Systemic crisis of Capitalism on the tip of the iceberg - part III
Smitu Kothari & Benny Kuruvilla
Frontline Interview with Egyptian economist
Samir Amin.
Because the consequences of the implementation of the so-called
neoliberal - it’s not neoliberal, its ultra reactionary, full stop.
Whether it was growing pauperisation, growing inequality, growing
unemployment, growing precariousness, etc., it’s only normal that the
people started resisting and organising themselves and protesting.
It’s also absolutely normal that the resistance and its beginning is
one, fragmented; because everyone is fighting on the immediate front to
which he or she is confronted.
Two, that they remain basically defensive that they want to defend
what was acquired before, whether in the North defending the social
democratic welfare state or in the South defending land reforms or the
rights to education, free public health and free education or against
privatisation and all that.
Now, the World Social Forum came naturally as a result of that
growing protest and resistance as a forum open to all movements of
protest. I’m not negative about it. I’m considering that it is positive
to the extent that we, the World Forum for Alternatives, existed before
the World Social Forum and played a role in it and will continue to do
so. But, we believe that this is not enough, and that the challenge is
far more serious than many of the social movements believe. They believe
that through their fragmented resistance they can change the balance of
forces.
Q: I feel that this is wrong. The balance of forces cannot be
changed unless those fragmented movements forge a common platform based
on some common grounds. We, the World Forum for Alternatives, call it
convergence with diversity, that is, recognising the diversity, not only
of movements which are fragmented but of political forces which are
operating with them, of ideologies and even visions of the future of
those political forces; and that this has to be accepted and respected.
We are no more in the situation where a leading party alone was
creating the common front with transmission belts, etc. etc. It’s very
difficult building that convergence in diversity, but unless this is
achieved, I think the balance of forces will shift in favour of the
popular classes.In India, there is a growing trend of religion playing a
more strident and aggressive role in politics, often deciding its
course.
And there is, therefore, a growing shift towards the Right, towards
greater social conflict and violence, towards the kind of fragmentation
that we are seeing. We are also witnessing a marriage of convenience
between this religious Right and the forces of economic globalisation.
Where do you see the potential for democratic political forces to
intervene in this, to bring some constructive political outcome?
A: That’s a very difficult question. My judgment on this
political Islam, political Hinduism is very negative. They are
reactionary. It’s not because they are religions. It’s because of the
content. And they are manipulated by the ruling classes. I don’t think
that this political Islam, political Hinduism has been the spontaneous
product of the popular classes.
To a great extent, they are operated and mobilised in order to avoid
the Left. With a view to creating a wall which prevents the Left from
penetrating the popular classes. It’s an illusion. It has worked
precisely because the political elite has lost its credibility and its
legitimacy. And these forces appear as alternatives.
If we look within their programmes, these are not only socially and
culturally, in most cases, reactionary but they are economically and
socially reactionary. They accept, de facto, existing capitalism,
existing imperialism, and they compensate their submission to them by
creating an internal enemy. Whether the Muslims here, the Hindus there
or the Christians elsewhere. And this is really dangerous.
Now, how do we deal with this reality? It’s not easy for the Left.
It’s a real challenge. And the Left cannot just remain at the level of
principles. To say that the alternative is a secular state which
separates itself from religion is not enough. It has also to develop how
the influence of those reactionary forces on the popular classes can be
defeated. Through the Left moving into the masses to defend, not in
rhetoric but in fact in action and through action, their real economic
and social interests. This is the only way to marginalise the centrist
and reactionary forces.
As long as the Left is doing nothing within the popular classes, as
long as most of their analyses and programmes are only on paper or in
their political rhetoric, they will continue to be a marginal force.
Nothing more than that.
Link
|
