PRAGOTI

Interview

“There is no Alternative but Socialism”: Samir Amin

[Prof. Samir Amin, eminent Marxist scholar and Director, Third World Network was in New Delhi on 17th November 2008, to address a Symposium on the Global Economic Crisis. He spoke about the current crisis and the way forward for the progressive forces, to Prasenjit Bose and Senthil Babu from the CPI (M)]. Interview courtesy India News Network.

Interview

“There is no Alternative but Socialism”: Samir Amin

[Prof. Samir Amin, eminent Marxist scholar and Director, Third World Network was in New Delhi on 17th November 2008, to address a Symposium on the Global Economic Crisis. He spoke about the current crisis and the way forward for the progressive forces, to Prasenjit Bose and Senthil Babu from the CPI (M)]. Interview courtesy India News Network.

Q: In the context of the global financial crisis, what are your views on the state of global economy?

SA: The present crisis is as big as the 1930s depression. It is not only a financial crisis. The financial dimension is only the tip of the iceberg. But the real crisis is in the accumulation and reproduction of capital in the real economy. It is a systemic crisis in global capitalism and imperialism. In order to understand why it started in the area of finance, we ought to move away from superficial description of global capitalism, which is to identify capitalism with neo-liberalism.

My reading is that capitalism has reached a certain level of centralization of capital that cannot be compared to the situation, even fifty years ago. We have reached a stage, where a mere 5000 odd oligopolies control every production and organization of exchange in the world. This is a terrific level of centralization of capital, very different from the scenario prevalent in the early 20th century, dominated by monopolies. That these oligopolies have the capacity to control not merely the economic, but the political sphere is striking. This centralization is the basis on which unequal distribution of incomes has become possible. But it has led a shift in gravity from the productive sector to the redistribution of profit among the oligopolies through the means of financial investment. This is the secret behind the financialization of the global capitalism.

Then, the main struggle within capitalist ruling class is to redistribute profit among themselves through financial investments. This explains the bubble. But this is accompanied by enormous increase of inequality everywhere in the world. Now, there is a crisis of accumulation of capital, as evident in the crisis of automobile, construction industry etc, at the very centre like the United States itself. This is more than a recession. It will lead to relative stagnation, perhaps even negative rates of growth, and enormous increase in unemployment. But beyond this, the main axis of the systematic crisis is the crucial issue of relative scarcity of natural resources like oil, water, wood etc. These resources are getting more scarce and costly. The US, Europe and Japan want to control exclusively this reserve of nature, and deprive the rest of the world from access to this reserve. There is this collective imperialism of this triad that is prevalent, who know that they cannot ensure their exclusive access but by using their military control over the planet, as evident in the US implementing their Project for the New American Century.

Q: What do you think will be the political implications of this crisis, like say a positive trend towards multi-polarity, with Russia and China emerging as major powers?

SA: We have to be very cautious about terms like multi-polarity. The present world is unipolar, under the triad, but led by the US. We did have multipolarity, during the time of Bandung, even though there was a bipolar world in the military sense. Behind this multi-polarity were countries of the South — the whole of Asia and Africa, who were compelling imperialism to adjust to their demands. There has been a lot of debate about the present world, if the world is unipolar now or if we are moving towards a multi-polar world or if there is a balance between the US and Europe etc.? But I don’t think it’s an important question now. The real factor is the convergence of objective interests of the oligopolies, in US and Europe, which really constitutes the unipolar collective imperialism.

They try to maintain that by disguising their interests through ‘multi-polarity’, which is essentially to associate some countries to their interests and by playing some contradictions between those countries, from the South. This they do, in order to restore the domination of the triad, by sustaining their role in and control over the international monetary and financial system and by associating countries like India, China and even Brazil, which seems to be the purpose behind the G 20. They also try and play up the conflicts between India and China for instance or between Brazil and other Latin American countries. What we need instead is a multi-polarity in which the countries of the South recuperate the control over their future. That is the needed multi-polarity. I am speaking of multi-polarity because it involves nations, with distinct national interests, culture and politics, often with a history of national liberation movements, which has to be taken into account.

Q: Do you see a movement in that direction, particularly when the US might get considerably weakened due to the global financial crisis?

SA: I do see a movement towards that. I would rather characterize it as the emergence of a second Bandung. The first Bandung was able to rise itself despite the military bipolarity of the US and the USSR. For the second, I think its centre of gravity will be situated in South Asia and South East Asia — with India, China and South East Asia; we are literally talking about more than half of the entire humankind. This area is equipped to defeat imperialism on real grounds by moving away completely from the integrated monetary and financial system. Here, China is completely out, India is almost fifty percent out and some countries in South East Asia are also tending to move out of this system. In the case of Latin America, it is still completely tied and integrated to the international financial system, in spite of the good governments they have now, compared to us. Africa too is completely integrated with the times of Nasser bygone. So, this area is better equipped, as of today to defeat imperialism.

The second ground, which makes this area better equipped, lies in their capacity to absorb technologies and to develop them independently of the West. China is doing it, and India is capable but yet to do it. For instance, Bangalore is still selling itself to the requirements of British and American interests. But what are the obstacles then? They are at the political level. The imperialist powers, particularly the US will try its best to create conflicts between India and China, and try to persuade India to move away from its non-aligned stance and to separate it from its close military level tie-ups with Russia in order to get itself closer on that plane, as witnessed in the recent nuclear deal. This is very dangerous and negative. The alternative could be the Shanghai group, which is not merely an economic grouping but also political. This is an area (China, Central Asia, Russia and India), which can move out of the military control of the US, out of the global financial and monetary system, which then can create possibilities for popular struggles and alternatives, providing a possibility for the socialists and communists in this area to move ahead.

Q: How do you look at the US presidential elections and its impact on global politics and the economic scenario?

SA: My sympathies are with Obama. But I don’t expect much from that either. Because, I think that the fundamental choice of the ruling class of the US is one — which is to maintain the unipolarity of the collective imperialism of the triad. In that respect, Obama might be more dangerous, because, he will be loved by Europe particularly, facilitating their support to the US plans for the military control of the planet.

Q: What are your views on the anti-globalization movements?

SA: It is not a unified movement. Compared to Bandung, anti-globalization movement started as a movement of protests against Oligarchic capitalism, especially against growth of unemployment, precarious nature of existing jobs, and against gigantic inequalities and the acceleration of the dismantling of peasant societies and the huge growth of urban slum population. But the protests themselves are highly fragmented, but that is normal. Because, people who struggle on the ground come together on specific issues like access to land, housing, water etc. But they are also on the defensive, because, they are also compelled to sustain their minimal gains that they have achieved against the continuous onslaught of neo-liberal policies.

We have to move beyond that into a positive alternative, which cannot be anything but a step ahead in the long road to socialism, and even global communism. This movement is necessarily long and cannot be a short-term transition of a few years, where you build socialism. As we have seen in the case of World Social Forum in their seven editions so far, each one of them are meetings that are useful as meeting places for all those who protest and are victims of the neoliberal pursuit. But these are not venues for discussion of common strategies or engagement with serious deliberations towards positive alternatives. We need a new International. We need internationalism for the working people and their organizations and we do need a new International organization, not on the pattern of the second or the third or the fourth but on the pattern of the First International that was built on the basis of people of various political cultures and ideologies, thereby building convergence with diversity.

Q: How do you see the way forward for the Left?

SA: My reading of the 20th century is that it witnessed a first wave of struggles of the working classes, peoples and nations for emancipation in the name of national liberation or socialism or communism or nationalism, which is to say that a fundamental aspiration for progressive social change constituted these struggles. This was witnessed in the case of the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, the revolution of Vietnam and Cuba, and the national liberation of India, Indonesia and countries in Africa. Then, a page was turned. But it is not as if that everything that was achieved in that period was undone, as some would tend to argue that these events gave rise to totalitarianism and in their demise have vindicated the success of capitalism, market and democracy, in a way pointing to the end of history.

But to me, that was just a case of the first page of the 20th century being turned. The new page, if we wish to call it, the socialism for the 21st century, is yet to be turned. We are in a phase where the first wave which has ended and the second wave, which has not started. This has been a very difficult period, in which socialism lost its legitimacy vis-à-vis imperialism. We need to win this battle, which is not merely ideological but will have to do it through concrete class struggles, and establish that there is no alternative but socialism. In saying this, I am not denying what is good in the current version of democracies, which we have. India is better than Pakistan, for instance. But this is not a sufficient form of democratization of society. It should also be associated with social progress in the perspective of socialism and associated with the respect of sovereignty of nations. That to me is the challenge before the Left.

***