For struggles, global and national

Samir Amin on WSF in Frontline interview 
 
(Interesting line on CoNGOs: "It is not necessary that everybody at this
forum is good. There might be a number of NGOs, about which I personally
have doubts about. They might be some which are as corrupt as governments.
Some of them may be manipulated by imperialism. Okay, but that is life. We
have to live with it. We must realise that such organisations do not
represent a major force.")

***

Dear comrades and friends,

The following interview, the full and final version, was done on the
sidelines of the Asian Social Forum, Hyderabad. It was done for the Indian
fortnightly Frontline by V. Sridhar, a staffer. An edited version of the
interivew has appeared in the current issue of Frontline, which has the ASF
on its cover. Those interested can check out our website (www.flonnet.com)
by tomorrow (Jan. 18).

Regards,

Nandu.

For struggles, global and national

Interview with Samir Amin by V. Sridhar

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

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

This is the result of recent history. It is the result of the fact that
social organizations and the balance of forces that were governing those
patterns ruled the world after World War II _ from 1945-50 to 1980, to put a
date. These organizations had gradually reached their historical limits.
They had been eroded and bogged down. 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 alternatives.

SA: Yes. As result of these developments we have moved into a period
characterised by fragmentation. There will be no powerful alternative to the
present powerful system, the neoliberal globalisation or imperialist
globalisation, which is a new pha of imperialism. There will be no
alternative if the movements do not 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. It obviously has to have an
economic dimension. But the political, social, and cultural dimensions will
also have to be addressed in the alternative vision.

The Third World Forum (TWF) was started more than 25 years ago. It is more
Asian-African than Latin American. It is a sort of society for debate on the
Left, critical to the ongoing imperialist policies and local and national
policies which are adjusted to the requirements of the overall imperialist
system in all its dimensions. We look at not just the economic dimension but
also political and geo-strategic and other dimensions. The World Forum for
Alternatives was created by TWF and other organisations, some of them based
in the countries of the North in 1997. It is located in Cairo, Dakar and
Louvain-La-Neuve in Belgium. We are also developing branches in Asia; I hope
that we have a strong branch in India soon. Our correspondent here is Amiya
Bagchi.

We started an initiative in January 2000 in Davos, where we held what we
called the Anti-Davos in Davos. It was a major event, where about 50 of us.
We may have been small group, but we represented a variety of popular
organisations such as trade unions from South Korea, south Africa and
Brazil, peasant organisations from West Africa and India, women's
organisations from Canada, and some other organisations. In Davos we said,
"We are the real world, the real world is not just the billionaires meeting
there with their political servants." We said: "We shall take the agenda of
your meeting in Davos, and on each point we shall say what is the point of
view of the victims of your policies." That event gave impetus to the idea
of ganising such an event on a much larger scale.

That gave birth to the idea of the WSF. It is not an organisation with a
common political platform for devising strategies. But it is not a forum
that is open to everybody. It has a charter to which participating
organisations must adhere to. They must make it clear that they are opposed
to neoliberalism - not to capitalism necessarily - to deregulated markets
and other features that characterise it. They must also be opposed to
militarisation of globalisation -- not necessarily imperialism, which means
much more. This is the very minimum that organisations must accept, to be
part of the forum. It is on this basis that quite a number of organisations
gathered in 2001, in Porto Allegre in Brazil. Any event held on such a scale
obviously causes some imbalances because it costs a lot of money for people
to travel across the world. Therefore, Latin America and Europe are
represented more strongly at the WSF, while Asia and Africa have been
represented in very limited numbers, purely for banal reasons such as the
lack of money.

It is because of this that we have decided to hold regional and even
national social forums with the same ideals of bringing together the maximum
number of organisations which agree to fight against neoliberalism. We had
the African Social Forum last year and the ASF in Hyderabad. Hopefully, we
will have the next WSF in India. I hope it will be a real world social
forum, not an Indian social forum, even if by the nature of things, the
number of Indians will be very large (the number of Brazilians is very large
in Porto Allegre. That is only to be expected).

I think that it a duty of people who think - rightly or wrongly - that they
should articulate an alternative and not to boycott. I saw some people
calling for a boycott of the ASF. They are wrong and sectarian. It is not
necessary that everybody at this forum is good. There might be a number of
NGOs, about which I personally have doubts about. They might be some which
are as corrupt as governments. Some of them may be manipulated by
imperialism. Okay, but that is life. We have to live with it. We must
realise that such organisations do not represent a major force. The major
forces are the popular organisations. Whether we like it or not, trade
unions, peasant organisations, organisations of professionals, feminist
movements, ecological movements. We have to respect diversity of concepts
and views. We have to accept philosophical and, even religious sources of
inspiration. It is positive, not negative, to have a variety of sources of
inspiration when they come together. And, many people are ready to
understand this. 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).

Q: What is your reading of the ASF? Participation is overwhelmingly from
India. How does it compare with the other regional forums?

SA: Yes, there are weaknesses. But the ASF is an impressive success. It has
brought together many social forces in India. And, India is not a small
country. It is not a minor event. There is also a good representation of
parts of Africa and the rest of Asia. I am sure that if the WSF is held in
India next year, it will be a big success.

Q: You that a unified movement of the peoples of the South is a prerequisite
for change in the present situation. What is the role of the peoples of the
North in this?

SA: I am an internationalist. I am a Marxist, socialist, internationalist
and a universalist. I am not a chauvinist, certainly not a Third Worldist.
The world is one, but a very unequal one. Capitalist development, which has
shaped the modern world, has done it on the basis of growing inequality
among nations, and within them as well. For the last five centuries there
have been countries at the centre and, there have been countries that have
been at the periphery. Thus, one of the major elements of the glo l system
is its imperialist dimension. Imperialism is synonymous with growing
polarisation among nations. It is based on the rationality of capitalist
profitability. The awareness of popular forces in the South, which is at the
periphery of the global system, is a fundamental prerequisite for any
change.

The dominant literature describes as the result of technological revolutions
in informatics, genetics, etc, ignoring the 80 per cent of the people in the
Third World, as if they have no role. The South is marginalised. We have to
reverse this to say that we are the majority of humankind and the world will
not change if we do not change. It is we who have to create the conditions
for the world to change.

We have had all this in our recent history. After World War II there was a
gigantic movement of the peoples of Asia and Africa for national liberation.
They had one target: Independence. This was correct, because it was the
first step. But the forces which united around this demand represented
different classes. In countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba the leadership
was with the radical Left. But in countries like India the leadership was
with the middle classes during the fight against British imperialism. In
Africa and in the Arab countries, variety of forces led the movement. The
leadership in these countries understood that they not only needed to
support one another but also build a common front after independence, based
on their common demands vis-à-vis the global system. This is how Bandung was
created in 1955. Bandung happened very early, in the sense that the Chinese
Revolution was barely five years old; the British had left Egypt just a year
before; India and Indonesia had gained independence just a few years
earlier.

The common front of these countries did yield results. It created a space
which the various countries used, or misused, to achieve, for several
decades a period of relatively high rates of economic growth. There was move
towards industrialisation and also gigantic eff ts in education and in other
fields. Another positive dimension in political terms was that it
transgressed ethnic, local and national chauvinism. In Africa the movements
were transethnic. Except for the reverse on the question of Partition, the
movement brought together the peoples and nations that constitute modern
India. This positive dimension reflected the fact that the criteria for the
alliances of nations was political. The anti-imperialist position was the
criteria that built the alliance. That explains why someone like Nasser in
Egypt was an ally of India, and not Pakistan. Why was this so? It was simply
because India had an anti-imperialist position, unlike Pakistan. The fact
that Pakistan was predominantly Muslim, like in Egypt, was not of any
importance. The alliance was based on the true spirit of internationalism,
based on the anti-imperialist positions.

During the last 20-30 years the visions that came out of socialism, whether
of the Russian or the Chinese kinds, and out of the more radical of the
national liberation movements reached their historical limits. Therefore,
they gradually started facing difficulties.

Q: These existence of the Soviet Union meant that many of these countries
also had greater space in which they could operate. Were these countries
also not bargaining between the two camps - imperialism, on the one hand,
and with socialism on the other.

SA: Sure, that is true. The Soviet Union could provide ideas - good in some
cases, but bad in the case of many - and, in some cases good armaments
(laughs) to these countries, acted as a check against imperialism. It was
not possible for the US to act like a gangster as it does today, when it can
unilaterally decide to bomb any country in the world. That created room for
these countries.
But as a result of the erosion of their support bases, these countries
entered a vacuum, leading to a regression on all fronts. That is why the
Afro-Asian solidarity was gradually eroded. This has opened the way for
other p terns of pseudo-solidarities, which are very reactionary, based on
ethnic or pseudo-ethnic chauvinisms or on religious fundamentalism. Let me
put it polemically: If the majority of the Indian people accept Hindutva, if
the majority of people in the 'Muslim' countries accept the nonsense of
political Islam, there will be no change on the world scale if these are not
transgressed by another vision of human solidarity.

Q: How were the limits in these countries reached?

SA: There was some room for development because colonialism meant no
industrialisation in some countries, and very little in a few others. So,
there was room for industrialisation after national liberation, at least to
reach the first stage of industrialisation. But the more they moved along,
the more costly it became, in terms cost of investment and technology. The
room for manoeuvre became narrower. These countries also inherited social
systems with very low levels of education, which offered enormous room for
upward mobility for people, through education. As long as the children of
the popular classes - the lower middle class and the peasantry - could move
up through education - and this happened in a huge scale in India, Egypt and
many other countries. The system thus benefited from legitimacy. Even if it
was not democratic it was seen as delivering something. Countries which had
high rates of economic growth, accompanied by not-increasing levels of
inequality (I do not mean socially just) and those that offered upward
mobility for large sections of society, enjoyed credibility and legitimacy.
Some of these countries were semi-democratic, like in India. Others like the
Nasserite type in Egypt, were not democratic at all. But they were equally
legitimate and credible because they delivering. Once the system reached a
point where it could not progress within the same logic and on the same
basis, then the political system started to become more corrupt and lost its
legitimacy. This created a vacuum which reactionary forces started to o upy.
These forces were always there but which were not allowed to occupy the
front of the stage came forward.

Q: How do you characterise the current phase of globalisation, in contrast
to previous ones in history?

SA: Globalisation and imperialism are nothing new. The history of capitalism
since the very beginning has been the history of imperialist expansion. And,
the system was always global. The contention of some people say that
globalisation is something new is laughable. After all, what was the
colonisation of India, if not globalisation? The building of the Americas
since 16th century was globalisation. The slave trade which played a crucial
role in the building of the Americas was globalisation. Later, colonialism
was globalisation. Globalisation has always been imperialist globalisation.
It has never been achieved by peaceful and equal negotiations between
peoples. That is history. One the one hand, it is nothing new. But we would
be wrong if we think that there is nothing more to it, that it is the same
old story. There are always things which are new and we cannot develop an
efficient counter-strategy if we do not focus on what is new.

So, what is new? There is an abundant literature on this - I am not just
speaking of academic literature, but also of political literature. There are
claims that technological and scientific revolutions have made the world
smaller. The phrase that the world is a 'global village', which is totally
incorrect. Technology is important but it has to be related to other
dimensions of change. Technological change is always associated with changes
in the organisation of labour and the processes of work. It changes the
pattern of organisation of labour and class. We need to focus on that.
Whatever the type of organisation, they are not created out of nothing; they
are created on the basis of the organisation of labour in the previous
period.

The dominant discourse, the Rightist one, says: "Well, change is always for
the better and spontaneously. Change is a ays painful, but it is only
transitional. The market, that is, capitalism, will by itself solve the
problem in the long run (when everybody is dead)." That is not even
ideology, it is propaganda. But this is what is repeated daily by the
politicians, written everyday in the newspapers, shown daily on the TV and
even presented as There Is No Alternative (TINA). That is a way of hiding
the reality of what is happening. It hides the fact that there is an
imbalance of forces, exclusively to the benefit of capital. This enables
capital to go on the offensive and impose on the world its own agenda.

We have to look at what is new in a different way. How can the popular
forces reorganize to reduce the damage associated with global capitalist
expansion? What can be done by them to impose their own agenda in the short
run to gradually create the conditions for an alternative. The alternative,
in my opinion, has a name. It is Socialism. It had the same name in the past
and will remain the same in the future too. But the way we imagine socialism
will not be the same as our fathers imagined it to be.

Q: You have said that the nature of imperialism today is different from that
of the past. Has it anything to do with the way globalisation is different
today?

SA: Yes. Imperialism had always been characterised by rivalry among the
major powers. The Spanish and the Portuguese against the Dutch in the 17th
century, the British against the French later, and the German-Japanese
against the others, still later. Rivalry among the imperialist nations had
been a major feature. It was on this basis that Lenin - correctly at the
time before World War I - thought the system must lead to a revolution
because it will lead to War, which the proletariat, the victims of the war,
will revolt against. Lenin said that the rivalry meant that the socialist
revolution was on the agenda. Lenin was right in his time and history proved
him right. There was a revolution. Whatever happened afterwards is another
story, but there was a rev ution.

After World War II the US and Japan have come together as allies - Japan in
a subaltern position. Japan is not considered by the US as an enemy to be
destroyed. The US and western capitalist Europe came together after the
Marshall Plan and the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO). In geographical terms the world capitalist system includes the US
and its outer province, Canada; capitalist Europe, at that time limited by
the Iron Curtain, now a little further east; and, Japan. At that time (after
World War II) we had an explanation, we had an easy explanation, and which
was also partly true. The imperialist powers put an end to their rivalry
because they had a common enemy, the Soviet Union. They paid more attention
to their common interests rather than the rivalry among themselves.

Although the Soviet Union disappeared, we still do not see them to a
situation of becoming rivals again. This is also reflected in the economic
management of the global system - the functioning of the G-7 group of
powerful nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the
WTO. These are a set of organisations which are ruled exclusively by the
powerful countries. These are not global organisations; these are
organisations of the Global North - of the capitalist centre. We also do not
see any major differences among these countries within these organisations.
We ought ask ourselves a number of questions. First, why are we in this
situation? Second, does this mean there are no contradictions among these
countries? If there are contradictions, in what ways are they different from
contradictions of the period in which imperialist countries were in rivalry?
Third, how do the contradictions relate to North-South relations?

I am suggesting - I said this at the WSF in Porto Allegre, at the Egyptian
Social Forum in Cairo, and I said it at the ASF - that capitalism has
entered a new phase, of a higher level of centralisation of capital. That
has laid the basis for the solidarity of c italist interests at the global
level. This has reduced the rivalry among themselves. During Lenin's time,
before World War I, and continuing till about 30-40 years ago (I will not
put a date to it), monopoly capital needed a large market which could be
accessed as an empire. A capitalist centre or metropolis with a number of
colonies or areas of interests was thus the norm. That was the basis on
which rivalries among the imperialist powers existed - on the sharing or
re-shaping of colonies and the control of the global system. Now it being
said - not only by us, but by the bosses of big business - that in order to
be efficient, transnational corporations (TNC) need to access markets on a
global scale. They cannot be successful even if they enjoy overwhelming
market shares of even the big regional markets such as the European Union or
in North America or other parts of the global market. Therefore, the globe
is the terrain on which competition among them is fought out.

Q: Companies are also becoming larger and larger. There are mergers and
acquisitions of TNCs. What is the nature of competition in such a situation?

SA: Even if someone like Bill Gates enjoys a massive monopoly at the global
level, there is no guarantee that this will continue into the future. There
could be other companies which move into competition. Therefore, you have a
situation in which monopoly and competition exist continuously. But each of
these monoplies need a global system to operate. A very important new
characteristic of the global system is that it has moved from rivalry to
become a collective imperialist system. This is the most important change in
the nature of imperialism. It does not negate the changes in the processes
of labour and other dimensions, which are important and need to be taken
into account so that the popular classes can reinvent efficient forms of
organisation. But in order to be efficient at the global political level,
and in North-South relations, we have to take into account the basic fact
that imperi ism now operates collectively as a triad, represented by the US,
EU and Japan.

Does this mean that there are no contradictions among these powers? I say
there are. We can see them developing, but their nature is different.
Basically, there is no common state. And, capitalism cannot operate without
a state. The claim that capitalism is ruled by markets, without a state, is
complete nonsense.

There is no single state, even confederal, of the North. Even Europe with
its Union, is built on national states, which, in many cases have deep
roots. Therefore, how is the political dimension of collective imperialism
to be run? That is an unsolved question.

Q: You have said that there is a tendency for the "centres of gravity" of
countries to fall outside the domain of nation states. What does this mean
for the peoples of these nations, in terms of a search for an alternative?
And, how does such a system operate and what are the contradictions in such
a system?

SA: I would like to think I am right, without appearing to be arrogant.But,
yes, the centre of gravity has moved from inside nations to somewhere else.
This has happened to all the nations - to the US, the European nations, and
to the big and small nations of the Third World. This change is related to
the size of dominant capital, which is global in scale. Since these are
major decision makers, they cannot be submitted to a national logic. They
have their own vision, a global logic. That creates problems. This problem
was raised by many people at the European Social Forum, in Florence. Many
people felt that a new Europe should be built. They said that a political
Europe was needed, not necessarily with a unified state, because for
historical reasons there are nations with a long history of a common
language and culture. Some suggested a kind of confederation. The point is
that such a Europe cannot be only a common market; it also has to have a
common political reality with a state. I think another Europe, just like
another Asia, is possible. This new Europe will be based on social
compromises between capital (because we cannot imagine the end of capital
immediately) and labour and other popular classes. I believe we cannot
achieve this other Europe without changing its relationship to the South.
Europe cannot change if it continues to be a partner in the collective
imperialist system.

Maybe the big countries like India and China, having a variety of natural
resources, can afford, for some time, to forget about the rest of the world.
But they cannot afford to do this. The leadership in these countries think
they are equal partners - but they are not. This brings us to the question
of regionalisation. Regionalisation will enable the countries of the South
to strengthen their capacities vis-à-vis the global system. This can be
based on, for instance, history and culture, as in Latin America. The
countries of Latin America have a lot in common. Two closely related
languages, Spanish and Portuguese, link these countries together. The other
common factor is a common enemy for over two centuries - the United States.
I do not think Islam can provide the basis for such regionalisation. But the
Arab countries, with a common language, could be the basis for unity among
nations. There has never been a history of these countries being unified by
a single state, except in the imagination of the nationalists. There has
never been one united India. The basis for the unity among the countries of
Africa is not because they are black. The unity among them is more because
they suffered a common pattern of colonialism. Although there is no one
African culture with many languages, religions and cultures, there are
common features and possibilities which were largely the creation of the
colonial empires. But this alliance among countries must be based on
politics, not just a mere common market. We need to unite on the basis of
common social and political grounds.

Even the larger countries face the menace of imperialism. The Americans do
not like large countries. hina and India are too big. We need to recognise
that there are differences within countries. Let me address frankly the case
of India. There are different nationalities, languages and groups, apart
from the fact that there are Hindus and Muslims. The way the power system is
dealing with this diversity even in India - which is certainly not among the
worst in the world (it is at least a semi-democracy) - there are problems
such as the rise of communalism. The kind of things that have happened in
Gujarat, indicating the complicity of the state, have created grounds for
conflict which have the potential to turn explosive. The US is
systematically supports these kinds of forces all over the world. We cannot
counter this phenomenon by negating it. Therefore we have to build real
democracy by respecting peoples' rights. This is the only way to move ahead.

Q: What is position of the nation state in this search for the alternative?

SA: The need for a common front does not negate the crucial importance of
the nation state. For a long time in the future we will need the nation
state. Markets have to be regulated. The first level at which they can be
regulated by political power is by the state. Markets cannot be regulated at
the global level or even at the regional level if they are not first
regulated at the national level.

Q: Although people from all over the world have protested at Seattle and
elsewhere against neoliberalism, the primary level of contesting these
policies still appears to be at national levels. Is this not the only way to
make states accountable for the policies that they seek to implement? But
the contest is also global in some way. How do peoples' movements handle
these two aspects of the search for an alternative?

SA: You have to fight on two fronts. I am of the opinion that the crucial
front is the one at the national level. Nothing will change from above.
Things will change only when the balance of political forces within
countries create the possibilities for changes at the regional and even at
global levels. Change has to start from inside countries. That is why the
nation state is so important.

Q: What are the elements of an alternative to neoliberal globalisation at
the global level?

SA:  I will summarise the principles which could possibly govern another
kind of global system. The first is the logic of the transition to
socialism. This will combine the criteria of capitalism, that is, efficiency
as measured by profitability; and the criteria of social justice. Although
the term social justice is very elastic, certain elements can be defined in
concrete terms. I am sure any Indian citizen from the popular classes can
tell you what he/she means by social justice. It would necessarily mean
jobs, reasonable and decent wages, schools for his/her children, and decent
health care. That is social justice, not socialism. These are not going to
be produced by the market, but these will be imposed on the market by a
social policy of the state. This kind of system associates capitalistic
criteria with social criteria which are in conflict. But the system
recognises that they are conflicting and must be managed without allowing
the market to dominate society unilaterally. It also recognises the fact
that the f e play of markets create problems for society. Therefore, society
will solve the problem through the exercise of political power. If such a
system obtains in several countries, then we can create the conditions for
regional arrangements among them, and of global system.

The second condition that is needed for substantial change is genuine
democracy. Social change in the past - -- whether of the Soviet or Maoist
types or of the national populist types in the Third World - had very little
or no democracy at all. These regimes did achieve social progress; the
Soviet Union and China did achieve progress on a gigantic scale; and, even
India and Egypt achieved substantial social progress. But whatever their
achievements, very little was left to the initiative of the popular classes.
They were controlled, directed in different ways, with varying degrees of
the negation of democracy. The fact that the people want progress but that
they also want liberty is also progress from the earlier situation. We
cannot have a remake of the Soviet Union or a remake of Nehru's India. There
are no remakes in history. Democracy in the dominant discourse is based on
delinking it from the issue of social justice. The pattern of democracy that
it offers in the best case is purely partisan and related to elections which
are not too falsified. That does not work because if democracy does not
result in social progress, people no longer give credibility to it. The main
reason for the move backwards towards religious fundamentalism, ethnic
solidarities and so on is the failure of democracy.

Q: What is the role of religious and ethnic movements in the context of
neoliberalism and the search for an alternative?

SA: Imperialism and cultural fundamentalism go together. Market
fundamentalism needs religious fundamentalism. Why is this so? Market
fundamentalism says: subvert the state and leave it to the market at the
global level to run the system. How can such a system be run? It can be done
only when states are disempowered completely and if within states, the
popular classes (the victims) are disempowered by the negation of their
class identity. Moreover, the system can be run politically if the South is
completely divided, with nations and nationalities hating one another.
Religious fundamentalism and ethnic fundamentalism - they are similar - are
perfect instruments for ruling the political system. This is the reason why
they are supported - ideologically, politically, even financially - by
imperialism.

For instance, the US has always supported Islamic fundamentalism. It has
always supported Saudi Arabian regime, just as it has always supported
Pakistan and the Taliban. It continues to support such regimes even today,
although they are now compelled to do this in a covert manner. In Europe it
uses ethnic movements to achieve its goals, like in Yugoslavia.

Q: By the time your book appeared in English, in 1970, conditions must have
changed dramatically...

SA: My book, Accumulation on a World Scale, which came out of my doctoral
thesis in 1957, came as a critique of Rostow's theory of the stages of
growth, even before he had actually published it. It was a critique of
nascent "developmentalism", theories of development, which the United
Nations was starting then. I said then that capitalism has to be understood
as a global system, as an imperialist system. Therefore, there are no
specific dynamics of the more advanced countries, which could be replicated
in the less advanced countries, so that they could gradually move upwards on
the road to development. I suggested an alternate vision which said that
global capital is simultaneously ruling the centres and the peripheries,
creating a deepening polarisation of the world. Underdevelopment is not
merely backwardness, but the product of capitalist development.

 Laughs.Books in English always come late. English is not the language in
which the most advanced thinking appears. Mind you, some parts of Marx's
writings (Book Four of Capital, for instance) were translated into Arabic
before they were in English.

Q: Can you tell as the ethos in which you grew up as an intellectual?

SA: I am a Marxist and have been a part of the communist movement. That is
not a secret. As a child, during the Second World War, I was enthused by the
Soviet resistance against the Nazi Germany. I was born in 1931. In those
days Egyptian society was highly politicised; even 13-14 year youth were
quite politicised. Only about 20 per cent of those in our age group were
non-political. The rest were distributed equally in two camps, the
Communists and the nationalists. The nationalists used to say that the enemy
of the Egyptian people was Britain; but the Communists used to say that
capitalism, operating through Britain, was the enemy. Egyptian society is
not as politicised now. Many of my contemporaries were or are communists. I
came from a relatively privileged family. I came from a family of the
intellectual bourgeoisie. I came from a family of doctors. My father
belonged to the Waqf party, very much like the Congress Party here. My
mother owed allegiance to the radical socialists, the Jacobins, in France.
My great great grandfaher was among the first republicans in Egypt, in the
1860s.

As a student in Paris, between 1947 and 1956, I was associated with
organisations of students from Third world countries. This created a strong
link with many youth who later became leaders of national Left movements in
Africa and West Asia.

Q: Egypt has had a long intellectual tradition. How is the situation today,
given the circumstances in which fundamentalism has grown?

SA: The scene is dramatically stable. The distractions of "oil Islam" have
not affected Egyptian society.  Corruption and the lack of democracy have
been a major feature of Egyptian society. Unlike India, we have not had even
a week of democracy in the history of modern Egypt. The picture is very sad
today. The universities are in a terrible state. But the progressive culture
does exist, but almost exclusively in literature, which is of a very good
quality. There is a large number good, first-class writers in Egypt. It is
through literature that you get the capacity to understand, analyse and
deconstruct how societies operate. This can be found in Egyptian literature.
Egyptian writers since in the 1920s were conscious of imperialism, but used
bourgeois enlightenment in a radical way. The generation of intellectuals
that followed, had Marxism - including the dogmatic versions of it - as its
guiding principle. Islam fundamentalism, which always existed in a corner of
Egyptian society, has now invaded Egyptian society. The people do not want
the regime in Egypt, but the alternative appears to be an Islamic regime,
which is not wanted by the people either. People are also learning from
their own experience, from what is happening in Saudi Arabia and other
countries. They have also learnt from the experience of Pakistan and the
Taliban that this thing is very, very ugly.