Systemic crisis of Capitalism on the tip of the iceberg - Part II
Continued from the Leader Page of yesterday
Smitu Kothari & Benny Kuruvilla
Frontline Interview with Egyptian economist Samir Amin.
Q: There are other dimensions to the
liberal virus. The liberal virus is also working at the global level -
that there is no alternative but to operate within the global system as
it is dominated by imperialism; we have to unilaterally adjust to it.
That is part of the liberal virus, which has also been called structural
adjustment; which is structural adjustment of India today to the
requirement of accumulation of capital in the United States and not the
opposite, of course. Not the adjustment of the United States to the
needs of development in India. Now that is also something the Left has
to get rid of. You have been saying for several decades now that
capitalism is on the decline - with indicators such as the polarisation
of wealth, the loss of productive capacities of peoples and the
destruction of the environment - but the fact is that it is still
hegemonic. So where do you see the impulses of a people-centred
socialism coming from in this hegemonic environment?
A: I am optimistic because I think we are moving towards the
possibility of a Bandung II. That is, of a common front, an alliance, a
rapprochement and a convergence of most of the countries of the South
against the North or independent from the North at least to a certain
degree.
The content of such an alliance should be the following. One, it
should move out of the current monetary and financial system as far as
possible. Some countries will be able to do this. China is an example
and perhaps Malaysia too. Perhaps, this will encourage other countries
to move in this direction. Second is to give priority to shift their
internal development policies from outward-oriented export strategies
towards the domestic popular market or the masses as far as possible.
This is easy for continental countries such as China and India.
There are signs that China is already doing this by moving out of the
logic of global markets. India can do this but it is doing the opposite.
China has six-odd special economic zones [SEZs] and they are highly
regulated, and India is on the flawed path to set up some 500 SEZs,
which will be practically open and unregulated. The other countries that
are not as big as these two should give priority to regional cooperation
instead of focussing on the markets of the North. Regional cooperation
is not easy in South Asia because you have India, which is big, and the
rest are small countries. And there is a rightful fear of Indian
sub-imperialism in the region. But if you take Asia with China, India,
South Asia and South-east Asia, then you get a more balanced picture and
there is more room for genuine trade and economic cooperation. Such a
response with key countries from Africa and South America is what I
would like to call Bandung II.
And this will be different from the first Bandung conference with
Asian and African states in 1955. The focus now can also be on issues
like technology. These states, especially China, India and Brazil, are
now in a position to develop technologies by themselves. This is a huge
difference from the 1955 meeting because at that time these countries
had hardly any industries and the level of technical and scientific
knowledge was very low. So despite the lofty goals of the conclave, they
had to import technologies and submit to the conditions of the West.
UNCTAD did try to set up initiatives to absorb and learn from
technologies and some countries did benefit.
Now the situation is different, and the challenge of the monopoly of
technologies by the North can now be countered by the South. It is
therefore no surprise that the WTO (through the Agreement on TRIPS
[trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights]) is being used
by the North to overprotect that monopoly. I think China is de facto
using mechanisms to overturn this monopoly, and this is why you hear
protests on China not protecting intellectual property rights.
India could also do this but it is not. The city of Bangalore is a
services powerhouse but sadly not geared towards the development of
India but for the primary benefit of transnational corporations and
raising their monopoly rents. And this is done with cheap but highly
educated Indian professionals.
So Bandung II should be conceived very differently even at a
political level. Bandung I was a meeting of the states and its peoples.
China had just come out of a revolution, and India, Indonesia and Egypt
were newly independent from colonialism. So to a large extent, these
governments were legitimate in the eyes of their own people and there
was a progressive nationalistic outlook. But now we are faced with
ruling classes that are much more comprador and that benefit from their
integration with the global system. And, therefore, they have little
legitimacy, and Bandung II must be a Bandung of the people. If this
popular mobilisation of the people can happen, maybe some governments
will change.
Q: In other words, this means it has
to be a Bandung of the Left. And this obviously means that the Left does
not act like it does now, that is, that there is no alternative to
capitalism. What I am trying to say here is that the clear message
should be that "there is no alternative to socialism" in the long run.
And this is where the importance of internationalism comes in. If a new
internationalism does not happen we will be faced with more of the
crisis situations of the rise of political Islam, political Hinduism,
political ethnicism and the like. This is an imminent danger because
when people lose confidence in the power structures they will be easily
manipulated by those illusions. And we should bear in mind that this is
absolutely acceptable by imperialism, provided they don't go too far
into so-called "terrorism". The World Social Forum is entering its ninth
year. It is going to be held in Belem. You have been quite critical
about the WSF.
What are your thoughts on that, as
well as the role the WSF should be playing given the current crisis?
Given that across the world, even in pockets, even if it is fragmented
and disorganised, there is growing resistance to capitalism,
how do you see us building the transitions? Institutionally,
politically, organisationally, in terms of a new internationalism -
somewhere you called this the fifth international?
A: Well, this also relates to the question of the World Social
Forum. I think the gloomy years were very short. The first half of the
1990s, from the breakdown of freely existing socialism, the move on the
capitalist road by China. Then movements of resistance and of protest
started again. Everywhere in the world, in the North and in the South,
in the East and in the West.
To be continued |