financial sector inside it, it guarantee finance for job in services, research and development.

Still the core of this development a capitalist one. The private sector still dominant. Either as productive or financial. But it is the local/national one. The change took place in the role of the state, i.e. the termination of the public sector which was a complementary to the private one, but at the same time a tool for minimizing social tension. This is the core of the state fascisation which maintain the private sector internally and support it to create a global sector overseas with a private content. The state facilitate its role, either by legislation or by army and police. Transfer of capital by the globalized sector minimizing social tension inside the core states through creating new jobs. The opposite is for the periphery which in addition to all its problems facing a population high growth?

Third World ruling classes’ contribution into the globalizaed public sector, is camouflaged by the pretend of supporting private sectors in their own countries which, according to them, will follow the steps of the private sector in the center. It is really will known that the historical circumstances which the private sector developed in the center will never be repeated by the same manner. Private sector in the center started as a productive, internally oriented, self-centered. And either protected, or doesn’t face real and strong foreign competitors etc. But in periphery, the private sector is more dependent, consumerist, and led by dependent regimes who are mainly supported and protected by the core states against the well of their own masses.

That is why, the disintegration of the public sector is a part of the creation of the public globalized statist capitalist sector on the one hand and a part of the peripheral regimes’ campaign against their own people on the other. By loosing the public sector, the peripheral states are loosing a main source of income and end to depend totally on taxing their own people. Through taxing, the poor masses will be milked to the maximum and the rich class will encourage corruption to evade paying proper taxes. The result will be less income for the regime, more tension with the poor and more dependency on the colonial countries to feed the regime. This aid which is a tiny part of what the MNC sucked from these countries. In parallel to that, the disintegration of the public sector means more unemployment in countries which have a high birth rates. This is an additional factor which throw to the labor market a new army of strike breakers!

The aim of this name global public capitalist sector is to prove that the private sector never care of employing labor force even inside its own country. It is to explain a new role of the state, it is a reflection of the strengthening of the states role, but in harmony with that of the private sector. According to the economic crisis after 1973, and weaken of the luxury state, increase of unemployment, underemployment, wage decrease…etc, some thing must substitute, even relatively that role. The possible area of that is externally not internally. That is why this sector is 1- practiced by the MNCs overseas which supported by its own state. This state knows in advance that in the end these MNC’s will serve the state’s role inside the country by transferring finance capital to the country which employ people in banks, insurance, mortgages and other financial services, internet…etc. 2- Despite of the fact that this sector is related to the national state, it is clear that not all national states practicing that. It is limited into the core states who are represented by MNCs. 3- It is limited into the core states who have interests all over the world and the power to maintain these interests by force, (see what happen to Iraq and Serbia). 4- This sector rise in parallel with the dismantling of the public sector 5- This sector is a mechanism which provide the state of money liquidity which sucked from periphery who’s states became an agent for transferring capital to the center through adoption of neo-liberal polices . 6- This sector is a speculative as well. 7- this sector milking periphery through debt (service and payments) 8- The role of this sector represented by the bourgeois state is to minimize tension between capital and labor in the center by financing new service jobs, while it is increasing this tension in periphery. The tension which when broke out always faced by police force.

The current subjugation of the peripheral state to the neo-liberal polices imposed by the core imperialist states opened all of world markets to the imperialist exports. This explain why the U.S.A and Britain escaped their depression. This put the state management of demand in critical position and minimize the chances for radical politics on the one hand, and minimize industrialization of the Third World on the other.

Hamid al-Jumaili reaches essentially the same results of mine, but he did not push his analysis to the final end, i.e. to note that this is a globalized public sector.

Briefly speaking, the components of this sector from the side of the core countries, is the availability of a core state facilities to capital mobility on the world scale to Establish productive projects, to sell services, to create marketing networks to market the projects’ products in periphery, and to finance the continuity of dependent regimes in periphery.

From the side of periphery it needs: Comprador capitalist regimes supported by intellectual comprador theorizing for dependent globalization. Peripheral qualified labor power, but without substantial rights. Open door economic policies supported by special, anti-national, investment laws which facilitates national economic disintegration and challenge possible cohesion of local industry.

Many conditions still necessary for global fascist state to be completed, in addition to its de-centralization in the center and highly centralization in periphery. Of the main conditions of this form of state, is to minimize sovereign of peripheral state to the extent that it became in the level of colony. This colony must have a strong repressive apparatus against labor and all popular classes. These are the political and economic factors necessary for this global fascist state. But it is still needs the intellectual/theoretical factors as well. This has been done by a lot of false praising to democracy, human rights…etc. This is what some intellectuals pretend that a substantial democratic improvement has been developing in peripheral countries.

In fact, it is a democratization in theory, but in practice, the economic/political global regime is terminating democracy in the both center and periphery. In the center, wealth is concentrated in the hands of the fewer number of people, wages are continuously lack behind prices, an increase of the need for second and third jobs to substitute the low wages of the first jobs, and women should go home to become a "good" Christian and to stay limited into biological re-production of society or in sexual advertisement on TVs screens which males are not suitable for.

In periphery, while life conditions deteriorated harshly, there is an increase in poverty, high birth rates and higher unemployment. The ruling classes in both center and periphery are launching a preemptive campaigns against leftist and nationalist intellectuals through recruiting and luring them for high salaried jobs in NGOs aiming to distance them far from politics and radicalism. Doing that, capital is in fact hindering a new national liberation wave in periphery.

According to the economic/political trend of the world system, the imperialist thinkers reached the era of post-democracy. Hintington and Prezinsky came to Carter department and even Carter himself from the triad committee, which is an organization found and financed by David Rockfeller since 1974. In 1975, Huntigton contribute in the preparation of a report named: report on the ruling crisis in Democracies for the Triad Committee". It is a study suspecting the feasibility of maintaining the representative democracies and in the continuity of institutions and movements which based on democracies during the adoption of austerity programs which needs, according to them, post democratic governments and systems, or non-democratic ones". Huntington was one of three from the triad committee produced study on the crisis of democracy generate the program called "Democracy’s Project".

Democracy’s project is in fact a non-democratic one. It is a project to lure leftist activists to ignore politics, and to work complementarily with the oppressive ruling classes in periphery. It is to absorb these intellectuals in a project aimed at "re-educating" the popular classes, i.e. to believe in market economy, free market ideology, American culture, … etc.

To support his theory of the crisis of democracy, Hunitgton argues that "…in post industrial societies, nations became not satisfied to be ruled by democratic means. Thus, for a candidate to be a president, he must gather an election coalition contains majority of voters distributed all over the country…and since 1930s, what became most important is the ability of the candidate to collect the support of the main institution leaders in society and government."

This is an open call for regimes which depends on the economic and political elite to avoid democracy. In other words, it is a call for dictatorship or fascism

Mechanisms of Transcend and Alternatives Model

What are the possible means for periphery to challenge this dangerous capitalist project?. By what it is possible for periphery to avoid polarity which imposed by the capitalist centers?. Are all regimes in periphery a compradoric ones, i.e. non-nationalist ones and unable to transcend the blocked development? Is the popular alternative the only hope?. All these questions might be briefed that formal alternative is impossible. The hope is the popular alternative

Of the main obstacles against development that bourgeois peripheral national state lost its expected role to execute for national development on the other. Capital, through NGOs, deformed radical intellectuals of peripheral societies, i.e. pre-emptying periphery of its moral power as an essential part of prime mover towards transformation.

The Third World experience of national liberation and formal political independence ended to a comprador regimes who lost even the formal control of its own sovereignty . All calls for a new world economic order in 1970’s and cries for the lost decade 1980’s gone with the wind. The experience of the 15 countries which started 1990 did not deliver yet.

Even today, the last adjustment of oil price might decline according to the game of pressure/chicken out. The price of oil still $27 per barrel. According to inflation of 25% from 1992 until today, it must be $27 which is the current price. But Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Kuwait have subjugated to the U.S. pressure to increase oil production as the traditional way to make prices down.

The experience of Malaysia tells a different lesson. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohmad who had just enacted currency and capital controls in order to protect Malaysia from speculative assault. These measures, goes against IMF prescriptions, showed a fast and good effects and a possibility of resistance even not from a socialist attitude. Imperialist capitalists launched bitter attacks against Malaysia, especially the U.S vice President Al-Gore who attacked Mahatir inside his country. This is an inclination that imperialism might not hesitate to invade any countries who adopt a national or an anti capitalist model of development.

Regarding Arab attitude towards globalization, Dr. Sadiq Al-Azim agreed with Dr. Mufid Hilmi’s argument that: "…now the essential issue for Arab states regarding globalization is neither to stop globalization creeping nor to be a tale for it, but to deal with this phenomenon or the declared theory which embodied in the modern world economic system, by as much as possible of wisdom, responsibility, realism and objectivity. This must be based on local self-reliance, and pan-Arab self-reliance and on a dealing with the largest phenomenon, which is that of globaliatio.

The problem of this argument lies in the fact that it is a mere continuity of the thesis of regional self-reliance between a group of national states in peripheral countries. But while this thesis or model suffer a serious defects by donating credibility to the national bourgeois regimes, Al-Azim still consider the comprador state as a vehicle for development. This is not real on the one hand, and contributing in the deformation of the consciousness of the new generation by telling them that the comprador capitalism is able to represent the national interests through globalized openness on the other. It is possible for a group of peripheral countries to adopt regional self- reliance developmental model. This model initiated by the ruling regime, in which patriotism is a necessary condition. While this adoption is acceptable in theory, but changes on the level of ruling classes in peripheral countries works against the possibility of applying this model. There is no more "national/patriotic’ regime there to apply Samir Amin, Fawzi Mansour and other writers model of regional self-reliance. The interests of current comprador classes sure not in regional self-reliance. Fawzi Mansour for example asking the current bourgeois ruling classes in periphery to conduct a job which per-condition a Marxist party. According to experience, even the availability of a socialist party in power still not a guarantee against bureaucratic degradation.

On the level of relationship between peripheral states, Mansour wrote, "In early 1976, I atttended one such tri-continental meeting in Sri Lanka…I proposed the adoption, by third-world countries, of seven concise policy guidelines. Trade between third-world countries should be direct…a system of generalized preferences should be established…payments from one third-world country to another should not pass through non-third world intermediaries...etc

These ideas doesn’t tell us to what extent the ruling bourgeois comprador will be committed to these nice proposed ideas, how these countries will re-design their unequal exchange with imperialist center, how it will solve debt burden on most of its members? Will it be re-scheduled or not paid! Will these countries establish internal specialization or integration between themselves, especially in an era of supply-side crisis. Mansour might reply that these measures needs some changes in these countries’ internal policies and arrangements to be ready for regional cooperation. This is right, but are the current regimes ready for that?. The self-reliance and de-link school, who’s arguments are distinguished, did not tell us what are the guarantees for these models to be conducted and maintained without being hold by renegades.

The alternative to the wishful thinking of self-reliance under a comprador regimes will be Development by Popular Protection DPP. This model DPP is to large extent based on Self-reliance and De-linking model, but it must transcend it according to needs in the socio-economic field. It is a model deduced from the experience of Palestinian Intifada , . For sure, this model still not completed. I doubt that there is a development model completed by one writer, or even completed at all. As a work of masses, it must be always open for contribution. This model works far from the ruling peripheral class, this is its First Condition. It suppose that those in power are against it. At the best case, those in power might be neutral towards it. Since it is a spontaneous popular initiative it means that it is a popular decision. Popular masses are not in need for a bureaucratic party to teach them the fundamentals of this model. It is the popular understanding represented by trade unions, grassroots organizations women unions, students and youths movements who voluntarily adopt and develop the position of Internally Withdrawal, as its second condition, on the consumption level, i.e. to concentrate on consuming the local products, not the imported from the imperialist center. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the popular classes boycotted the Israeli products. This experience continued until Madrid-Oslo so called peace took place, when the PA stopped popular boycotting to the Israeli products.

Popular classes will give priority to the Third World products. Here regional self-reliance consumption could work. This step contains a pressure over the regime to import Third World products. Or at least it is the interest of the merchant class to import according to the masses’ demand.

The popular classes move towards starting cooperatives its, Third Condition, to produce as much as possible of their needs. This is the beginning of Internal Withdrawal productively, i.e. the process of re-structuring the deformed productive structure of the national econmoy. This must be conditioned that each member in cooperative must pay a share in the investment to be a constructor by his work and finance. So he is a builder, financier, worker and consumer. This popular monopoly is the most important guarantee. The member must cooperate with the marketing net so as to terminate the merchant’s monopoly as its Fourth Condition.

This model has never depended on foreign or non-governmental finance as its Fifth Condition. This finance contains the beginning of dependency and the termination of DPP. But a revolutionary assistance might be checked seriously.

Later, this model will develop the conscious of consumption to a consciously consuming as its Sixth Condition. In this level, each citizen became able to control himself, what and from were to consume. This presuppose a boycotting of the class and national enemies’ products including the local capital which cooperate with the foreign capital either as an importing agent or as a joint venture or sub-contractor. This conscious consuming is in itself an investment controller. By boycotting foreign capitalist and local products of joint ventures which does not designed for basic needs, capitalists obliged to re-orient to produce according to popular demand. For sure, this will consume a long time. No body thinks that a change of the economic, political, cultural structure of societies happens fast or by commands from above. Until this level, the comprador political authorities might still unable to harm this model.

Political parties are revolutionaries according to what extent its members are pioneering in this model without imposing themselves over it in a bureaucratic manner. If a political party able to practice its role popularly, in a pioneering manner, and a democratic one, this party will be empowered by peoples’ support. This is its Seventh Condition In this case, the party absorbs development conditions from below, i.e from a popular parliament represents and composed from the popular masses. But this is not enough. The revolutionary party, a Marxist-Leninest one, should develop the popular model, educate popular classes, support women against patriarchal domination, fighting, by education, against reactionary mentality of the peasant peripheral society, i.e. the holiness of private property, the closed clan grouping…etc . Briefly, this party is very necessary for this model, it might , the party, create its own economy as a beginning of a DPP on the national scale.

For the popular parliament to design a proper economic policy, an annual national conference its Eight’s Condition should took place for the popular masses to say its word, to review the past policy and develop it. In this situation, the revolutionary party, if it is in power or out, must play the role of popular net to generalize dialogue and the decisions of the conference as a medium step to transfer the plan into practice.

This model is democratic because those who decide the economic plan, (from saving, investment, distribution, until generating income) are the people of the cooperatives. Intifada itself was a democratic environment because it initiated politically and economically far from any regime or political party leadership.

In another step of its development, this model moves towards the work to absorb the informal sector as the Ninth Condition or at least to coordinate with this sector. Even until this step, this model still far from the economic policy of the ruling class.

The model of DPP, means that a social force stands behind the economy defending it against bureaucracy, dependency, and open door policy. It is a social pressure on the ruling class who adopts open door policy. It is a class struggle against the social classes who benefited from dependency. Finally, it is an embryonic of a genuine socialist system, i.e. socialist system from below.

As mentioned above, this model works far from the state. But in case of a national state regime and its ruling socialist party, this model works in cooperation or in separation of the state according to state’s policy, economic plan, social policy and to what extent these policies are in harmony with that of DPP. It depends on how much the state marginate the popular classes in both decision planning and production activity and productive planning at the place of work. The DPP practice pressure over the state to re-distribute the social surplus for the sake of popular classes, i.e. land reform, work guarantee, more spending on infra structure, a continuous wage increase, protection of the national economy, stop repaying debts…etc.

It is a democratic choice, in which states role is to serve and protect economy not to subjugate to the market laws, or bureaucracy. That is why, this model is beyond de-linking, which depend on the national state and its ruling party which ends to bureaucracy. When this project realizes that the state’s policy is closed to its conceptions and practices, the time will be ripe for cooperation and mutual interdependence with similar countries on a regional and international scale. Without the measure which stated above, Third World countries will throw themselves into an endless adventures by an increasing globalization . But while this doesn’t mean that doors must be closed for states cooperation, international cooperation and joint struggle between popular classes on the world scale is inevitable to challenge the capitalists’ international in developing fascist system. But this is beyond the limits and aim of this paper.