[PEN-L:34221] Samir Amin on the World Social Forum

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Frontline, Volume 20 - Issue 02, January 18 - 31, 2003

Interview with Samir Amin, political economist and director, Third World
Forum.

V. SRIDHAR

The antecedents of the World Social Forum (WSF) can be traced to January
2000 when a small group of about 50 activists, representing trade
unions, intellectuals, peasant organisations and other social groups,
gathered in Davos. Samir Amin, an intellectual who is regarded as one of
the foremost thinkers on the changing dynamics of capitalism, was among
those assembled at the "Anti-Davos in Davos". Since then he has been
actively associated with not only the WSF but also the regional forums
that have evolved as a challenge to imperialist globalisation. He is
director, Third World Forum (TWF), located in Dakar (Senegal) and Cairo
and in Belgium, a network of social scientists and intellectuals from
developing countries. Amin has also played a key role in the formation
of the World Forum for Alternatives, which was launched in 1997. The WFA
aims to service the needs of social movements that are engaged in
challenging the dominant discourse on globalisation. It is also involved
in the search for alternatives by developing the tools for "the
globalisation of resistance and struggles".

Amin's seminal work, Accumulation on a World Scale, first brought to the
attention of the English-speaking world in 1970, came as a whiff of
fresh air to the nascent field of development economics because it
challenged the then-ruling orthodoxy propounded by the American economic
historian W.W. Rostow in 1960. Rostow had argued that the economically
backward countries could be on the road to development if there was
infusion of capital, in the form of foreign investment or aid. Amin
first propounded the concepts of "centres" and "peripheries", linking
the issue of development to the nature of capitalism and imperialism. He
turned the ruling orthodoxy on its head by pointing out that the problem
of underdevelopment was itself a result of the nature and dynamics of
capitalism on a global scale.

He spoke to V. Sridhar in Hyderabad, where he participated in the Asian
Social Forum (ASF). He spoke about the changes in the nature of
imperialism and globalisation and its consequences for the countries of
the South. Articulating an alternative vision for the peoples and
countries of the South, he pointed out that the plurality of visions
against globalisation is a positive feature in the search for social
change. He argued that any alternative system must allow each country
and society to negotiate the terms on which it engages with the rest of
the world. Excerpts from the interview:

Q: What is the significance of the WSF-ASF and the regional fora that
have emerged in the last few years as a challenge to imperialist
globalisation?

A: I consider these events important. I do not mean that there are no
problems with them. There are many, and growing, social movements around
the world. They are very different in nature, struggling either on
social fronts, for the defence of labour and of the rights of the
popular classes, or on political fronts for basic political rights.
There are the feminist movements, ecological movements and many more.
What is characteristic of the present time is that these movements are
fragmented, in the sense that they are mostly national-based, or, in
many cases, local-based. Most of them deal with a single issue or with a
single dimension of the problem, without articulating it into an overall
alternative political project.

This is the result of recent history. Social organisations that emerged
after the Second World War gradually reached their historical limits. I
am not only referring to the Soviet pattern of the alternative, but also
what has happened and is happening in China, and the erosion of the
social democratic pattern in the developed capitalistic West. I also
refer to the erosion of the variety of what I call the `national
populist' alternatives in the South...

Q: You mean those such as the Nasserite and Nehruvite types...

A: Yes. As a result of these developments we have moved into a period
characterised by fragmentation. There will be no alternative to the
present powerful system, neo-liberal globalisation or imperialist
globalisation, which is a new phase of imperialism, unless these
movements come together to articulate an overall alternative. You cannot
fight on a single front. Even if you are successful on that front, the
success will be limited, fragile and vulnerable because things are
inter-related and because, in the final analysis, we need an overall
alternative in all its dimensions. The alternative vision obviously has
to have an economic dimension. But the political, social, and cultural
dimensions will also have to be addressed.

The WSF is not an organisation with a common political platform for
devising strategies. But it is also not a forum that is open to
everybody. It has a charter to which participating organisations must
adhere. They must make it clear that they are opposed to neo-liberalism,
not necessarily to capitalism. They must also be opposed to
militarisation of globalisation - not necessarily imperialism, which
means much more.

I think that it is a duty of all people, who think they should
articulate an alternative, to participate, and not to boycott... I saw
some people calling for a boycott of the ASF. They are wrong and
sectarian. There might be a number of NGOs [non-governmental
organisations], about which I personally have doubts. Some may be
corrupt and may also be manipulated by imperialism. Okay, but that is
life. We must realise that such organisations do not represent a major
force. The major forces are the popular organisations such as the trade
unions, peasant organisations, organisations of professionals, feminist
movements, ecological movements and many other social groups. We have to
respect diversity of concepts and views. Different points of view also
need to be articulated at different levels - at the national level, but
also at the global level, because globalisation is a reality.
Imperialism has been a reality for a long time (laughs).


full: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2002/stories/20030131008201200.htm

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org