To the Editor:

I have just seen and read the Multinational Monitor (July 198 tobacco issue. There was no mention of Nicaragua. This country, arguably the most anti-imperialist there is, particularly opposed to "cash crop dependency," several years ago embarked on an export tobacco industry for the first time in Nicaraguan history. The stated reason was to diversify the country's cash crop for export economy as a step towards escaping dependency. But TOBACCO! If they succeed, will they become another Zimbabwe?

Dale Chock
Seattle, Washington

To the Editor:

As a long time reader of the Multinational Monitor, and an admirer of your work, it's time that you let me have my say. In this day and age of the high-tech multinational rampage, is exposure and criticism enough?

No it is not. The Monitor has not fully taken the opportunity presented to it by the breadth of information available to it to search for alternatives to multinational corporations. You imply that the question is one of right or wrong, of whether decisions made by organizational managers are moral or not. But it should be clear to you by now that the excesses and crimes of the multinationals are most likely a function of their size and their wealth. Isn't it abundantly clear that mammoth organizations, be they government or corporate, profit or non-profit, are bound to mess up sooner or later? And that messing up in an age of nuclear power, genetic engineering and high-tech means a string of Chernobyls, ozone holes, acid rain, starvation and deforestation.

Sure, individuals make mistakes. But the risk differential between individual and organizational mistakes is huge. If an individual trips over a dog, the result might be a dog bite. But if an organization trips over its nuclear power plant, you get Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Of course, the debate between Marxism and Capitalism is passe. It is no longer a question of who controls, but what is being controlled. Chernobyl was operated by a large notfor-profit operation known as the state in the name of the workers.

The back issues of the Monitor are the best argument for a limitation on wealth and size of organizations. They clearly reveal that multinational corporations provide us with much that is unnecessary, much that is threatening and harmful and little that we need. Food, shelter and clothing we can provide, for ourselves. Isn't it time we got back to basics? Isn't it time the Monitor searched for some answers as an enlightened supplement to its healthy monthly catalogue of crime?

Al Boucher
Windsor, Canada